Without evidence of benefit, an intervention should not be presumed to be beneficial or safe.

- Rogue Medic

The March for Science is a March for Honesty and Accountability


 

There were some great signs at the March for Science because the march was about truth and it is difficult to go wrong defending the search for truth. The only time people seem to oppose the search for truth is when truth is seen as a threat to their ideology and/or income.

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it! – Upton Sinclair.

Scientists are accused of being arrogant, apparently because scientists don’t waste their time on ideas that cannot be tested or on ideas that repeatedly fail objective testing. Scientists learn by providing the most honest way of assessing the truth – they do everything they can to eliminate bias and to eliminate the effects of anything that is not being tested.

Is that arrogant?

Arrogance would be refusing to allow everyone to criticize your work, but science requires that scientists be open about their work and invite their harshest critics to poke holes in their work.

This means that nonsense will not survive for long. The better hypotheses will survive. Logical fallacies are eventually exposed and we learn the truth.
 


 

This is why science rejects claims that fail experimentation and claims that cannot be tested. These claims are not science.
 

Flat Earth claims are rejected. There is abundant evidence that the Earth is not flat, but people still claim that the Earth is flat. There is no scientific controversy about whether the Earth is roughly spherical in shape.[1]
 

Creationism claims are rejected. Creationism contradicts almost all of the sciences (geology, astronomy, physics, biology, . . .), so Creationism would need to be supported by some very well tested evidence. Creationism is not supported by scientific evidence, but that does not stop Creationists from claiming to be scientists.

The clearest evidence that evolution is real is provided by DNA (DeoxyriboNucleic Acid). When we want to confirm the relationship among different people, we use DNA, because it works. DNA confirms that we are related to baboons, bananas, and bacteria. DNA is able to show how close those relationships are. There is no scientific controversy about whether humans evolved along with the rest of life on Earth.[2]

 

I did not get a clear picture of the sign, but I have not changed the words.

 

Anti-GMO claims are rejected. GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) are recognized to be safe, nutritious, important in the prevention of widespread famine, overall much more beneficial than their critics claim, and dramatically better organic foods. Those opposed to GMOs claim that organic foods would not produce a famine, if everyone were to eat organic foods. Those opposed to GMOs claim that modification is bad, even though humans have been modifying crops for over 10,000 years. We even use chemicals and radiation to cause mutations to crops that are still considered organic.
 

From 1930 to 2014 more than 3200 mutagenic plant varieties have been released[1][2] that have been derived either as direct mutants (70%) or from their progeny (30%).[3] [3]

 

There is no scientific controversy about the benefits of GMOs.
 


 

Climate change denial is rejected. Climate change is real and harmful. Some people (not scientists) claim that natural factors are causing the unnatural warming. Some people (not scientists) claim that the unnatural warming is a good thing. Some people (not scientists) claim that the unnatural warming isn’t happening. There is no scientific controversy about the reality of climate change.
 


This chart[4] does not include 2016.

If you are a climate change denier, you were counting on 2016 being something other than the hottest year on record. Three years in a row would be unprecedented. 2017 was hotter than 2016, which contradicts the denier arguments.[5] If you are a climate change denier, you should realize that denying science is not going your way. You have had some political successes, but you can’t deny reality forever. There is no scientific controversy about the reality of climate change.
 

Anti-vaccine claims are rejected. Anti-vaxers claim that vaccines are dangerous and that vaccines do not work. Do vaccines work? We should have eradicated polio by now, but anti-vaxers have discouraged vaccination. If you don’t like your children getting the polio vaccine, blame the anti-vaxers. We did eradicate smallpox in the 1970s. We stopped vaccinating against smallpox. Smallpox was killing 2 million people a year. If you don’t worry about smallpox, thank a scientist. There is no scientific controversy about the safety and efficacy of vaccines.
 

Historical Comparisons of Morbidity and Mortality for Vaccine-Preventable Diseases in the United States – Table 1


 

In response to the evidence in Table 1,[6] anti-vaxers claim that improved sanitation and hygiene. The decrease in cases and deaths due to the various vaccine-preventable illnesses should be the same for all of these diseases, but that is not the case. The diseases have also produced epidemics when the vaccination level drops below herd immunity levels.[7] There is no scientific controversy about the safety and efficacy of vaccines.
 

