Inaccuracies?

[Gyrfalcon]

Don't know if this should be under "firearms" or "first aid," or both.

Reading through the AAOS 68W Combat Medic Manual, I can only stop and think, "What else are they wrong about," when I read "Assault rifle (M-16, AK-47): This may be the most commonly utilized military weapon, and is the weapon of most infantry and snipers. The average assault rifle uses a 7.62-mm NATO round an extremely high-velocity bullet. Muzzle velocities are greater than 3,000 feet per second (fps) and they can fire up to 800 to 900 rounds per minute. This is a shoulder-fired weapon."

One paragraph, so many problems. Yes, a "sniper" can use one of those rifles, if a "sniper" means "someone hiding while firing a weapon."
An assault rifle, meaning a select-fire weapon with an intermediate cartridge, certainly doesn't fire a 7.62x51, by any account except theirs. Nor is the NATO standard above 3,000 FPS for 7.62 NATO, and the 7.62x39 round doesn't even come close to 3000 FPS.

I wonder if this is just the result of an author who is extremely skilled in the medical field and simply has little understanding of firearms classifications or ballistics, or if the book is also peppered with medical falsehoods.

[Liff]

.... or if the book is also peppered with medical falsehoods.

Every medical book in print is peppered with medical falsehoods.

We used to bleed people. We used to think hysteria was caused be a wandering uterus (the name of the operation that removes the uterus is called an ...). We used to think smoking cigarettes wasn't harmful. We used to think replacing estrogen post menopause was a great idea. We used to think that using alpha blockers to control high blood pressure was a good idea. We used to use Ritalin and amphetamines for depression.

The list goes on and on, but I shudder to think how stupid and backwards my medical "knowledge" will be in 50 years. Or in 100 years how those people will look back 50 years at the ignorance of medical knowledge.

There are no absolutes in medicine. Including that statement. If you can't think and reason with the best resources and experience you have, then you and your patient are screwed.

[IANMCDEVITT]

Liff's right.

[Gyrfalcon]

.... or if the book is also peppered with medical falsehoods.

Every medical book in print is peppered with medical falsehoods.

We used to bleed people. We used to think hysteria was caused be a wandering uterus (the name of the operation that removes the uterus is called an ...). We used to think smoking cigarettes wasn't harmful. We used to think replacing estrogen post menopause was a great idea. We used to think that using alpha blockers to control high blood pressure was a good idea. We used to use Ritalin and amphetamines for depression.

The list goes on and on, but I shudder to think how stupid and backwards my medical "knowledge" will be in 50 years. Or in 100 years how those people will look back 50 years at the ignorance of medical knowledge.

There are no absolutes in medicine. Including that statement. If you can't think and reason with the best resources and experience you have, then you and your patient are screwed.

It's called a "hysterectomy," and it's because "hystera" is Greek for "womb." Add the suffix "ektomia," and it's the cutting out of the womb. So what's the problem with the term "hysterectomy?"

While most of what you said is true, it's not comparable to the issue I brought up. What would be comparable would be the book stating that a warm compress with no compression on a newly-sprained ankle helps reduce swelling and speed recovery time, while the polar opposite is empirically proven (and thus absolutely) true. Better treatments may be discovered, but the notion that cold packs and compression are better than warm compresses and no compression has been empirically verified.

Not to mention that bleeding and leeches are sometimes of real medical value to this day.

[Liff]

While most of what you said is true, it's not comparable to the issue I brought up.

It seems like the point that you brought up was,

I wonder if this is just the result of an author who is extremely skilled in the medical field and simply has little understanding of firearms classifications or ballistics, or if the book is also peppered with medical falsehoods.

It seems like I directly answered the point you brought up.

It's called a "hysterectomy," and it's because "hystera" is Greek for "womb." Add the suffix "ektomia," and it's the cutting out of the womb. So what's the problem with the term "hysterectomy?"

Maybe it is that men physically can not become hysterical? Or what the treatments for hysterical episodes used to be? (Look it up.) Ignorance and sexism at work in the educated medical community that at one point in time, you could reference. You not understanding that point is probably not the fault of sexism.

