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

- Rogue Medic

What is the Evidence Supporting the Protesters Grievances?


I could post the video of a white man kneeling on the neck of a black man, while others help hold the black man down, but everybody is familiar with that video. That video shows what black men expect from the police in America. White America continues to be more upset about property damage by a tiny portion of protesters, than about the lives of people too frequently harassed, arrested, and killed because of their skin color.


Many white Americans seem to be telling the rest of America to get over it and let things go back to normal – after all, acknowledging that we are complicit would require honesty – and that appears to be asking too much.


You can’t make an omelette without kneeling on a few necks? Right?


What has changed? The smart phone, which includes the ability for almost anyone to broadcast high quality video to the world. We no longer have to rely on the kind of evidence that most often leads to the conviction of people who were not at all guilty. That evidence is eyewitness testimony.


Why is eyewitness testimony so bad?


Eyewitness testimony relies on our perception, which has evolved in a way that reinforces our prejudices. Our perception definitely does not objectively and accurately observe events. The fictional film Rashomon[1] does a great job of demonstrating different views of the same event by four different people involved in that event. All have different prejudices influencing their perceptions.


One product of the availability of high quality video is the ability to show that UFO (Unidentified Flying Object) sightings require the lowest quality video, in order to be believed, because as we have more and more high quality video of things that are real, the video of UFOs continues to be of the lowest quality and fail to support the claims of those insisting that UFOs are aliens.[2]


The opposite is true about the claims unjustified police violence. The increasingly high quality of the videos confirms what the victims have been saying all along. There are a lot of bad cops.


This video is of the Buffalo ERT (Emergency Response Team) in action against a white 75 year old peaceful, if vocal, protester.



For those of you with any kind of medical training, after falling and apparently hitting his head out of view of the video, the blood coming out of the ear can indicate a serious head injury. According to the news, the man is still reported to be in serious condition in the hospital.


The entire ERT responded to the suspension of bad cops by resigning from the ERT, not from the police force, in solidarity with their criminal brothers. Fire, EMS, and other police also rallied in support of their criminal brothers, because that is what is expected of good cops?


If the police cannot recognize criminal behavior, should they be police?


The excuse for the violence by the police is that the guy presented a threat to them, so it is acceptable to knock him down and walk away, because that is the kind of police force we should want. If he is a threat, what do they do when presented with a real threat? He appears to be merely a threat to their dominance, which has become the point for President Trump, Sen. Tom Cotton, and others, who are more worried about appearances than about law; more worried about appearances and about lives.


If there is such widespread opposition to law enforcement (supporting bad cops is not supporting law enforcement) how will the police survive?


When the police refuse to do their job refuse to enforce the law and require an oath of Omerta[3], how are the police any different from the Mafia, or any other criminal organization?


This is America in 2020.


If you are a black man, you can expect to be stopped for no reason other than being black, even though this is prohibited by the Constitution. You can expect to be searched for no reason other than being black, even though this is also prohibited by the Constitution. You can expect to know some other black man who has been killed by the police for being black at the wrong time in America.


What about the reports submitted by the police involved in these incidents? The reports do not include the truth.[4]


If you are someone who peaceably assembles to protest criminal behavior by the police, you can expect to be attacked for peaceful protest, even though this is prohibited by the Constitution.


There is a famous poem that describes the conditions that discourage us from protecting our rights from authoritarian abuse.


First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist.


Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist.


Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.


Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.[5]


This was written by Martin Niemöller, a German Christian pastor, in part to atone for his willing participation as an anti-communist. Eventually, Niemöller spoke out about the non-communists being sent to concentration camps. Martin Niemöller was arrested in 1937 and remained in a concentration camp until the end of the war.


We can always make excuses for why some people do not deserve equal citizenship. Moral people do not do this. Jesus didn’t make these excuses. Jesus was killed for upsetting the people.


Footnotes:


[1] Rashomon
Wikipedia
Article


[2] Pentagon UFO Video
Published by Steven Novella
Neurologica
Article


[3] Omerta
Lexico
Definition


o·mer·tà /ōˈmertə/ noun (as practiced by the Mafia) a code of silence about criminal activity and a refusal to give evidence to authorities. “loyal to the oath of omertà”


[4] When the Police Lie
New York Times
By David Leonhardt
June 8, 2020, 6:37 a.m. ET
Article


[5] First they came …
Wikipedia
Article


.

What’s the Good News on Hydroxychloroquine?

