Health

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 50 posts - 4,151 through 4,200 (of 10,592 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Treatment #1116906
    Health
    Participant

    Here from Avram -“research what? and where”

    “So as a simplistic model, let’s say that 20% of the people who cause wrecks do so because they are impaired in some way, and 0% of the people involved who didn’t cause it are impaired. Next, you have two incidents, a single car (1-occupant) crash, and a crash involving two vehicles (1-occupant per vehicle). In each crash, there is one injury. For the single car crash, there is a 100% chance that you are transporting the person who caused the wreck, so there is a 20% chance of impairment. In the second case, there is only a 50% chance that you are transporting the person who caused the wreck, so there is only a 10% chance of impairment

    in reply to: Treatment #1116905
    Health
    Participant

    2scents – “From your posts its noticeable that you are not experienced in emergency medicine.”

    Why do you think that? Because you’re incompetent?

    “The fact that you found a sentence in some EMT book stating, Trauma are there medical causes, has nothing to do with an MVA”

    So a MVA is Not in the category of Trauma??? Say that again.

    “and of course not with a single car MVA vs multi car”

    I already posted to Ubiq the difference:

    “From IIHS: Deaths from single MVA’s 2013 – 10,950

    *********Deaths from multiple MVA’s 2013 – 10,318

    You should read all the posts, before responding to s/o!

    in reply to: Treatment #1116901
    Health
    Participant

    Ubiq -“More change! This is how YOU opened : “For the health professionals on YWN – “

    I never said which “health professionals”!

    “to expose your dishonesty”

    You’re the one who’s dishonest!

    “so why did you pretned this was the protocol?”

    Stop with the lying! I never pretended that this was protocol!

    “Its for the big bucks and lavish lifestyle!”

    This I believe!

    “! you outright said (several times) that there IS a difference between the two.”

    And I still say that!

    “This is the FIRST time youve said this.”

    Stop with your lying! I already said it on page 2 and I quote -“Trauma – Are there medical causes? (e.g. diabetes, CVA, MI, etc.)”

    in reply to: Treatment #1116899
    Health
    Participant

    Mod 80 -“Why not modify the protocol according to the time of day. Not the number of vehicles?”

    My last post to you was answering your question, nothing more – nothing less!

    And for the umpteen time, all trauma calls have to be evaluated as if the’re a medical issue also!!!

    in reply to: Treatment #1116898
    Health
    Participant

    Ubiq – What you don’t understand or want to understand is that there should be no difference in treatment. You claim that you’re into internal medicine. This post was for s/o in emergency medicine.

    I really think that you have an agenda? What is it?

    “But let’s say the pt. is unconscious, in a single car situation – you’d follow the AMS protocol, but not with a multi-car crash!”

    Same strong implication as above (actually I dont think this is an implication in this quote you outright said it)”

    The fact is no one that I’ve seen or know about follows this as medical call. I was pointing out that at least it should be treated as such when it’s a single MVA!

    You definitely have an agenda, probably just to put me down!

    I don’t think you care about pts, so why are you in the medical field?!?

    in reply to: Charliehall? #1219822
    Health
    Participant

    It’s disgusting how he blames the right wing for California terrorist attacks. In fact, it’s the liberal policies that contributed to make it easy for terrorists here in the US!

    in reply to: Treatment #1116896
    Health
    Participant

    Feivel -“What though makes you think an impaired driver in traffic is more likely to veer off the road and hit a pole or something rather than hit another car or cause another car to hit him?”

    Not “in traffic”! From my personal experience, the impaired driver (e.g. a drunk), after the bar closes, go into their car. At this time it’s late at night when there is no or not a lot of traffic around.

    But you’re right – it’s not more likely to hit a tree than a car when there is traffic around!

    in reply to: Treatment #1116893
    Health
    Participant

    Ubiq -“Though you admit it is your chidush and not currently in any EMS book,guideline or protocol.

    Correct?”

    I’m not trying to change the protocol that EMS shouldn’t seek for medical causes at every trauma, but I’m trying to find a solution that can be feasible! The reality is that they don’t seek for medical causes at every trauma.

    in reply to: Treatment #1116891
    Health
    Participant

    Ubiq – This quote I did Not make up -“Trauma – Are there medical causes? (e.g. diabetes, CVA, MI, etc.)”

    “MORE TO THE POINT only needs to be considered with one car and not with multiple cars.”

    I never said that – you’re lying!

    “the idea that a medical cuase is more likely when one car is involved,”

    This is true.

