Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Wolf
Nope it is a befreish Gimatriya!
see here: http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/parashat-vayeshev#post-590341
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!
Joseph
didnt say damaged he said “touched” Of course
Yes I am allowed to touch your fence
Of course if you damage the bumper or fence you have to pay .I dont think Joseph is arguing that point
Because 112 – 103 = 9 which is the numbe rof shevatim present at Yosef’s mechira
Health
“This quote I did Not make up -“Trauma – Are there medical causes? (e.g. diabetes, CVA, MI, etc.)””
I never claimed you did, nor did I say anything different than that quote
“”MORE TO THE POINT only needs to be considered with one car and not with multiple cars.”
I never said that – you’re lying!”
fair enough. I misspoke, that isnt quite what you said. My apologies for that.
“”the idea that a medical cause is more likely when one car is involved,”
This is true.”
Though you admit it is your chidush and not currently in any EMS book,guideline or protocol.
Correct?
I’m not sure what your statistic is supposed to show? That single MVA’s are more common? That isnt what we are discussing.
the discussion is whether the EMS DOES (this is how it was first presented) or should (it kind of shifted to this) take a different approach with regard to managment, based on the number of cars involved
Health
“I didn’t make this up “
um you did.
This wasnt about medical causes leading to trauma.
This was about a difference between managing 1 vs multiple car accidents.
see this quote of yours
“”But you’re wrong. It is different than
a multi-car crash!””
or this one
“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.””
THAT is what we are discussing you said MULTIPLE TIMES that there is a difference between 1 car and multiple cars.
You claimed you read this in a book but cannot supply name of the book.
You finnaly admited when asked
“”Is this what the book said (what book?) or is this your own chiddush? “
That it is in fact:
“My own. “
In other words like many here suspected, the idea that a medical cuase is more likely when one car is involved, and MORE TO THE POINT only needs to be considered with one car and not with multiple cars. Or that – and i quote- “It is different than
a multi-car crash!” (with an exclamation supplied by you btw) is something that you made up.
I am confused. Wnow you say it is in the book-that-must not be named?
“Did you ever look in an EMS book?!?”
no but I always like learning new things. Please tell me which book mentions the distiction between number of cars involved in an accident.
Do you know of one whose “copy infringment” doesnt prevent you from repeating the book’s title?
Lol health
I dont think you know what copy infringment is but at any rate. thanks for admitting that you made this all up.
Nobody was doubting that there can and often are medical causes that can lead to an MVA and should be considered.
The discussion was over this:
“But you’re wrong. It is different than
a multi-car crash!”
and this:
“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.”
Kudos for admiting that it was your own chidush, though I’m not sure why it took you so long to admit that, and I’m not sure how you expected 2scents to research a factoid that only exists in your mind.
Health
what book is that in? (for the third time)
to the crux of the issue:
“”There isn’t time to do it at every MVA, but it’s imperative at least to do it at a 1 car MVA!” “
Is this what the book said (what book?) or is this your own chiddush? (for the fifth time)
Health
You didnt answer my questions:
“Look I have an EMS book that states -“Trauma – Are there medical causes? (e.g. diabetes, CVA, MI, etc.)”
Thanks, thats all I wanted to know. Though name of book please? (a google search only reveals this thread)
“I asked about your degree. What area of medicine are you in? “
Internal medicine. you?
I also liked Feivels question namely the only tjhing we are discussing is a difference in treatment between 1 vs mutliple cars. Not that diabetes, cva etc are causes of trauma.
akuperma
all that is good and well. I was replying to the op’s blanket statement
“I think it’s best frum people stay away from politics. They never can just cater to other frum and the temptations of power can lead to all sorts of negative things. “
(as well as Joseph “Pirkei Avos had something to say on this topic. “)
That there is nothing wrong and it is in fact useful to have frum people in politics (at least on a local level) and I brought an example.
Health
“Anything liberal with Israel or life “
Aderaba! my views on ISrael are quite conservative. And I am not liberal with life at all. Also I’m not sure how not difirentiating betwen the number of cars in an accident as far as treatment goes is being “liberal with life”
No I dont know emergency medicine at all (nor do I pretend to ahem ahem).
“Look I have an EMS book that states -“Trauma – Are there medical causes? (e.g. diabetes, CVA, MI, etc.)”
Thanks, thats all I wanted to know. Though name of book please? (a google search only reveals this thread)
“I asked about your degree. What area of medicine are you in? “
Internal medicine. you?
akuperma
I highly doubt it. why do you ask?
I agree with you on a broad level. BUt having frum politicians on a local level can be and has been useful.