Hydroxychloroquine is a darling of the media and of politicians, but what about the evidence? Well, the evidence on the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat humans with COVID-19 (COronaVIrus Disease identified in 2019) is either negative (hydroxychloroquine is worse than homeopathy, acupuncture, naturopathy, prayer, . . . ) or the evidence is neutral (hydroxychloroquine is just as useless as homeopathy, acupuncture, naturopathy, prayer, . . . ).


But what is the good news?


The good news is that all of the research on hydroxychloroquine is of low quality or of very low quality. This is exactly the kind of evidence that frauds use to sell their fly by night panaceas.


The “best” news for the frauds is that one study showing harm from hydroxychloroquine has been retracted by most of the authors, due to problems with the data.[1],[2] The researchers contracted out the data acquisition and analysis to Surgisphere Corporation, a private company that appears to have promised to be able to deliver more than it can deliver.


If the negative paper has been retracted, why am I calling the promoters of hydroxychloroquine the frauds?


I am not referring to any of the researchers as frauds, not even the ones from the company that provided the retracted information. The frauds are the people promoting hydroxychloroquine without any evidence that hydroxychloroquine is safe or effective to treat COVID-19 in our species. These people are recklessly and irresponsibly endangering people for their own apparently political reasons.


We still do not have any valid evidence that hydroxychloroquine is safe to use in any humans to treat COVID-19.


We still do not have any valid evidence that hydroxychloroquine is effective at improving any outcomes for any humans with COVID-19.


Experimentation on humans should be limited to well controlled research studies.


The WHO (World Health Organization) appropriately, and only temporarily, paused research on hydroxychloroquine to re-examine the safety data available. The enrollment of patients in the WHO research has resumed.[3]


For those who claim that this retraction is evidence that science doesn’t work – It is amusing to see you trying to cite evidence to support your rejection of evidence, every time you do it. May you never tire of demonstrating the validity of the Dunning-Kruger effect.


This is like using a stopped clock to tell you the time. The stopped clock does not provide any useful information about the actual time, but it does provide useful information about the person claiming it provides useful information about the time.



This was pre-print – not yet peer reviewed, which was retracted by most of the authors, because of questions raised about the data. It may turn out that the outcomes for patients were better than represented in the paper. It may turn out that the outcomes for patients were the same as than represented in the paper. It may turn out that the outcomes for patients were worse than represented in the paper. We won’t know until the full information is independently analyzed, which might not happen. The failure to provide access for independent analysis was the reason for the retraction.


Late addition (6/08/2020 at 15:08): Dr. Steven Novella has a more detailed description of this at Neurologica, written on 6/08/2020 after I posted this on 6/06/2020:


The Surgisphere Fiasco



Footnotes:


[1] Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis.
Mehra MR, Desai SS, Ruschitzka F, Patel AN.
Lancet. 2020 May 22:S0140-6736(20)31180-6. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31180-6. Online ahead of print.
PMID: 32450107


Free Full Text from PubMed Central.


[2] Retraction—Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis
Mandeep R Mehra, Frank Ruschitzka, Amit N Patel
Published:June 05, 2020
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31324-6


[3] “Solidarity” clinical trial for COVID-19 treatments
WHO (World Health Organization)
Information page.


Update on hydroxychloroquine


Originally posted 27 May 2020, updated 4 June 2020


Having met on 23 May 2020, the Executive Group of the Solidarity Trial decided to implement a temporary pause of the hydroxychloroquine arm of the trial, because of concerns raised about the safety of the drug. This decision was taken as a precaution while the safety data were reviewed by the Data Safety and Monitoring Committee of the Solidarity Trial.


On 3 June 2020, WHO’s Director-General announced that on the basis of the available mortality data, the members of the committee have recommended that there are no reasons to modify the trial protocol.


The Executive Group received this recommendation and endorsed the continuation of all arms of the Solidarity Trial, including hydroxychloroquine.


The Data Safety and Monitoring Committee will continue to closely monitor the safety of all therapeutics being tested in the Solidarity Trial.



.

Hydroxychloroquine – The More You Know, The Worse It Looks



Do you want to use a drug that was never based on any good evidence, but only a hunch? Try hydroxychloroquine. The president says, What have you got to lose?


Kitchen sink medicine is a remnant of the Dark Ages, but it has not been eliminated from medicine. It is the argument from ignorance. If you can’t prove that the treatment is harmful, the treatment is wonderful. If you can prove the treatment is harmful, you are part of a conspiracy.


This is further evidence that hydroxychloroquine is harmful. The higher the quality of the evidence about hydroxychloroquine, the worse hydroxychloroquine looks.


Today, Lancet published this study comparing almost 15,000 patients receiving several different experimental treatments with about 80,000 patients not receiving any of the experimental treatments. This should convince reasonable people that there is no justification for treating patients with hydroxychloroquine outside of a well controlled randomized trial.


