10-4 Pete, we're tracking.

The complaining about the effectiveness of tools like HemCon, QuickClot and more usually leaves out the 2 most important factors: context and training.

Context is important because these tools don't reveal their full value with wounds that respond reliably to gauze, direct pressure and tourniquets. Using these advanced tools on such wounds is like using a Cray supercomputer for a boat anchor: it works but performs no better than a hunk of steel. The headlines would read "Billons in computer research funds wasted; Cray anchor no more effective than steel anchors!". It's when that hot little AK47 round sneaks deeply into the groin, too high for a tourniquet, that the hemostatics begin to shine. Sure, you follow it with Kerlix but the hemostatic makes a real difference.

Training is important because if you don't use the tool properly, it doesn't do the job. Early on, soldiers would just dump QuikClot onto the surface of a deep arterial bleed. They wouldn't get it down to the bleeder, and they wouldn't back it up with direct pressure via Kerlix packing and pressure bandages. So the story was "QuikClot a failure!". Wrong.

Bottom line, the article is written by a journalist who doesn't really understand the world he's writing about. Many journalists (especially the activist types) are just louder versions of know-nothing people who want things both ways: full, thorough reviews of new procedures, but have it done yesterday... and for free. They love to gin up suspicion and mistrust. And many adhere to Rahm Emmanuel's advice to "never let a good crisis go to waste".

I spent some time this weekend talking with an 18D instructor and heard from the horse's mouth how the trauma care developed by the military over the last few years has saved many, many lives. And when I say "horse's mouth", I mean a warfighter who was there doing the deed (both delivering and treating trauma), not a disgruntled Army surgeon with wounded pride.

I'm not saying the military is perfect and blameless. But I suspect that if the military followed the review procedure quoted by the author ("The same process at the Department of Veterans Affairs involves up to 19 steps, including multiple reviews by independent committees"), the headline would instead be "Military drags feet on lifesaving procedures, lets soldiers die needlessly!".