R’ Meir Shapiro z”l served in the Sejm (polish Parliment)
Health
“Are you involved in EMS?”
nope (you aksed that already)
” Whether is with a “h”.””
Thanks though you mean “an h” (2 can play that game).
Thanks for your reply. Very interesting. However I’m inclined to go with PBA (first time!) It think even if what you say is true it is more of a cute factoid than part of any medical algorithm.
Does any EMS actually follow this? Or do you just believe they should?
Is this written anywhere?
I don’t have the answer to your question. But I the netherlands is often called by “the” as is the hague and the Bronx
These can be googled…
Health
I still dont get it. so they both get EKG’s so wether you suspect heart attack or not doesnt really matter. ITs not like either case is having troponins drawn in the field or are they?
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?
In what way is the managment different?
Health
“Are you in EMS? “
Nope.
“Let me explain it further.”
thanks, isnt that why you started the thread?
“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.”
If you dont mind, id like further explanation. SO EKG would be done for a one car accident but not for multi-car?
“You should assume possible driver impairment as the cause of a 1 car accident.
Heart attack, stroke, drug use, drunk, suicide, etc.”
2scents said
“By maintaining and securing ABCs. Taking spinal precautions loading the pt and transporting to a trauma center.
Large bore iV in route. Other treatments would be splinting, needle d, as needed. “
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.
Joseph
i’d be glad to.
Read about the immigration act of 1924. (Which while not based on communist affiliation per se, did heavily restrict immigrants from Eastern Europe)
Dont get to caught up on immigration legislation per se. Since my point was regarding the excuse. People were afraid of communists, Jews were occasionaly communists. Thus they were vary of Jews coming in. This isnt unreasonable. There is a nice wikipedia page on the First Red scare.
of course they were wrong!
Also dont just limit to communists read about the anarchist exclsuion act which became the immigration act of 1918. As you may have guessed many Jews were Anarchists (Emma Goldman comes to mind)
Joseph
sorry that is incorrect. The first red scare took place just after the Russian Revolution in 1919 Led by AG Palmer. In certainly picked up after WW2 but many laws were designed in the 20’s 30’s to prevent Communists from servinf in any fedearal office and – more to the point- prevent immigration of supected Communists
syag
“I was arguing the “blanketness” of your viewpoints”
I have reiterated several times. I am only talking about when deemed safe, i am not talking about a blanket allowance.
Joseph
again while i agree with you, that isnt objective.
Whcih would you rather live in France with its refugees and recent terror attack or the Former Soviet Union?
now granted Its quite far fetched for the U.S. to have turned into the Soviet Union by allowing some refugees even if communist in. however there was mass anti-communist hysteria at the time (as well as a depression)and people were nervous granted the fear was overstated.
But the risk the refugees pose is alos being over-stated. There is a thorough vetting process in place that takes almost 2 years and involves almost every intelligence agency. Tourists pose a greater threat! None of the terror attacks in the US since and including 9/11 have been via the over 700,000 refugees we have taken in since then.
Its getting hard to keep track of all the various postitions. so here they are as I understand them.
My apolagies If Ive misunderstood you. Please correct me and feel free to add categories or add yourself
On the issue of syrian refugees
1) Let as many in as want to come
– nobody here says this
2) Lets as many is as we can safely (and practicly)
– a. Which we can do – Ubiquitin, Sam2, akuperma, Avi K
– b. but impossible – DY, Syag
3) Prevent them from coming – Health, Newbee, Joseph, flatbusher, dbrim
Again please correct me if IVe misunderstood
Joseph
“Mass murdering terrorists are far far worse than commie sympathizers.”
I agree completly. But they may not have
“And it is fairly easy to determine if a refugee is Jewish or not”
how on Earth. Sadly most werent frum they were coming From Germany?
Syag
I turned a phrase to make a point (pretty cleverly if I may say so 🙂
Lest anyone think it was unsuccesful. Let’s do it again
“Besides differences in political, ideological, social, economic variables, etc.,”
Care to elaborate?
” bear in mind that the 1930’s the was pre-terror, pre 9/11 world.”
Yes but they had their concerns Communism, anarchist (many of whom were Jewish) and the possibility of Nazi Spies infiltrating the refugees
“Anyway, if we want to consider the issue from an empirical perspective, meaning what happens when the flow of muslim migrants enters a foreign country, we don’t have to look any further than Europe – and it’s not pretty.”
In what sense?
(See my new thread for related discussion)
” Chayecha Kodmin.”
This part I agree with. And Am only reffering to where the neccesary agencies feel it is safe.