The comments on articles about the study are full of the usual anti-science, anti-vax, alternative medicine propaganda. Their religion has failed, but they keep preaching.


After controlling for multiple confounding factors (age, sex, race or ethnicity, body-mass index, underlying cardiovascular disease and its risk factors, diabetes, underlying lung disease, smoking, immunosuppressed condition, and baseline disease severity), when compared with mortality in the control group (9·3%), hydroxychloroquine (18·0%; hazard ratio 1·335, 95% CI 1·223–1·457), hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide (23·8%; 1·447, 1·368–1·531), chloroquine (16·4%; 1·365, 1·218–1·531), and chloroquine with a macrolide (22·2%; 1·368, 1·273–1·469) were each independently associated with an increased risk of in-hospital mortality.[1]


The evidence shows that you are twice as likely to die if you receive hydroxychloroquine.


Don’t listen to anti-science, anti-vax, anti-medicine preachers, because they are not interested in your health.


What have you got to lose?


What are you treating, you politics/religion or your health?


If your goal is to treat your religion, go ahead and use the magic elixir and maybe you will not be harmed by it.


If your goal is to treat your health, avoid magic claims about treatments, regardless of the treatment. Use treatments that work in the real world.


What have you got to lose?


You are twice as likely to lose your life. Among survivors, the significant adverse effect rate was much higher in the hydroxychloroquine groups. This is the highest quality research so far and there is no good news for the hydroxychloroquine.


Read the full paper and think for yourself. Don’t listen to those making excuses to promote their agenda. Your health has never been important to those who reject science.


It is unfortunate that we do not have some treatment that works well, but that is not a good reason to bet your life on bad medicine. More people survive with better health with conventional treatment.



Footnotes:


[1] Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis
Prof Mandeep R Mehra, MD, Sapan S Desai, MD, Prof Frank Ruschitzka, MD, Amit N Patel, MD
Lancet. Published:May 22, 2020
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31180-6


Free Full Text from Lancet.


.

New FDNY Cardiac Arrest Protocol is Reasonable

In New York City, the protocol for cardiac arrest during the coronavirus pandemic has been changed. The protocol now states to pronounce the patient dead after 20 minutes, if there is no return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). If the patient remains pulseless after full paramedic treatment, the chances of any good outcome have dramatically dropped to zero. However, the dangers of transport and infection are only going to increase with transport for the purpose of pronouncement at the hospital, because that is all that is going to happen. A doctor will probably walk out to the ambulance, ask for a brief report, look at the monitor, and then tell the medics to stop compressions and ventilations.

Is there any reason to believe that an emergency physician, who is already overworked, is going to endanger the other patients in the emergency department, just to “make it look good” for a few more minutes?

Many communities already have these protocols in place. The American Heart Association (AHA) and the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) already recommend that resuscitation be terminated with no ROSC after 20 minutes.

FDNY (Fire Department of New York, which run EMS in New York City) has traditionally been, well . . . , very traditional in its approach to cardiac arrest. Cardiac arrest treatment doesn’t require much, but the traditionalists like to do a lot more than is good for the patient. For appearances? For unreasonable optimism?

Unfortunately, the president of the local union is misrepresenting this, in order to make a political point, or to demonstrate a lack of understanding, at a time when he should be trying to explain that this is protecting union members and protecting the public.


This is what the military does. They come. They check your pulse. No pulse – next. You know, we’re going to be leaving bodies behind, which is the exact opposite of what’s the oath we took.[1]


Oren Barzilay EMS Local 2507 President. Also identified by the news as a paramedic. If so he should know better.

What does the protocol state?


TEMPORARY Cardiac Arrest Standards for Disaster Response[2]


NYC REMAC (New York City Regional Emergency Medical Advisory Committee) does need to approve whatever N-95 masks have been donated, if the claim that the masks have not been approved is more accurate than the claim about resuscitation.

The NYC protocol has caught up with what many other states have been doing for decades. It is sad that the union leadership is fighting to keep EMS in the dark ages with misinformation and emotions. Misinformation thrives on emotions, so the emotional appeal is not surprising.

There is another protocol change that seems to escaped the notice of Oren Barzilay EMS Local 2507 President, or that part of the interview was cut. Intubation can be skipped – in favor of an extraglottic airway.


Use of Alternative Airways[3]


There is still no good evidence that the average paramedic is competent at intubation, but many agencies insist on intubation as if it is some sort of magical ability of paramedics. Just wave the laryngoscope and the tube goes into the trachea. Paramedics are not good at intubation, but we are good at whining about having intubation taken away, as if it is something we have earned.