Not to mention that bleeding and leeches are sometimes of real medical value to this day.

Do you honestly think that is what I meant? Seriously? For reals?


You brought up the validity of our resources, specifically that manual. All manuals are flawed, use the best you can find, double check those references with other references and your experience. Be open to changing your mind and admitting "truths" you held are not set in stone.


Why do I feel like I am playing chess with a pigeon?

[abelru]

Why do I feel like I am playing chess with a pigeon?

So....what is the best fish antibiotic for GSW and mega-trauma care?

[LyraJean]

I thought that's why they call it practicing medicine.

[Gyrfalcon]

While most of what you said is true, it's not comparable to the issue I brought up.

It seems like the point that you brought up was,

I wonder if this is just the result of an author who is extremely skilled in the medical field and simply has little understanding of firearms classifications or ballistics, or if the book is also peppered with medical falsehoods.

It seems like I directly answered the point you brought up.

I don't think you're picking up what I'm laying down. Dig it:

1. There are obvious falsehoods in the medical textbook's discussion of firearms.
2. We know, in this day and age, without any reference to the past, that these statements made about firearms are inaccurate.
3. I was asking if anyone knew, in this day and age, if there are obvious glaring falsehoods in this modern medical textbook about current medical care protocols. NOT compared to the past, but compared to practices or information in this particular book that are, today, in this era, obviously contrary to the practices accepted by today's modern medicine.

It's called a "hysterectomy," and it's because "hystera" is Greek for "womb." Add the suffix "ektomia," and it's the cutting out of the womb. So what's the problem with the term "hysterectomy?"

="Liff"]Maybe it is that men physically can not become hysterical? Or what the treatments for hysterical episodes used to be? (Look it up.) Ignorance and sexism at work in the educated medical community that at one point in time, you could reference. You not understanding that point is probably not the fault of sexism.

You indicated that "hysterectomy" was an archaic and sexist term. If it is simply Greek for "cutting out the womb," why is it sexist? "hystera," meaning simply "womb," predated the term "hysterical," which was coined by a PhD, in much more modern times. Now, if you want to say that "hysterical" is sexist, or that some hysterectomies were performed because of sexist ideas and bad science, I will agree with you. But how can you possibly claim that "hysterectomy" is itself a sexist term?

You brought up the validity of our resources, specifically that manual. All manuals are flawed, use the best you can find, double check those references with other references and your experience. Be open to changing your mind and admitting "truths" you held are not set in stone.

I do not deny this, and I never asserted it. See above.

Why do I feel like I am playing chess with a pigeon?

Probably because you didn't understand what I was actually asking. And when I asked you a question, you didn't respond to it, but instead responded to some other question that I never asked, which made you even more confused.

[IANMCDEVITT]

First. Your initial query was right. You probably are posting in the wrong forum......... Second. There probably aren't glaring inaccuracies, but their are fifteenth opinions about treatment plans? Cool?

[PotatoMuncher]

Wanna see some real medical inaccuracies? Go try to get your EFMB after being a line medic for a few years. It'll blow your mind. It's no wonder why you really only see hospital and clinic medics wearing them.

[RESCUE-K9]

.... or if the book is also peppered with medical falsehoods.

Every medical book in print is peppered with medical falsehoods.

We used to bleed people. We used to think hysteria was caused be a wandering uterus (the name of the operation that removes the uterus is called an ...). We used to think smoking cigarettes wasn't harmful. We used to think replacing estrogen post menopause was a great idea. We used to think that using alpha blockers to control high blood pressure was a good idea. We used to use Ritalin and amphetamines for depression.

The list goes on and on, but I shudder to think how stupid and backwards my medical "knowledge" will be in 50 years. Or in 100 years how those people will look back 50 years at the ignorance of medical knowledge.

There are no absolutes in medicine. Including that statement. If you can't think and reason with the best resources and experience you have, then you and your patient are screwed.

Well said

[Blacksmith]

I am willing to bet good money that if a firearms instructor wrote a book about medicine, and he talked to exactly one doctor about it as a reference, he would be similarly accurate if not more so.