QuickClot, Tourniquet, or Both?

[SGT_Calle]

When I was in Afghanistan last year, everyone was issued a combat gauze packet to keep in their IFAK. I can tell you for a fact that the military is NOT going away from these kinds of hemostatics. I can also tell you that QuickClot Combat Gauze is not thermogenic, unless every medic who ever taught CLS re-certification courses I have sat through is a liar or an idiot.

The information given to you by this Baltimore doctor is counter to these verifiable facts. That means he is wrong. If he is wrong because he hasn't bothered to get updated training and is still making decisions based on information that was outdated years ago, then I agree with DocGKR. This guy sounds like an ignorant moron. He should update his program of instruction because it just might save someone's life.

I remember in '06 getting our IFAKs supplemented with that patch thing that you were supposed to cut into smaller pieces. Also, not for use on Soldiers allergic to shellfish, lol.

[Joseph B.]

I remember in '06 getting our IFAKs supplemented with that patch thing that you were supposed to cut into smaller pieces. Also, not for use on Soldiers allergic to shellfish, lol.

Hemcon bandage, looked like a small 3x4" pad covered with foil wrapper. I am pretty sure I still have 3 or 4 sitting in my black box. Those things sucked, the QC combat gauze is way better.

[DocGKR]

"the QC combat gauze is way better"

Yup.

[Dogtown]

Hemcon bandage, looked like a small 3x4" pad covered with foil wrapper. I am pretty sure I still have 3 or 4 sitting in my black box. Those things sucked, the QC combat gauze is way better.

I was issued Celox in 07 or 08 (along with Hemcom.) More recent training was with Combat Gauze, though.

Did Celox fall out of favor?

[Joseph B.]

Not that I am aware of, I know a couple of 18D's that prefer/recommend it over combat gauze. I know TCCC is recommending QC combat gauze, but I have not seen anything say Celox is not recommend, etc.

[cclaxton]

The argument is that you posted inaccurate information, using a proxy of a class instructor and his medical director, and attempted to defend their statements, when you are not even qualified to form an opinion on the subject in the first place.

My posting was not to attack you or the class/trainer, etc. It was to offer enlightenment from a person has been trained for years on this exact subject, in one of the best programs in the world, and I have actually used it on the ground in Iraq. I am not an expert by any means, but I would not put myself in the "ignorant" group of this subject.

Your point of view is that you are not going to listen to anyone on here, who are trying to help you, is perfectly clear. I will not offer any more opinions or advice to you....good luck!

I was the messenger. I am trying to decide for myself given all the facts and professional opinions. I didn't defend the Baltimore doctor's statements. I simply think calling anyone an ignorant moron is wrong. It doesn't help. Bad manners too. In fact it starts a fight and creates enemies. If you want to get someone to change their position then show them the facts. We live in civil society, not a barroom or WWF arena.
CC


Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

[Dropkick]

We live in civil society, not a barroom or WWF arena.

This -is- the internet, bro.

[ToddG]

I simply think calling anyone an ignorant moron is wrong.

I simply think being an ignorant moron is wrong. It's more wrong when he makes declarations from on high that will affect the treatment -- and therefore lives -- of countless trauma patients.

No one should ever feel like it's rude to question medical advice or the opinion of a single doctor. Especially when, as in this case, the doctor in question appears utterly and completely out of his lane.

[Josh Runkle]

#1: the doctor in question is said to be a medical director. While he may not have the latest facts, he's definitely not "out of his lane". It is LITERALLY his job to give his opinions on emergency procedures. Someone may be WAY more informed than him, yet it does not mean that he should shut up. It doesn't even mean he is misinformed, it means that he is under-informed. That's the whole point of peer-review. To put forth what you know so that others can review and help you change it.

#2: I think DOCGKR is right on this issue as far as the science goes. Time and time again, he only offers his opinion on things that he is superbly educated about.

#3: Ad Hominem, ie: personally attacking the doctor as a "moron" rather than simply addressing why he is wrong doesn't really add any value to conversation. While that may be a personal opinion about that doctor (I'm assuming he is personally known), it doesn't add value towards changing the minds of people on the forum to support a different position, which may be the better one, because they get offended over the personal attack.

[DocGKR]

Again, it is the JOB of the medical director to KNOW this material and NOT regurgitate out of date misinformation from a decade ago. If he does not know how to do his job, if he does not keep up to date on crucial life saving information, if his ignorant comments result in needless deaths, then how should this person be described? What if it was your child or loved one who died as a result of his patently false statements? I get a bit indignant when purported professionals do not adequately do their jobs and properly serve the public they are entrusted to protect...