We have not earned the right to make patients hypoxic, to tear up the airway, and to claim that we are improving outcomes. Hypoxia is bad for the patient. Tearing up the airway is bad for the patient. We have no good reason to believe we are providing a benefit to the patient, but we do have plenty of evidence that we are causing harm.

Why do so many of us refuse to practice?

Why do so many of us refuse to behave as if we believe any of the lies we tell about intubation being a life saving procedure?

If intubation really is “life saving”, why do paramedics refuse to engage in more than token intubation practice – and then brag about how much they practice?

Because we do not understand what we are doing and because our arguments are emotional, rather than rational.

We paramedics deserve ridicule for our repeated defenses of incompetence.

Why are we still intubating, when there is no evidence of benefit and we refuse to practice this “skill”?


Here is the only evidence I know of demonstrating benefit from intubation:


Prehospital rapid sequence intubation improves functional outcome for patients with severe traumatic brain injury: a randomized controlled trial.
Bernard SA, Nguyen V, Cameron P, Masci K, Fitzgerald M, Cooper DJ, Walker T, Std BP, Myles P, Murray L, David, Taylor, Smith K, Patrick I, Edington J, Bacon A, Rosenfeld JV, Judson R.
Ann Surg. 2010 Dec;252(6):959-65. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181efc15f.
PMID: 21107105


Here is some of the evidence showing either a lack of benefit from intubation or evidence showing harm from intubation:


Misplaced endotracheal tubes by paramedics in an urban emergency medical services system.
Katz SH, Falk JL.
Ann Emerg Med. 2001 Jan;37(1):32-7.
PMID: 11145768

Free Full Text PDF


Rapid sequence intubation for pediatric emergency patients: higher frequency of failed attempts and adverse effects found by video review.
Kerrey BT, Rinderknecht AS, Geis GL, Nigrovic LE, Mittiga MR.
Ann Emerg Med. 2012 Sep;60(3):251-9. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2012.02.013. Epub 2012 Mar 15.
PMID: 22424653

Free Full Text from Annals of Emergency Medicine.


A is for airway: a pediatric emergency department challenge.
Green SM.
Ann Emerg Med. 2012 Sep;60(3):261-3. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2012.03.019. Epub 2012 Apr 19. No abstract available.
PMID: 22520991

The article above is a comment on the previous article.


Prehospital intubations and mortality: a level 1 trauma center perspective.
Cobas MA, De la Peña MA, Manning R, Candiotti K, Varon AJ.
Anesth Analg. 2009 Aug;109(2):489-93. doi: 10.1213/ane.0b013e3181aa3063.
PMID: 19608824


Intubation by Emergency Physicians: How Often Is Enough?
Kerrey BT, Wang H.
Ann Emerg Med. 2019 Dec;74(6):795-796. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2019.06.022. Epub 2019 Aug 19. No abstract available.
PMID: 31439364

The article above is commentary on the article below:

Procedural Experience With Intubation: Results From a National Emergency Medicine Group.
Carlson JN, Zocchi M, Marsh K, McCoy C, Pines JM, Christensen A, Kornas R, Venkat A.
Ann Emerg Med. 2019 Dec;74(6):786-794. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2019.04.025. Epub 2019 Jun 24.
PMID: 31248674


Effect of a Strategy of a Supraglottic Airway Device vs Tracheal Intubation During Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest on Functional Outcome: The AIRWAYS-2 Randomized Clinical Trial.
Benger JR, Kirby K, Black S, Brett SJ, Clout M, Lazaroo MJ, Nolan JP, Reeves BC, Robinson M, Scott LJ, Smartt H, South A, Stokes EA, Taylor J, Thomas M, Voss S, Wordsworth S, Rogers CA.
JAMA. 2018 Aug 28;320(8):779-791. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.11597.
PMID: 30167701

Free Full Text from PubMed Central® (PMC)


Effect of a Strategy of Initial Laryngeal Tube Insertion vs Endotracheal Intubation on 72-Hour Survival in Adults With Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Wang HE, Schmicker RH, Daya MR, Stephens SW, Idris AH, Carlson JN, Colella MR, Herren H, Hansen M, Richmond NJ, Puyana JCJ, Aufderheide TP, Gray RE, Gray PC, Verkest M, Owens PC, Brienza AM, Sternig KJ, May SJ, Sopko GR, Weisfeldt ML, Nichol G.
JAMA. 2018 Aug 28;320(8):769-778. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.7044.
PMID: 30167699

Free Full Text from PubMed Central® (PMC)


