Reply To: Treatment

Home Forums In The News Treatment Reply To: Treatment

#1116912
ubiquitin
Participant

Health

“Do you know the purpose of this thread?”

Yes you said it pretty early

“Ah, but there is a difference! [between number of cars involved] Nothing to do with a MCI. This was the purpose of this thread.”

Youve repeated it several times:

“”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””

These are YOUR quotes.

You were not “dealing with the reality that they dont” at least that isnt what you said.

You also said that it was something that could be “researched” i.e. that it wasnt your own chiddush – turns out that too is a lie

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

“When are you gonna Man up & admit that you’re Wrong?!?”

About which part was I wrong?

If I’m wrong I admit it see here:

“fair enough. I misspoke, that isnt quite what you said. My apologies for that.” (though it was in fact what you said, I grant that it wasnt what you meant. ( regarding this: “”MORE TO THE POINT only needs to be considered with one car and not with multiple cars.”

I never said that – you’re lying!”, here is where you said 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!””)