“is an apples-elephants comparison”
Maskim, because you like apples but not elephants. However that shouldnt be a factor in doing whats right, and who knows what if apples were to become unpopular again
Your point has been addressed numerous times
Newbee
“Well said.”
What was well said? both of the lines before that are my answers to you
Which answer do you accept?
If a meshulach asks me for money, Do you think my replying well I cant help you there are lots of needy people out there is a valid reply?
none of the groups you mentioned are facing death to nearly the same extent (with the possible exception of Africa). It is estimated that around 200,000 people have been killed over the past few years alone.
“First of all Syria is not Nazi Germany performing genocide.”
a) when the st. Louis was sent back there was no genocide in Germany yet. Do you think the US was right to send them back?
b) So you agree that victims of Genocide can come? seems arbitrary but ok I can live with that
“Second they should be going to other ISLAMIC COUNTRIES. “
a) Many of the refugees arent Muslim which is part of the problem and partly what is driving the campaign of violence against them (keep this in mind when you answer “b” above it is a trap)
b) Sadly many of the Islamic countries arent willing to take them
As for your question. Even though it is a new topic and doesnt affect the syrian refugees as I replied earlier. I’ll answer directly
“should we not take all of those people into the US?”
No, much as we shouldnt take all Syrians and shouldnt have taken all Jews in the 30’s. But yes we should (and often do) take what we can.
Please note we arent talking about throwing open the border and letting anybody from Syria in the re is a long vetting process that can take up to 2 years.
Which is why Health’s comment is silly so hopefully you wont agree with it. It is a lot easier to get in a tourist! So leaving syrians to their death wont even prevent what is “happening/happened in Europe will happen here.” The much easier/quicker way in is still open to terrorists. Of the >700,000 refugees allowed in over the past decade 4 were arrested for anything terrorist related (and only one directed against the U.S. On the other hand NONE of the 19 terrorists on 9/11 where refugees!
Now that I answered your question would you be so kind as to answer mine. Here they are again: edited – please be respectful to those you are debating
1. Is it a valid response to tell one meshulach, I cant elp you becasue there are lots of other meshulachim out there?
2. In 1939 before any systematic genocide was taking place Do you think the U.S. was justified in sending back the St. Louis
3. Would you allow those facing Genocide asylum in the U.S. (again, and this goes without saying and is a prerequisite to my point, only if deemed safe by a thorough vetting process
DY
I’m sorry I’ll try to be clearer.
If i would tell a meshulach, “I’m sorry I cant help you since there are lots of meshulachim out there”. You would (I assume) correctly say what does that have to do with anything. He needs help, help him who cares if you cant help other people.
Thus the fact that there are “millions and millions of latinos, chinese, koreans, africans, and indians etc that desperately want to come to the US” is completley irrelevant to the subject at hand. Sure we can start a new thread to discuss those people, but this thread isnt about them.
As for the St. Louis. It is entirely relevant for two reasons:
1) because that is PRECISELY my point. That we the descendants of those who were denied entry should be extra careful, extremly compassionate, and be sure to exhaust all possibilities before denying that freedom to others. THIS IS ONE OF MY MAIN POINTS (not yelling, just for emphasis) as I have outlined here http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/banning-syrian-refugees-from-the-us/page/2#post-589144
2) As a direct response to Newbee’s question (even if it was relevant) I am asking if had that excuse been used against us eg “We’d love to take you out of Hitler’s Germany but what about all the millions and millions of latinos, chinese, koreans, africans, and indians etc that desperately want to come to the US” would he accept it. and say good point, I guess the U.S. was right to sent back the St. Louis
DY
First of all that is one of the very two points I am making see here where I outline them http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/banning-syrian-refugees-from-the-us/page/2#post-589144 so it is quite relevant.
and second of all Those are both my points! If you think the St. Louis isnt relevant then you agree with my answer 1 to Newbee. If you think it is relevant then the question is a valid reply to newbee’s point.
Either way Newbee’s question is addressed.
newbee
“I am curious to know if anyone actually living in a place that the refugees would start living could weigh in on this”
i live in NYC. you can bet they’ll end up here.
“I want to know why we can’t allow in the millions and millions of latinos, chinese, koreans, africans, and indians etc that desperately want to come to the US but cant. I dont think its fair.”
1) Start a new thread, how does that affect the issue at hand
2) Most of those arent facing death
3)Would you accept that as a reason for the Us to have turned back the St. louis in 39?
mdd
“The case has been proven”
What case? and proven how?
with what point do you disagree.
Again keep in mind i am only talking about cases where they can be vetted properly. With Israel there is a seperate demographic issue which is why only a token could be considred (Netanyahu said the same though he said not even a token, Herzog said to take some).