Pragmatic Airway Management in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.
Andersen LW, Granfeldt A.
JAMA. 2018 Aug 28;320(8):761-763. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.10824. No abstract available.
PMID: 30167679


Interruptions in cardiopulmonary resuscitation from paramedic endotracheal intubation.
Wang HE, Simeone SJ, Weaver MD, Callaway CW.
Ann Emerg Med. 2009 Nov;54(5):645-652.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2009.05.024. Epub 2009 Jul 2.
PMID: 19573949


Association of prehospital advanced airway management with neurologic outcome and survival in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.
Hasegawa K, Hiraide A, Chang Y, Brown DF.
JAMA. 2013 Jan 16;309(3):257-66. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.187612.
PMID: 23321764

Free Full Text from JAMA


No evidence for decreased incidence of aspiration after rapid sequence induction.
Neilipovitz DT, Crosby ET.
Can J Anaesth. 2007 Sep;54(9):748-64. Review.
PMID: 17766743

Link to Abstract and Free Full Text PDF Download from Can J Anaesth


The Great Prehospital Airway Debate
August 31, 2018
Emergency Medicine Literature of Note
by Ryan Radecki
Article


EM Nerd-The Case of the Needless Imperative
August 31, 2018
EMNerd (EMCrit)
by Rory Spiegel
Article


Intubation or supraglottic airway in cardiac arrest; AIRWAYS-2
The Resus Room
Podcast with Simon Laing, Rob Fenwick, and James Yates with guest Professor Jonathan Benger, lead author of AIRWAYS-2.
Podcast, images, and notes


Variation in Survival After Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Between Emergency Medical Services Agencies.
Okubo M, Schmicker RH, Wallace DJ, Idris AH, Nichol G, Austin MA, Grunau B, Wittwer LK, Richmond N, Morrison LJ, Kurz MC, Cheskes S, Kudenchuk PJ, Zive DM, Aufderheide TP, Wang HE, Herren H, Vaillancourt C, Davis DP, Vilke GM, Scheuermeyer FX, Weisfeldt ML, Elmer J, Colella R, Callaway CW; Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Investigators.
JAMA Cardiol. 2018 Sep 26. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2018.3037. [Epub ahead of print]
PMID: 30267053

Free Full Text from JAMA Cardiology


Cardiocerebral resuscitation improves survival of patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.
Kellum MJ, Kennedy KW, Ewy GA.
Am J Med. 2006 Apr;119(4):335-40.
PMID: 16564776


Cardiocerebral resuscitation improves neurologically intact survival of patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.
Kellum MJ, Kennedy KW, Barney R, Keilhauer FA, Bellino M, Zuercher M, Ewy GA.
Ann Emerg Med. 2008 Sep;52(3):244-52. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2008.02.006. Epub 2008 Mar 28.
PMID: 18374452


Minimally interrupted cardiac resuscitation by emergency medical services for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.
Bobrow BJ, Clark LL, Ewy GA, Chikani V, Sanders AB, Berg RA, Richman PB, Kern KB.
JAMA. 2008 Mar 12;299(10):1158-65. doi: 10.1001/jama.299.10.1158.
PMID: 18334691

Free Full Text at JAMA


Passive oxygen insufflation is superior to bag-valve-mask ventilation for witnessed ventricular fibrillation out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.
Bobrow BJ, Ewy GA, Clark L, Chikani V, Berg RA, Sanders AB, Vadeboncoeur TF, Hilwig RW, Kern KB.
Ann Emerg Med. 2009 Nov;54(5):656-662.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2009.06.011. Epub 2009 Aug 6.
PMID: 19660833


Cardiocerebral resuscitation is associated with improved survival and neurologic outcome from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in elders.
Mosier J, Itty A, Sanders A, Mohler J, Wendel C, Poulsen J, Shellenberger J, Clark L, Bobrow B.
Acad Emerg Med. 2010 Mar;17(3):269-75. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2010.00689.x.
PMID: 20370759

Free Full Text from Acad Emerg Med.

And more.


That is a big difference. There is nowhere near enough evidence to justify allowing paramedics to intubate.


Footnotes:

[1] Grim New Rules for NYC Paramedics: Don’t Bring Cardiac Arrests to ER for Revival
By Tom Winter
Published April 2, 2020 • Updated on April 2, 2020 at 8:32 pm
nbcnewyork.com
Article with autoplay video

[2] TEMPORARY Cardiac Arrest Standards for Disaster Response
NYC REMAC
Advisory No. 2020-08
Issue Date: March 31, 2020
Effective Date: Immediate
Protocol in PDF format

[3] Use of Alternative Airways
NYC REMAC
Advisory No. 2020-05
Issue Date: March 20, 2020
Effective Date: Immediate
Protocol in PDF format

.