Science is not perfect, but science is better than all other means of learning the truth.

When science produces mistakes, we learn about it from scientists, not from politicians, not from preachers, not from placebo pushers, not from psychics, and not from any other deniers of science.

Maybe the message of science got through.

Maybe we won’t need another March for Science.
 


🇪🇸Gaby Mérida 🇺🇸‏ @ThatSpanishLady Twitter
Click on the image to make it larger.

Footnotes:

[1] Flat Earth Rising
by Steven Novella
Neurologica
April 6, 2017
Article

[2] Objections to evolution
Wikipedia
Article

[3] Mutation breeding
Wikipedia
Article

[4] The 10 Hottest Years on Record
January 20th, 2016
By Climate Central
Article

[5] 2016 Was the Hottest Year on Record
Both NASA and NOAA declare that our planet is experiencing record-breaking warming for the third year in a row
By Andrea Thompson
January 18, 2017
Scientific American
Article

[6] Historical comparisons of morbidity and mortality for vaccine-preventable diseases in the United States.
Roush SW, Murphy TV; Vaccine-Preventable Disease Table Working Group..
JAMA. 2007 Nov 14;298(18):2155-63.
PMID: 18000199

Free Full Text from JAMA.

[7] “Vaccines didn’t save us” (a.k.a. “vaccines don’t work”): Intellectual dishonesty at its most naked
by David Gorski
March 29, 2010
Science-Based Medicine
Article

.

The Boy Who Cried Terrorist

 
This is the latest comment from Frederick Blum in response to what I wrote about his absurd defense of Dr. Tobinick.[1].[2] As you can see, in labeling appropriate respect for patients as terrorism, Frederick Blum completely lacks perspective.
 

I think a more apt description of what you are is ” Rogue Terrorist ” . Forget ” Rogue Medic. ” It’s not really you. Think about it.[3]

 

Think like Frederick Blum?

That might be torture.

If you honestly think that I am a terrorist, turn me in.

Go ahead.

It may be even worse to not turn in a terrorist, than to treat patients with inadequately tested medications.
 

If you see something, say something 1
 

“War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.”[4]

 

What do terrorists do?
 

You hide behind a cowardly mask exactly as terrorists do.[3]

 

Cowardly?

I have allowed Frederick Blum a forum to make baseless accusations.

I have responded with evidence.

I have not made threats.

Frederick Blum calls this cowardly?
 

You fabricate lies about people and assault them with ad hominem attacks, also exactly as terrorists do.[3]

 

Frederick Blum, provide some sort of evidence to support your imaginative accusations.

I have stated that Dr. Tobinick has failed to produce valid evidence of safety.

Do you have any evidence to show that this is not completely true?

I have stated that Dr. Tobinick has failed to produce valid evidence of efficacy.

Do you have any evidence to show that this is not completely true?

I have not lied.

I have criticized Dr. Tobinick for a failure to provide evidence of safety and efficacy. Using safe and effective treatments is an important part of what separates ethical medical practice from alternative medicine.

If people conclude that Dr. Tobinick is unethical because of what I have written, that is only reasonable.

Neither of you have provided even an iota to suggest any other conclusion.

By the way, have terrorists switched from killing people to using honest criticism? I wish it were so.
 

Really, you’re just another unremarkable terrorist.[3]

 

Is your unremarkable remark intentionally ironic?
 

You should change your anonymous cowardly handle to ” Rogue Terrorist. ” At least in doing so you would be honest about yourself.[1]

 

Without valid evidence of safety, we must conclude that Dr. Tobinick cannot honestly demonstrate safety.

Without valid evidence of benefit, we must conclude that Dr. Tobinick cannot honestly demonstrate any benefit.

If Dr. Tobinick’s treatment is safe and effective, why hide the evidence?

