Originally Posted By: paramedicpete
The finding of the HemCon as being no more beneficial than the use of standard gauze does not address if the conditions (trauma wounds) of the test subjects is similar to what is seen with battlefield trauma.


Correct, but my point is that this is not a case of the journalist not understanding the conditions. We'd be talking about the study authors not understanding the conditions.

But of course, we blame the journalist, rather than blaming the Army doctors who performed the studies in question. And we're doing that without actually seeing the studies in question.

Originally Posted By: paramedicpete
Having been involved with animal studies for over 32 years, I can tell you it is not uncommon to eliminate certain study animals from the final study for a number of valid reasons.


I understand that. But failing to disclose that the outlier was discarded, or to give reasons for doing so, casts doubt on the results.

This doesn't mean the reasons were nefarious, as you put it, but there can be legitimate disagreement as to their validity. Particularly if followup studies give different results.

Originally Posted By: paramedicpete
Whether or not HemCom is a valid medical device or not, is really not the issue. The issue is, if the same parameters of testing medical devices, medicines and techniques before implementation in battlefield conditions can be fairly equated with the evaluation process used in civilian medicine.


Well, I guess we agree and disagree.

I agree that the military context is not the same. I agree that the editorial slant adopted in this article, suggesting that the military callously uses soldiers as test subjects, is unfair.

But that is not the issue. The only thing that need concern us, in my view, is whether HemCon is effective -- because whether the US military uses fair evaluation processes is far beyond my control, and frankly, isn't my concern. My concern is what works.

The post I responded to talked about hemostatic agents in general, and mentioned Quick Clot. The article doesn't talk about hemostatic agents in general, or Quick Clot -- it talks about specific agents that have had questionable results.

So while we can quibble about the specifics of the article, the major takeaway lesson -- that we should look to Quick Clot or Celox before HemCon and Wound Stat -- seems to be valid.

(Although frankly, from my reading, I'm not sure any of these belong in your backcountry hiker's first aid kit.)