NIH clinical trial of remdesivir to treat COVID-19 begins

     

The University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC) in Omaha is the receiving facility for Americans repatriated with suspicion of infection with COVID-19 (COronaVIrus Disease 2019). UNMC will be enrolling patients in a double-blind study comparing standard treatment with an investigational antiviral drug against standard treatment with a placebo.[1]

The start of this study does not mean that anyone knows, or even has has good reason to believe, that remdesivir is an effective treatment in humans for COVID-19. Remdesivir is an investigational antiviral that has been tested on other coronaviruses, but has not been shown to be effective in treating humans. Remdesivir was also studied as a possible treatment for ebola virus (a filovirus), and was found to be effective in other species, but was not found to be effective in humans.
 

About Remdesivir Remdesivir is an investigational nucleotide analog with broad-spectrum antiviral activity – it is not approved anywhere globally for any use. Remdesivir has demonstrated in vitro and in vivo activity in animal models against the viral pathogens MERS and SARS, which are also coronaviruses and are structurally similar to COVID-19. The limited preclinical data on remdesivir in MERS and SARS indicate that remdesivir may have potential activity against COVID-19.

This is an experimental medicine that has only been used in a small number of patients with COVID-19 to date, so Gilead does not have an appropriately robust understanding of the effect of this drug to warrant broad use at this time.[2]
 

What is the most common symptom?

There does not appear to be any symptom that is always present.

Travel to China, or to the region of China where COVID-19 was first identified, or contact with people who were in contact with people known to be infected with COVID-19 are often present, but not always. Cough and fever appear to be the most common symptoms, but that are also not always present.

The full text of the first case in the US is worth reading.[3] A 35 year old male with a cough and no fever (37.2°C – 99.0°F), but he felt like he had a fever, went to an urgent care clinic, based on his symptoms and news reports. He did not test positive for anything else that is screened for. A sample was sent to the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). He was treated with a variety of medications. A day after he was treated with remdesivir, he began to improve. Was he just getting better on his own? We do not know, but the research at UNMC should help to answer that question. Given the number of patients, and the already known distribution of patients, there should be plenty of participants, unless someone decides to promote the political witchcraft of “compassionate use”.[4] Then we may never know and remdesivir could become the blood-letting of the 21st century.

Footnotes:

[1] NIH clinical trial of remdesivir to treat COVID-19 begins Study enrolling hospitalized adults with COVID-19 in Nebraska.
Tuesday, February 25, 2020
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
News release

and –

NIH Clinical Trial of Remdesivir to Treat COVID-19 Begins Study Enrolling Hospitalized Adults with COVID-19 in Nebraska February 25, 2020
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)
News release

[2] COVID-19 Gilead Sciences Update On The Company’s Ongoing Response To COVID-19
Gilead Sciences
Article

[3] First Case of 2019 Novel Coronavirus in the United States.
Holshue ML, DeBolt C, Lindquist S, Lofy KH, Wiesman J, Bruce H, Spitters C, Ericson K, Wilkerson S, Tural A, Diaz G, Cohn A, Fox L, Patel A, Gerber SI, Kim L, Tong S, Lu X, Lindstrom S, Pallansch MA, Weldon WC, Biggs HM, Uyeki TM, Pillai SK; Washington State 2019-nCoV Case Investigation Team.
N Engl J Med. 2020 Jan 31. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2001191. [Epub ahead of print]
PMID: 32004427

Free Full Text from N Engl J Med.

[4] “Right to try” laws create tremendous legal uncertainties; FDA expanded access preferable The Goldwater Institute and the Kochs pushed “right to try” laws in an attempt to get rid of FDA oversight of access to investigational drugs. Instead, they created tremendous legal uncertainties, making the FDA’s expanded access program preferable for all.
Jann Bellamy
January 17, 2019
Science-Based Medicine
Article

.

Happy Friday the 13th

One of the Most Holy Days of the Church of Anecdote and Confirmation bias is here.

Will it be quiet? Oops, the utterance of the word Quiet can turns any day into a Friday the 13th for some celebrants of this religion, at least for those who work in EM/EMS (Emergency Medicine/Emergency Medical Services).

Are these superstitions unreasonable? Absolutely, but try explaining that to someone who rejects reason.

How do you reason with people who reject reason? Presenting large quantities of objective evidence is not going to matter to believers, because their self-worth depends, to some extent, on protecting themselves from being reasonable.