Footnotes:

[1] Dr. Edward Tobinick Sues Barbara Streisand – or something equally foolish
Thu, 24 Jul 2014
Rogue Medic
Article

[2] When Minions Attack
Sun, 26 Feb 2017
Rogue Medic
Article

[3] The comment where Blum cried Terrorist
comment on Dr. Edward Tobinick Sues Barbara Streisand – or something equally foolish
Frederick Blum
Comment

[4] 1984
George Orwell
Free Full Text from The University of Adelaide Library

.

When Minions Attack

Minion vampire 1a
Image credit.
 

In the comments to Dr. Edward Tobinick Sues Barbara Streisand – or something equally foolish,[1] Frederick Blum (sometimes Frederick S. Blum) states that he does not like my criticism of Dr. Edward Tobinick for using inadequately tested treatment, on patients.
 

The fact that you’ve censored my comments speaks volumes about the kind of person you are, ” Rogue Medic.”[2]

 

I have not censored Frederick Blum’s comments. All comments are moderated. Not all spam is caught by the spam filter.

Since Frederick Blum’s earlier, similarly absurd, comment was approved and appeared in the comments hours before this comment, what leads Frederick Blum to conclude that this is censorship?
 

What are you afraid of being found out for, that you’re no more than a charlatan ?[2]

 

You chose to use the word charlatan. Since the topic is Dr. Tobinick, is this use of charlatan a Freudian slip?
 

Frederick Blum also obsesses about my use of a pseudonym, although I provide links to valid evidence and Frederick Blum only makes excuses to distract from the absence of valid evidence for Dr. Tobinick’s treatment.

Frederick Blum complains that it is wrong to criticize Dr. Tobinick for his failure to post valid evidence, since Dr. Tobinick uses his real name.

Is valid evidence less valid when I use a pseudonym?

No.

This gullibility is one of the primary reasons scams are so successful.

Bernie Madoff, perhaps the biggest thief of all time, had people, like Frederick Blum, defending his business. A lot of people trusted that con man for the same reason.

What was Bernie Madoff’s motto?
 

Also to his advantage, Madoff was adept at both selfpromotion and client relations. His corporate slogan, “The Owner’s Name Is on the Door,” would reinforce his managerial image, as well as provide his growing list of wealthy clients with a reassuring declaration—a personal acknowledgement of his fiduciary responsibility to them.[3]

 

Is Dr. Tobinick a medical, and much more dangerous, version of Bernie Madoff? Is Dr. Tobinick’s name on the door just a confidence gimmick?
 

You can’t hide the truth about yourself forever. Eventually it is seen for what it really is – the truth.[2]

 

We would be able to determine the truth about Dr. Tobinick, if Dr. Tobinick would adequately test his treatment.

Is the treatment safe, as Dr. Tobinick uses it?

Is the treatment better than a placebo, as Dr. Tobinick uses it?

Is the treatment as good as any adequately tested treatments, as Dr. Tobinick uses it?

The only suppression of the truth is from Dr. Tobinick and his worshipers, such as Frederick Blum.

What is the treatment?
 

The list of conditions for which Tobinick claims or even has patented use of Enbrel include Alzheimer’s, stroke, traumatic brain injury, Parkinson’s disease, carpal tunnel syndrome, brain tumor, spinal cord injury, and back pain. That quite impressive for a doctor who isn’t even a neurologist. Tobinick is an internist who, prior to curing a long list of neurological diseases, specialized in laser hair removal.[4]

 

Why doesn’t everyone go to a laser hair removal specialist for inadequately tested treatments?

I am sure that the FDA and the insurance companies are being unreasonable in wanting evidence of safety and efficacy.
 

And, the truth is that you have devised a falsified and libelous campaign against someone who is not only innocent but a truly great medical scientist with a proven honest intelligence that surpasses almost everybody else in medicine today, Dr. Edward Tobinick, only to further your own loathsome self serving agenda.[2]

A proven honest intelligence? Where did you come up with that nonsense? If an intelligent person uses a dangerous treatment, the treatment is still dangerous.

Go ahead. I dare you, Frederick Blum. Stop making excuses and provide evidence to back up your unsupportable claims.

