Healt
good luck in your quest.
howevet that is NOT what you said at first. And is NOT what you said when challenged initally:
From the OP “how do you treat a patient from a 1 car accident? “
Note: as opposed to a 2 car accident, and you imply this is currently the standard. You were clearly not asking what should the new protocol be according to my chidush that I have no data for
“It’s a question to refresh people’s memories – how do you treat a patient from a 1 car accident?”
Same implication but stronger. how cna you refresh memoried about your own chidush that you havent shared yet?
“But you’re wrong. It is different than a multi-car crash!”
you meant you believe it should be treated different
“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.”
again how can he research a chidush that only exists in your head?
“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!”
ditto
“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!”
!?!?!?
“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 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.”
No mention that this is your own chiddush
“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”
Strongly Implying that with a multiple car accident you dont need to evaluate for medical and trauma(you said I was lying when I pointed this out)
“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)
“Look I have an EMS book that states -“Trauma – Are there medical causes? (e.g. diabetes, CVA, MI, etc.)””
That wasnt the discussion
Finnaly after a lot of back and forth (in reply to “” is this [ie distinguishing between number of cars] your own chiddush?:)
“My own.” ie you made it up
Then you changed your mind
here “I didn’t make this up”
and bizarrely asserted what you said you made up as fact
“”the idea that a medical cause is more likely when one car is involved,” – This is true.”
and ended with
“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.”
that is NOt what you opened with at all!