A coincidence is a remarkable concurrence of events or circumstances that have no apparent causal connection with one another. The perception of remarkable coincidences may lead to supernatural, occult, or paranormal claims. Or it may lead to belief in fatalism, which is a doctrine that events will happen in the exact manner of a predetermined plan.

From a statistical perspective, coincidences are inevitable and often less remarkable than they may appear intuitively. An example is the birthday problem, which shows that the probability of two persons having the same birthday already exceeds 50% in a group of only 23 persons.[1] [1]

Uncountable numbers of unrelated events happen at apparently the same time. Since time itself is relative, the point of reference of the observer can be a factor in the appearance of coincidence. For example, thunder will be heard by a person at the same time the person sees lightning, while a mile away, a person sees the lightning 5 seconds before hearing the thunder. The thunder and lightning have the same cause, but the lightning and the thunder separate by even more time, from the perspective of even more distant observers.

The lack of perspective about observations has led people to develop more superstitions about coincidences than have been documented.

Casinos depend on superstition.

You have a system? Excellent. Come and apply your system to our games of chance. We will take your bets.

Casinos will not just take just your bets. Casinos will take trillions of dollars of bets, because they have arranged the odds to be, at least, slightly in their favor.

Do you wait for someone to put all of their money into a slot machine, then take their seat, expecting that the machine is overdue to pay out?

Casinos pay millions of dollars for famous people to perform on stage to draw you in to use that kind of system. The Casino will take your bet. Your money will help to pay even more for expensive entertainers.

You count cards?

Brilliant! The dealer, or a manager, is also counting cards and trained to recognize when someone is using a betting system based on card counting. The cameras, which watch everything happening at the tables, are also helping to track your habits. The cameras will also get high quality images of you, which casinos share as part of their countermeasures. Card counting is not illegal, but the casino can do a lot to keep the odds in the favor of the casino.

Roulette games have systems, as well. Likewise, the casinos want you to bet your money on your systems. They have bills to pay and your money is just a drop in the bucket to the casinos.

You don’t believe in coincidences?

Companies make trillions of dollars off of your belief. Your belief is their business and their business is profitable.

However, if you want to get better at recognizing the biases you have, challenge yourself to bets on the outcomes of your beliefs. It doesn’t have to be money. You can bet doing something you don’t want to do against doing something you do want to do, based on whether you are right about something you believe.

Write down what you believe/believe will happen. Write down your criteria for winning/losing. Don’t make excuses for fudging the criteria. Maybe doing something that you should do, but really don’t want to do. Think of how much you will accomplish – if you are honest with yourself and you set your bets up objectively.

Footnotes:

[1] Coincidence
Wikipedia
Web page

.

Do Emergency Physicians Intubate Often Enough to Maintain Competency?

 

    There is a study of the frequency of intubation among emergency physicians in the current Annals of Emergency Medicine. This study is accompanied by a discussion, which unfortunately does not question the assumption that intubation improves outcome. There is very little evidence to suggest that intubation improves outcomes. That evidence is only using paramedics with the highest success rates – much higher than your average paramedic.

 
Greater intubation experience in paramedics is associated with improved patient outcomes2; does a similar relationship exist for emergency physicians?[1]
 


Image credit.

The unquestioned assumption is that excellent intubation performance improves outcomes, rather than that excellent intubation performance causes less harm than average intubation performance, or below average performance. We do not have any good evidence to support the wishful thinking that paramedics, or even much more experienced emergency physicians, improve outcomes by intubating patients. We just assume this, because we don’t really want to know. If we decide to be honest and actually find out the effect of intubation, how will we handle it if the results show that we are harming more patients than we are helping?

The Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial was only started because the proponents of the different antiarrhythmics (encainide, flecainide, and moricizine) wanted to prove that their drug was better than all of the rest. They even agreed to include a placebo arm, although the doctors did not like the idea of depriving patients of such beneficial treatment.

 
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.[2]
 

People who had frequent ectopic heart beats – PVCs (Premature Ventricular Contractions) after a heart attack were more likely to die than people who did not have frequent PVCs. The obvious solution – the equivalent of intubation and blood-letting – was to give drugs that will get rid of the PVCs. The problem is that the PVCs were not the problem. The PVCs were just a sign of the problem. The drugs made the actual problem with the heart worse, while making the heart appear to be better. The same is true of blood-letting and may be true of intubation. Abundant evidence for the obvious benefits of blood-letting are quoted in the footnotes.[3]

If intubation is harmful, do we want to know?

If intubation by the average paramedic is harmful, do we want to know?

If intubation by the average emergency physician is harmful, do we want to know?