Footnotes:

[1] Dr. Edward Tobinick Sues Barbara Streisand – or something equally foolish
Thu, 24 Jul 2014
Rogue Medic
Article

[2] Censorship comment by Frederick Blum
comment

[3] Catastrophe: The Story of Bernard L. Madoff, the Man Who Swindled the World
Deborah Strober & Gerald Strober
Kindle Locations 1077-1079
Phoenix Books, Inc.

From the website of Bernie Madoff – http://www.madoff.com on December 15, 2008. In Appendix A (Kindle Locations 2760-2765)
 

The Owner’s Name is on the Door

In an era of faceless organizations owned by other equally faceless organizations, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC harks back to an earlier era in the financial world: The owner’s name is on the door. Clients know that Bernard Madoff has a personal interest in maintaining the unblemished record of value, fair-dealing, and high ethical standards that has always been the firm’s hallmark.

 

[4] Enbrel for Stroke and Alzheimer’s
Science-Based Medicine
Steven Novella
May 8, 2013
Article

.

Read ‘The Book That Changed America’ for Darwin Day 2017

Book that Changed America - cover 1
 

Arriving just before the Civil War, On the Origin of Species was a godsend for abolitionists in America. Charles Darwin provided evidence that we are all the same in the eyes of science. Given that we are equals, should we treat other humans as less than ? This is part of what Randall Fuller writes about in the recently published The Book That Changed America: How Darwin’s Theory of Evolution Ignited a Nation.

Darwin provided scientific evidence for a common origin, which gave a scientific argument to those criticizing slavery. How is it moral to enslave other humans? Well, the Bible repeatedly endorses slavery and Jesus never criticized slavery. Jesus actually used slavery as an analogy for belief in God, with believers as slaves and the slave owners as God.

Contrariwise, those who focused on the good parts of the Bible and avoided the bad parts, used Darwin’s book as the basis for advocating for a more moral approach to our fellow humans. Those who read the Bible differently from the advocates of slavery saw that they were not along. Science also opposed the moral abyss of slavery.

Not to spoil the ending, but the abolitionists were not successful at reasoning with those in the Bible Belt to end slavery in America. We ended up with over 600,000 Americans dead over different interpretations of the Bible on how to treat humans.

Upton Sinclair wrote about a similar, and perpetual, problem. It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!

While science is not the best at providing us with morality, science is great at exposing the dishonesty of the excuses made in defense of immorality. And science keeps improving.

Suppose that I think that I am better than they are. Who are they? They are any group that is being selected for second class, or third class, treatment. It doesn’t matter what the group is, this kind of justification is not supported by science.

Picking on the weak is unlikely to be popular in the long term. Blaming this bad behavior on my personal interpretation of the desires of my God (who just happens to think like me) is eventually going to expose my immorality. The contradiction of promoting immoral actions, while blaming God, eventually exposes itself.

Read The Book That Changed America: How Darwin’s Theory of Evolution Ignited a Nation to see why abolitionists recognized On the Origin of Species as a godsend.

.

When logic fails, throw propane on the fire?

 

Many of us have had discussions that became heated, because the other person would not see reason, we would not see reason, or neither of us would see reason. And that is if there are just two opinions involved.

Here is an article about someone who got a bit carried away with making his point and lost perspective.
 

A family argument over whether the Earth is flat or round became so heated that one of the participants threw a propane cylinder onto a campfire, prompting an intervention by firefighters.[1]

 

Flat Earth Hitler 1aa
 

I know. Dramatic, but harmless

Don’t worry.

Everybody knows that propane tanks have safety valves, so they don’t blow up.

Right?
 


 

It turns out that propane tanks do not share that opinion.

The following video does an excellent job of explaining why a full tank may take a while to explode. This is a BLEVE (Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosion), which any first responder should be familiar with. We should know enough to not throw, or even gently place, containers of flammable material on fires, unless intending to cause an explosion.
 


 

What about the topic of discussion? Is the earth flat?

Common sense tells us that the earth is flat.