    “THAT is what we are discussing you said MULTIPLE TIMES that there is a difference between 1 car and multiple cars.”

    True!

    “From IIHS: Deaths from single MVA’s 2013 – 10,950

    *********Deaths from multiple MVA’s 2013 – 10,318″

    in reply to: Treatment #1116887
    Health
    Participant

    Feivel -“Your transparent attempt to maintain credibility by innapropriate ubiquitous exclamation marks was not successful.”

    Excuse me. The only things that I ever put in exclamation marks was something quoted from elsewhere or that me or others have already posted on YWN!

    in reply to: Treatment #1116885
    Health
    Participant

    Ubiq -“thanks for admitting that you made this all up.”

    I didn’t make this up -“Trauma – Are there medical causes? (e.g. diabetes, CVA, MI, etc.)” Did you ever look in an EMS book?!?

    in reply to: Treatment #1116882
    Health
    Participant

    Mod 80 -“I think your solution is very intriguing (although in my opinion it is not correct).”

    Like I said before -“I was giving a workable solution for EMS & Hatzolah. Do you have a better solution?”

    If you don’t believe me that’s a problem go videotape 100 MVA’s!

    in reply to: Treatment #1116878
    Health
    Participant

    2scents – See my last post to Mod 80.

    It applies to you too!

    in reply to: Treatment #1116876
    Health
    Participant

    Mod 80 -“Yes you have to consider medical causes. Everyone here agrees to this and we don’t need a source.”

    The fact is – no one does!

    “Now if you will please answer the question we all keep asking you.

    WHAT IS YOUR SOURCE FOR DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN SINGLE AND MULTIPLE VEHICULAR ACCIDENTS?”

    See my post to Ubiq! I was giving a workable solution for EMS & Hatzolah. Do you have a better solution?

    in reply to: Treatment #1116875
    Health
    Participant

    Ubiq -“what book is that in? (for the third time)”

    I can’t tell you – Copy infringement.

    “Is this what the book said (what book?) or is this your own chiddush? (for the fifth time)”

    My own.

    in reply to: Treatment #1116868
    Health
    Participant

    Mod-80 -“QUESTION FOR HEALTH TO ANSWER: What is the source of your statement that proper EMS protocol is to approach the evaluation of the victims differently when dealing with a single vehicle accident as opposed to a multi vehicle accident?”

    I already dealt with this -“Trauma – Are there medical causes? (e.g. diabetes, CVA, MI, etc.)”

    “I skipped the rest of the whole algorithm. There isn’t time to do it at every MVA, but it’s imperative at least to do it at a 1 car MVA!”

    IDK if you have treated accident victims, but I have.

    The book says -“Trauma – Are there medical causes? (e.g. diabetes, CVA, MI, etc.)”

    I haven’t seen anyone look for medical causes in MVA’s. From before – “There isn’t time to do it at every MVA, but it’s imperative at least to do it at a 1 car MVA!”

    in reply to: Treatment #1116867
    Health
    Participant

    SL -“well i am not a doctor, but i play one on tv”

    I doubt it! Actresses have a nice personality.

    in reply to: Treatment #1116860
    Health
    Participant

    To E/O: My posts were put up after yours. Reread my posts and if something is still bothering you, rephase the question(s).

    in reply to: Seforim Trailer In Lakeood #1116269
    Health
    Participant

    Sbeph – he now advertises in the Lakewood weeklies that he organises functions, e.g. Yeshiva dinners.

    in reply to: Treatment #1116854
    Health
    Participant

    2scents -“Mr Health, the probability is your own logic, is there any studies or assessment protocols that state this?”

    IDK if my last post was up yet to Ubiq, if it was and something is still bothering you, rephase the question.

    in reply to: Treatment #1116853
    Health
    Participant

    PBA -“It isn’t fair for you to ask someone at their medical degree is, when you’ve refused to tell us your degree for the past 5 years, and just insisted you are in a “medical field””

    It has been pretty obvious that I’ve been in EMS, once upon a time. But I’ve also stated that I’ve been in other areas of medicine. So it’s a fair question to ask what area of medicine are you in!?!

    in reply to: Treatment #1116850
    Health
    Participant

    Ubiq -“Thanks for your reply. Very interesting. However I’m inclined to go with PBA (first time!)”

    I’m not surprised. Anything liberal with Israel or life – you go for!

    “It think even if what you say is true it is more of a cute factoid than part of any medical algorithm.”

    I asked about your degree. What area of medicine are you in? You obviously don’t know emergency medicine!