It isn’t as if we take intubation seriously. If we did take intubation seriously, we would practice much, much more than we do. In stead, we make excuses for failing to practice something that we claim is life-saving, because we are too arrogant to admit that practice is important to develop and maintain any skill.

Practicing on even the most basic mannequin should be done before every shift, whether you are a paramedic or an emergency physician. Unless you have a 99%, or better, success rate on hundreds of patients.

Footnotes:

[1] Intubation by Emergency Physicians: How Often Is Enough?
Kerrey BT, Wang H.
Ann Emerg Med. 2019 Dec;74(6):795-796. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2019.06.022. Epub 2019 Aug 19. No abstract available.
PMID: 31439364

The article above is commentary on the article below:

Procedural Experience With Intubation: Results From a National Emergency Medicine Group.
Carlson JN, Zocchi M, Marsh K, McCoy C, Pines JM, Christensen A, Kornas R, Venkat A.
Ann Emerg Med. 2019 Dec;74(6):786-794. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2019.04.025. Epub 2019 Jun 24.
PMID: 31248674

[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

Free Full Text from N Engl J Med.

[3] Blood-Letting
Br Med J.
1871 March 18; 1(533): 283–291.
PMCID: PMC2260507
 

Physicians observed of old, and continued to observe for many centuries, the following facts concerning blood-letting.

1. It gave relief to pain. . . . .

2. It diminished swelling. . . . .

3. It diminished local redness or congestion. . . . .

4. For a short time after bleeding, either local or general, abnormal heat was sensibly diminished.

5. After bleeding, spasms ceased, . . . .

6. If the blood could be made to run, patients were roused up suddenly from the apparent death of coma. (This was puzzling to those who regarded spasm and paralysis as opposite states; but it showed the catholic applicability of the remedy.)

7. Natural (wrongly termed ” accidental”) hacmorrhages were observed sometimes to end disease. . . . .

8. . . . venesection would cause hamorrhages to cease.
 

.

Does Room Air Reduce Mortality Among Term Neonates Requiring Respiratory Support at Birth?

     

The title of this meta-analysis suggests that it is important for us to have evidence in order to withhold treatments that are based on assumptions and anecdotes, rather than based on evidence. We should not even suggest this. Fortunately, the neonatal resuscitation guidelines have recommended not using the assumption-based and anecdote-based treatment since 2010.

 

Before 2000, resuscitation guidelines recommended 100% Fio2 for newborn respiratory support.6 However, hyperoxemia caused by high Fio2 results in the formation of free radicals, which can damage the lungs, brain, eyes, and other organs.7 Hypoxemia may also lead to harm. Literature in the early 2000s suggested no harm with room air resuscitation in term neonates, but also potentially an improvement in short-term mortality.8 In accordance with this literature, in 2010 and 2015 ILCOR recommended using room air for the initial resuscitation of term neonates.9, 10 [1]
 

The authors of this summary of the meta-analysis qualify this meta-analysis with a list of the weaknesses of the research. This is important for every analysis of research, but is it relevant, when there is no good reason to recommend the traditional intervention?  

According to these results with low evidence certainty, room air reduces short-term mortality compared with 100% Fio2 among term neonates requiring respiratory support at birth. Despite the low-quality evidence, these results are consistent across studies with low heterogeneity. The effect of intermediate Fio2 levels is not known and may benefit from further study. [1]
 

These are not reasons to reconsider, or oppose, the withholding of any treatments that are based on assumptions and anecdotes, rather than based on evidence.

The burden of proof is on those promoting any intervention. In the absence of valid evidence, we should limit ourselves to interventions that are supported by high quality evidence.

For epinephrine in cardiac arrest, there is no high quality evidence of benefit. The highest quality evidence is evidence of harm from epinephrine. The same is true for amiodarone, ventilation in cardiac arrest not due to a respiratory problem, furosemide in ADHF/CHF (Acute Decompensated Heart Failure/Congestive Heart Failure), and many other treatments we provide to patients, but definitely not for the benefit of patients.

We need to stop putting patients last in treatment decisions. The neonatal resuscitation guidelines are correct in their rejection of supplemental oxygen for neonatal resuscitation and the guidelines should not be changed.

Footnotes:

[1] Does Room Air Reduce Mortality Among Term Neonates Requiring Respiratory Support at Birth?

Brit Long, MD (EBEM Commentator), Michael D. April, MD, DPhil (EBEM Commentator) Department of Emergency Medicine, San Antonio Uniformed Services Health Education Consortium, Fort Sam Houston, TX

Annals of Emergency Medicine

October 2019, Volume 74, Issue 4, Pages 509–511

DOI:&nbps;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2019.03.017

Free Full Text from Annals of Emergency Medicine. .