Science, a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results,[2] shows us that the earth is not quite flat.

There is an excellent short article explaining the way science has improved our understanding of the shape of the earth.
 

In the early days of civilization, the general feeling was that the earth was flat. This was not because people were stupid, or because they were intent on believing silly things. They felt it was flat on the basis of sound evidence. It was not just a matter of “That’s how it looks,” because the earth does not look flat. It looks chaotically bumpy, with hills, valleys, ravines, cliffs, and so on.[3]

 
 

Nowadays, of course, we are taught that the flat-earth theory is wrong; that it is all wrong, terribly wrong, absolutely. But it isn’t. The curvature of the earth is nearly 0 per mile, so that although the flat-earth theory is wrong, it happens to be nearly right. That’s why the theory lasted so long.[3]

 

There were observations that were not consistent with a flat earth. The rest of the article explains the way science showed us the more accurate answers.

Was the person right to throw a propane cylinder into a fire? No.

If the earth is not flat, does that mean that it is round? No.

Read The Relativity of Wrong and learn a bit about how science works and what it means to be wrong.

Footnotes:

[1] Police, firefighters called in after flat Earth debate turns heated – Man angered by suggestion Earth is flat threw propane tank into fire, police say
CBC News
Posted: Jun 14, 2016 5:09 PM ET
Last Updated: Jun 14, 2016 6:00 PM ET
Article

[2] Skeptical Quote of the Week
Quote by Dr. Steven Novella
The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe
Podcast #410
May 25th, 2013
Synopsis
 

What do you think science is? There’s nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. Which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic? – Dr. Steven Novella.

 

[3] The Relativity of Wrong
By Isaac Asimov
The Skeptical Inquirer
Fall 1989, Vol. 14, No. 1, Pp. 35-44
Article from Tufts University

.

The Second EMS What-if-We’re-Wrong-a-Thon

 

Brandon Oto promoted The First EMS What-if-We’re-Wrong-a-Thon last year, but I was taking a break from blogging at the time, so I did not participate. The idea is to consider a position from the perspective of being wrong.

This is the way science works. An idea (hypothesis) is tested by attempting to prove that it is wrong, rather than attempting to prove that it is true. Unfortunately, not all science is done well. Ideology (politics, religion, nationalism, stereotyping, . . . ) is the opposite of science. The goal of ideologues is to defend the dogma, rather than to find the truth.

Since valid evidence to the contrary is all that I need to change my mind, as I have on ventilation in cardiac arrest, high flow oxygen for just about anything, epinephrine any drug for cardiac arrest, intubation as the gold standard of airway management, et cetera, is to look at something based more on opinion, rather than evidence.
 

What have I been wrong about that I have not yet corrected in writing? Romazicon (flumazenil) is a benzodiazepine antagonist which has the nasty side effect of producing seizures. I have condemned the suggestion that it should be used by EMS, because it is just an ALS (Advanced Life Support) means of trying to correct a BLS (Basic Life Support) problem with the potential for creating ALS problems that would result in even more ALS solutions.[1]
 

In considering the effects of flumazenil, have I put too much emphasis on the adverse effects and not enough emphasis on the ways that the side effects can be prevented or managed?
 

Putting much more emphasis on the side effects, rather than on the benefits is important in pharmacology, because the benefits are usually less than we expect and the serious side effects should be much less frequent than the benefits. If the serious side effects are not much less frequent than the benefits, why use the drug?

The importance of large studies is less in quantifying the benefits, but in having enough data to identify the side effects. The second most famous example of this is the Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial,[2] which was intended to show which brand of antiarrhythmic drug saved the most lives. The one that saves the most lives is clearly the best and would be marketed aggressively as the best. The result was to demonstrate that the antiarrhythmic drugs were killing people. About 60,000 people, who would not have died at that time, were killed by these drugs. These drugs were the most frequently prescribed drugs in America at that time. All of the best doctors knew that the drugs improved survival – except the drugs were killing patients.