    Look I have an EMS book that states -“Trauma – Are there medical causes? (e.g. diabetes, CVA, MI, etc.)”

    I skipped the rest of the whole algorithm. There isn’t time to do it at every MVA, but it’s imperative at least to do it at a 1 car MVA!

    in reply to: Treatment #1116849
    Health
    Participant

    2scents -“However it could very much be that more single car crashes are the result of an underlying medical, yet this does not make any two car MVA to be excluded from this suspicion”

    I already addressed this – Could imply is Not the same thing as probably!

    in reply to: Treatment #1116845
    Health
    Participant

    Ubiq -“I still dont get it. so they both get EKG’s so wether you suspect heart attack or not doesnt really matter.”

    It sounds like you’re in the medical field – what’s your degree in? Are you involved in EMS? Whether is with a “h”.

    “ITs not like either case is having troponins drawn in the field or are they?”

    They could be, but I don’t know of any EMS org. that actually does it!

    “Do you only check fingerstick with one vehicle?

    If the driver has pinpoint pupils, barely breathing would you only give narcan if only one vehicle was involved?”

    If there was AMS you’d give narcan with one vehicle, even if the pt. had normal breathing and normal pupils!

    “In what way is the managment different?”

    See above.

    in reply to: Treatment #1116843
    Health
    Participant

    PBA -“In any two car crash, there’s a high likelihood that one car caused it, which could imply an underlying medical cause.”

    Could imply is Not the same thing as probably! Look – go back to your jokes on this thread. At least they make some sense!

    in reply to: Treatment #1116841
    Health
    Participant

    Ubiq -“If you dont mind, id like further explanation. SO EKG would be done for a one car accident but not for multi-car?”

    An EKG would be done regardless. (If you’re ALS.) But let’s say the pt. is unconscious, in a single car situation – you’d follow the AMS protocol, but not with a multi-car crash!

    Pay attention 2scents!

    in reply to: Treatment #1116839
    Health
    Participant

    Ubic -“I’m confused whihc of the above take precedence over ABC’s (or CAB’s)? Even if you had high suspicion of Heart attack, as far as I”m aware CAB’s still come first then you can decide whether to go to trauma center or one with PCI in the unlikely event that you cant find a facility with both.”

    Are you in EMS? Let me explain it further. First you do ABC or CAB, then evaluate. The point I was making is that you evaluate for both medical & trauma at the same time. This is only for a single car accident.

    in reply to: Treatment #1116826
    Health
    Participant

    PBA & 2scents – “I thought of that, but doesn’t driver impairment also cause 2-car crashes?”

    In any car crash, even though there’s the possibility of a medical cause, it’s Not probable!

    But in 1 car crash, it has to be treated as a medical call, along with trauma.

    in reply to: Treatment #1116824
    Health
    Participant

    Mod 80 -“You should assume possible driver impairment as the cause of a 1 car accident.

    Heart attack, stroke, drug use, drunk, suicide, etc.”

    Congrats! Now I believe that you’re a doc. Does anybody remember AEIOU-TIPS?

    in reply to: Treatment #1116815
    Health
    Participant

    SL -“would you like to hear what i would have said if i wasn’t judging you favorably?”

    Actually I’m not interested in your opinion whether you judge me favorably or not. Btw, is Little Froggie your son?

    in reply to: Treatment #1116813
    Health
    Participant

    Profound 101 – That’s not what I want. Look there is a difference in the assessment between a 1 car accident and a multi- car crash. How do you assess a pt. who’s a victim with no other cars around?

    in reply to: Seforim Trailer In Lakeood #1116267
    Health
    Participant

    Sbeph – he doesn’t do it anymore. What? – do you owe him $ ???

    in reply to: Treatment #1116811
    Health
    Participant

    SL – “they may care very much but not be interested in the way you approach people. plus they may have mentors they can go to, why assume they don’t care because they don’t take you up on the offer?”

    Boy the way you jumped on my post – you didn’t have time to read it! Your assumption of why I wrote – “I haven’t come across too many guys in EMS whether Jew or not, that really care!” is really funny, if it wasn’t so sad. And you’re the one always giving Musser about Judging People Favorly.

    in reply to: Treatment #1116809
    Health
    Participant

    2scents -“You make it sound as if your an attending ER doc in some trauma center and its only you that knows something, you dont come across as someone in the know.”

