I don't drink, but after this thread I understand why it's so appealing to a lot of folk.
I don't drink, but after this thread I understand why it's so appealing to a lot of folk.
Didn't Tissue Crush and Boob Mangler play at Ozzfest a few years ago?
"You win 100% of the fights you avoid. If you're not there when it happens, you don't lose." - William Aprill
"I've owned a guitar for 31 years and that sure hasn't made me a musician, let alone an expert. It's made me a guy who owns a guitar."- BBI
Spending the entire day at work explaining to people why outcomes data >>>>> physiologic plausibility data, then coming back home, logging in here for some relaxation time, and finding this shit is ball crushing. Tissue crushing, I meant to say.
I find it amusing that somebody thinks that a 10 mm hole in a 30 mm aorta will cause a meaningfully and significantly faster drop in MAP than a 9 mm hole. Using the outcomes data, a systematic change from larger Fr intraarterial sheaths to smaller one has been associated with lower rates of vascular complications but not mortality.
Don't answer to my post, I am not interested in this conversation. I have to be back at work 7 am sharp, poking holes in people's arteries and dealing with dropping blood pressures.
Doesn't read posts longer than two paragraphs.
But he did some math on the back of his digital napkin, nevermind that it's the same stuff that's been presented as a new, novel idea and hashed over for literally greater than 20 years, this opinion is worth debating again for the ten-thousandth time! Despite decades of archives by DocGKR, Fackler, and others all over the internet for those that care enough to research. It's easier to play angels dancing on the head of a pin, despite 30 years of LE institutional data showing "we're not seeing a difference in the common service calibers using quality duty-grade ammunition in our Officer Involved Shooting Incidences."