The most famous example of a small rate of serious side effects not being identified until a lot of people were affected is thalidomide.[3] This produced dramatic deformities in the children of mothers who had taken thalidomide for nausea and vomiting of pregnancy. Since the ideas of pure good and pure evil are ideological, rather than real, there are appropriate uses for thalidomide in the treatment of Hansen’s disease (leprosy) and multiple myeloma. Good medicine requires that we balance the benefits and risks in order to increase the probability of an improvement in outcome.
 

What if, in the case of flumazenil, the side effects are both known and manageable?
 
midazolam plus flumazenil = safer qm 2
 

Flumazenil is not as dangerous as I initially thought. I was giving too much emphasis to the problems. I also think that a reasonable case can be made that we should use benzodiazepines more aggressively, while managing airway compromise and oversedation with flumazenil as an occasional supplement to BLS methods such as proper positioning to maintain the airway and stimuli to promote respiratory drive. An IM (IntraMuscular) dose of 10 mg of midazolam (Versed) may be a good starting dose for a small or medium-sized person.

What about seizures? Seizures do occur, but they are not common. Flumazenil is a competitive antagonist, so more benzodiazepine can be given to stop a seizure, but we should not be getting anywhere near that complication. Seizures are not common and only one of the uses of benzodiazepines is to stop seizure activity. There is no good reason to expect seizure activity if we are giving tiny doses (smaller than the recommend doses of flumazenil) to patients who are being sedated with benzodiazepines (the wrong drugs, but often the only ones available to EMS) for agitated delirium and happen to become so sedated that a bad outcome is likely without intervention.[4]

The current issue of the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology has the theme of the appropriate use of antidotes.
 

Themed issue Antidotes in Clinical Toxicology

Theophrastus Bombastus Paracelsus von Hohenheim (1493–1541) said it all with Dosis sola facit venenum or in modern language “It is the dose, stupid”. So, for a journal of Clinical Pharmacology that as a matter of principle deals with the relation between dose and effect, covering the high end of de (the?) dose – effect relationship is nothing out of the ordinary. This issue is largely about how to treat unfortunate patients who have reached the dark side of the dose–response curve. This can be done by antidotes.[5]

 

This can be done by antidotes.     Not – This must be done by antidotes.

It is the dose, stupid, is usually translated as The dose makes the poison, or –
 

All things are poison and nothing is without poison, only the dose permits something not to be poisonous. – Paracelsus.
 

Only one article in this issue addresses flumazenil, and that is only as part of a general discussion of antidotes (which also mentions the use of benzodiazepines as the antidote for overdose of amphetamines and other stimulants and for drug induced delirium). The article does encourage caution in the use of flumazenil –
 

For other antidotes, a clinical effect is pharmacologically expected, obvious and rapid (e.g. reversal of coma with flumazenil or naloxone, or resolution of delirium with physostigmine). However, this does not necessarily translate into improved clinical outcomes over supportive care [2]. [6]

 

What if the important safety criteria are using small doses, repeated reassessment, and critical judgment?

Can EMS do that? Our failures with airway management (it is still popular to claim that no evidence of benefit or safety is needed, in spite of the many studies showing harm from intubation) suggest that we cannot, but people keep pointing out that I am an optimist. I think that education can reach many of the dogmatic deniers of science and promoters of emotion over reality.

The use of tiny doses of naloxone (Narcan) to increase the respiratory drive, but not the alertness, of patients with opioid overdoses may result in a sudden increase in level of consciousness and aggression, but that is not typical.

Can we produce better outcomes with judicious use of antidotes in addition to supportive care as a way of managing aggressive use of benzodiazepines? Maybe, but it is not something people seem to want to study. We have given the drug to be reversed and know the dose we gave, so we are not dealing with an unknown overdose. The patient may have ingested other drugs that are unknown, but they tend to be stimulants, which is why we are giving a sedative. The patient may even have taken a benzodiazepine at some point, but more benzodiazepine is not a reason to avoid flumazenil.

The better question is can we improve outcomes for violent patients and for the people who deal with violent patients, with more aggressive use of benzodiazepines and judicious use of flumazenil to minimize the side effects of aggressive benzodiazepine use?