    I’m not an ER doctor, but I do know medicine. BTW, I don’t care how I come across. If you’re truly interested in knowing – let me know. I haven’t come across too many guys in EMS whether Jew or not, that really care!

    in reply to: Treatment #1116807
    Health
    Participant

    2scents -“That is incorrect, there is no difference.”

    There is a difference. I’m not Mechuav to teach you medicine. I was nice enough to get you started. If you show me that you’re trying, I’ll help you out. Even if I don’t get any money from you!

    in reply to: Treatment #1116804
    Health
    Participant

    profound101 -“DRSABCD”

    How about you? Or you only give Musser about music?!?

    in reply to: Treatment #1116803
    Health
    Participant

    2scents – Look there is a difference in the assessment between a 1 car accident and a multi- car crash. And I thought you were getting close. Go research it!

    in reply to: Treatment #1116801
    Health
    Participant

    2scents -“There is no difference in treating a pt that was involved in a one car accident vs a multi car accident, unless it becomes an MCI”

    Ah, but there is a difference! Nothing to do with a MCI. This was the purpose of this thread.

    Go research it & then come back and let us know what you found out.

    in reply to: Treatment #1116799
    Health
    Participant

    2scents -“No different than a pt from a multi car accident.

    If you are referring to EMS (usually the ones treating pts at car accidents”

    Now s/o is getting warmer! But you’re wrong. It is different than

    a multi-car crash!

    in reply to: Treatment #1116798
    Health
    Participant

    Yidd23 -“Isn’t it strange that Health is disturbed by Popa’s taking the patient out of the car”

    Because people will take this seriously. The rest – probably not!

    in reply to: Treatment #1116797
    Health
    Participant

    PBA -“If you put it in the trunk, you won’t be able to get it.”

    Put it in the trunk. If you see a car on fire – you can help out!

    in reply to: Treatment #1116796
    Health
    Participant

    Gamanit -“You were referring to the accident on the front page. Being as there was severe bleeding, there’s no time for a KED”

    I was referring to that case or something similar. No where does it say anything about bleeding. Where you there?

    in reply to: Treatment #1116790
    Health
    Participant

    LF -“Very often these things burst into flames r”l.. and every second counts… One is sitting directly above a can of gasoline, unless it’s horse driven, and a collision r”l is a common cause for eruption.”

    I’m not saying that no cars catch on fire after a crash, but it’s rare. As much as the Frum world doesn’t watch TV, they are influenced by it.

    Don’t move the victim! E/O should carry a fire extinguisher in their homes & in their vehicles.

    in reply to: Treatment #1116786
    Health
    Participant

    Yidd23 -“PBA is assuming that all cars are either on fire or about to blow up.”

    Unfortunately a lot of people think that! One of the rules in Medicine is “First – Do no harm!”

    Leave them in there until a professional takes them out.

    in reply to: Treatment #1116784
    Health
    Participant

    PBA – I know you’re joking, but for e/o else -“But if patient is in a car from a car crash that could blow up, you yank them out of the car fast”

    There is no reason to yank them out of the car fast, unless the car is on fire!

    in reply to: Treatment #1116782
    Health
    Participant

    Gamanit -“I will perform a rapid extraction,”

    What? Why would you do that?!?

    in reply to: Treatment #1116781
    Health
    Participant

    Charlie -“Call 911 or Hatzalah.

    Not even a shilah”

    You didn’t even bother to read the OP – “For the health professionals on YWN”! You’re EMS or Hatzolah or another medical guy.

    in reply to: Treatment #1116779
    Health
    Participant

    Joe – “Sedate him.”

    By talking to him/her, not with medication.

    in reply to: Hair Loss with Yeshiva Guys #1170632
    Health
    Participant

    From a medical handbook:

    Typical male pattern baldness involves a receding hairline and thinning around the crown with eventual bald spots. Ultimately, you may have only a horseshoe ring of hair around the sides. In addition to genes, male-pattern baldness seems to need the male hormone, testosterone. Men who do not produce testosterone (because of genetic abnormalities or castration) do not develop this pattern of baldness.

    Women – Some women also develop a particular pattern of hair loss due to genetics, age, and male hormones (which tend to increase in women after menopause). The pattern is different from that of men. Female pattern baldness involves a thinning throughout the scalp. The front hairline generally remains intact.

    in reply to: Hair Loss with Yeshiva Guys #1170629
    Health
    Participant

    DY -“If Joseph’s right that I’m not bald, does that mean I don’t have hormones”

    Just means that you have a lot of female hormones & Not a lot of male hormones!

Viewing 50 posts - 4,151 through 4,200 (of 10,592 total)