Benzodizepines are the wrong drugs to use for agitated delirium, unless combined with more effective medication. Some EMS providers do not have access to the most effective sedatives, or even the second most effective sedatives. I am limited to benzodiazepines and only in doses that are too low. Adding flumazenil to my scope of practice might help the medical directors to provide better EMS education and more aggressive standing orders.

There is more to write about flumazenil, but this is plenty for today.
 

Also writing in The Second EMS What-if-We’re-Wrong-a-Thon are –

Michael Morse (Rescuing Providence) — asks… what if community paramedicine really is the future of EMS?

Dale Loberger (High Performance EMS) — asks… what if emergency response times don’t really matter all that much?

Amy Eisenhauer (The EMS Siren) — wonders… whether the role of social media in EMS is such a good thing after all.

Ginger Locke — asks… what if video laryngoscopy really is the best first-pass technique for routine endotracheal intubation?

Footnotes:

[1] Flumazenil and EMS – A Box Pandora Should Not Open
Fri, 20 Mar 2009
by Rogue Medic
Article

[2] Mortality and morbidity in patients receiving encainide, flecainide, or placebo. The Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial.
Echt DS, Liebson PR, Mitchell LB, Peters RW, Obias-Manno D, Barker AH, Arensberg D, Baker A, Friedman L, Greene HL, et al.

N Engl J Med. 1991 Mar 21;324(12):781-8.
PMID: 1900101 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Free Full Text from NEJM.

CONCLUSIONS. There was an excess of deaths due to arrhythmia and deaths due to shock after acute recurrent myocardial infarction in patients treated with encainide or flecainide. Nonlethal events, however, were equally distributed between the active-drug and placebo groups. The mechanisms underlying the excess mortality during treatment with encainide or flecainide remain unknown.

I have written about this in C A S T and Narrative Fallacy and elsewhere.

[3] Thalidomide: the tragedy of birth defects and the effective treatment of disease.
Kim JH, Scialli AR.
Toxicol Sci. 2011 Jul;122(1):1-6. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfr088. Epub 2011 Apr 19. Erratum in: Toxicol Sci. 2012 Feb;125(2):613.
PMID: 21507989

Free Full Text from Toxicol Sci.

[4] Excited Delirium: Episode 72 EMS EduCast
Wed, 29 Sep 2010
by Rogue Medic
Article

[5] Issue highlights
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
Special Issue: Antidotes in Clinical Toxicology
Volume 81, Issue 3, pages 398–399, March 2016
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.12909
Article

[6] Who gets antidotes? choosing the chosen few.
Buckley NA, Dawson AH, Juurlink DN, Isbister GK.
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2016 Mar;81(3):402-7. doi: 10.1111/bcp.12894. Epub 2016 Feb 17. Review.
PMID: 26816206

Free Full Text from Br J Clin Pharmacol.

.

Happy Darwin Day 2016

 

Today is the 207th birthday of both Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln, two people who were condemned for their great works. One changed the way we treat other members of our species, while the other changed our entire understanding of species.

Lincoln held America together in spite of attempts to divide America into those who used the law to support equal treatment of Americans and those who would start their own country to be able to expand what may be the worst economic system ever seen in America – slavery. We don’t like communism, but when we condemn communism, we use slavery as a metaphor for how bad communism really is. We used to be worse than the communists. Some of us were willing to kill Americans to avoid having to deal with the possibility of giving up the horror that is slavery.

Darwin explained how life evolved into the many different species that exist and into those that no longer exist. The connection among those seemingly unconnected species of animals, plants, fungi, bacteria, . . . is DNA (DeoxyriboNucleic Acid). We can use DNA in a court room to demonstrate that one person is the parent of another person, or that one person had direct (or occasionally indirect) contact with another person and thus may have had the opportunity to commit a crime. Criminal DNA evidence is just a tool and its appropriate use does require judgment, just as with any other evidence. If used without judgment, DNA evidence can be just as unreliable as eyewitness testimony.[1]

DNA is able to tell us how people and species are related. DNA is able to tell us that we are very closely related to other apes. When we trace our ancestry back far enough, we have the same ancestors. If we trace our ancestry back even farther, we have the same ancestors as snails. We have all evolved, over billions of years, to exist in our current temporary state of evolution. Will we humans split into several species or remain just one species until we become extinct?

DNA had not even been identified at the time that Darwin explained evolution in On the Origin of Species, so he did not have the ability to explain how these changes were taking place, but he could show that the changes were taking place and that the changes favored adaptations that increased the probability of survival of the species. He wasn’t right about everything, but science is not perfection. Science is a method of increasing our understanding and Darwin is one of a handful of scientists who dramatically changed the way we understand biology.

Medicine is a branch of biology. We can go practice monkey see, monkey do medicine, but we will cause a lot of harm with our lack of understanding. We can try to understand as much as possible or we can make excuses for rejecting science.

As we learn, science changes. The same is true for everything else. As we learn, we change. Change is unstoppable.

Could over 99% of biologists be wrong about evolution?
 

How Gavin Smythe Broke Science

How Gavin Smythe Broke Science


 
Go see the rest of How Gavin Smythe Broke Science here.
 

If you understand science, Tell Congress to Support Darwin Day 2016.

In addition, House Resolution 548 and Senate Resolution 337:
 

Footnotes:

[1] Apparent DNA Transfer by Paramedics Leads to Wrongful Imprisonment
Fri, 05 Jul 2013
Rogue Medic
Article

.

Happy Darwin Day 2015

 

Charles Darwin is one of the greatest scientists of all time. We should celebrate the tremendous work that he has done, but it is considered politically incorrect to point out that evolution is real and that we use science to learn about reality.

To celebrate Darwin Day, Ken Ham has decided to do even more to embarrass himself. You remember him. He is the guy who debated Bill Nye.
 


 

What would it take to change your mind?
Bill Nye – Evidence.
Ken Ham – Nothing.

Nothing? If God were to tell Ken Ham that evolution is true, that would not change Ken Ham’s mind, because his mind is made up? Or is Ken Ham telling us that he does not believe that God exists?
 

Ken Ham claims to understand science, but the scientists he employs are required to sign a statement that what Ken Ham believes sets a limit their science. Ken Ham is celebrating today as Darwin was wrong Day.[1]
 

The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.[2]

 

Ken Ham tells us that only his interpretation of the Bible is the truth. Science encourages us to look everywhere for the truth.

If you do not sign a Statement of Faith, you cannot work for Ken Ham. You only have to read the Bible to see that even the description of Creation has irreconcilable contradictions if Genesis is to be interpreted as science, rather than metaphor.
 

24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after [ag]their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after [ah]their kind”; and it was so. 25 God made the beasts of the earth after [ai]their kind, and the cattle after [aj]their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the [ak]sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.[3]

 
 

God made Adam and Eve after making the animals.
 
 

18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper [a]suitable for him.” 19 Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the [b]sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.[4]

 
 

God made Adam and Eve before making the animals.
 
 

It doesn’t matter which came first, if this is a metaphor, but if this is supposed to be literally true and accurate, then it does matter which came first.

Is your God incapable of telling the difference between before and after? Ken Ham’s God can’t seem to tell the difference. Ken Ham seems to prefer to mock his God.

Is your God limited by the restrictions Ken Ham arrogantly places on God?

Is your God capable of using metaphors?

Are there other places where your God uses metaphors in the Bible?
 


 

Footnotes:

[1] #DarwinWasWrongDay
AiG (Answers in Genesis)
Ken Ham’s Twitter hashtag encouraging rejection of evolution
Page at AiG

[2] Statement of Faith
AiG (Answers in Genesis)
Section 2: Basics
Updated: December 12, 2012
Accessed on February 12, 2015
Page at AiG

[3] Genesis 1:24-27
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Bible Gateway (a Christian site)
Passage

Pick up a printed Bible. Look at whatever version of the Bible you like. You can look up one verse at a time to compare among versions.

[4] Genesis 2:18-19
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Bible Gateway (a Christian site)
Passage

.