4 ms·
Had a friend from college who became a police officer. He probably would have survived COVID-19 if he could've waited a week before going to the hospital. He ce
by taxicabjesus 5y ago
Had a friend from college who became a police officer. He probably would have survived COVID-19 if he could've waited a week before going to the hospital. He certainly went along with getting ventilated because he believed the doctors knew what they were doing. Ventilations fell off a cliff a week later (in April 2020) when the doctors started to ignore the official guidelines for COVID-19.
Whatever happened to those ventilators that President Trump ordered? None of them got used, because front line doctors figured out that following the official guidance to ventilate their patients ASAP were death sentences.
My LEO-friend is certainly listed as a COVID-19 fatality, not an iatrogenic one. Inconvenient for the powers that be to consider that he was medically deteriorated with ventilation & oxygenation.
Oxygen is known to be toxic [0], but modern doctors seem to just figure "what else can we do, when the patient's oxygen saturation level crashes?" (because their training doesn't cover the antidote that makes supplemental oxygen non-toxic).
The technical terms for damage done to lungs with ventilators is barotrauma. Sometimes ventilation is justified for short duration [surgery, etc]. Ventilation has never been found helpful for pneumonia.
I'm trying to coin Medical Hyperventilation as a term of art [1]. My term hasn't taken off yet, but the science is entirely settled about everything in my writeup.
[0] Space-cabin Atmospheres: Oxygen toxicity (1964) (google.com) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25883728 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25883728
[1] The folly of medical hyperventilation - https://www.taxiwars.org/2021/06/folly-medical-hyperventilation.html https://www.taxiwars.org/2021/06/folly-medical-hyperventilat... (I've since figured out how Medicine was tricked into no longer using the antidote for oxygen toxicity. The turning point from science-based oxygenation to our modern science-free practice was in 1955.)
- maxerickson 5y agoHow did you write all of that and not address the fact that ventilators typically use air with added oxygen, not pure oxygen?
- taxicabjesus 5y agoThanks for the feedback. I am not overly familiar with ventilation protocols, I just understand that some ventilation strategies are more aggressive than others. I will edit to clarify. This is a great article that says that ventilators have been studied for pneumonia and found to not help improve survival outcomes: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/Ventilators-aren-t-a-panacea-for-a-pandemic-like-coronavirus https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/Ventilators-aren-t-a-pan...
- maxerickson 5y agoWhy would you make any claims about medical practice without understanding the 5 minute basics? You talk about refusing ventilation to survive hospitalization, but your whole premise (toxicity of pure oxygen) has nothing to do with modern medical practice!
- taxicabjesus 5y ago> your whole premise (toxicity of pure oxygen) My premise is that any amount of supplemental oxygen without the antidote for oxygen toxicity worsens outcomes. For example, I mentioned how doctors are realizing that COPD patients don't necessarily benefit from supplemental oxygen. (Edit: editing my piece I understood what you meant. I have reworded that opening paragraph to say "Modern doctors sometimes decide their patient's tissues are low on oxygen and prescribe various amounts of supplemental oxygen.") > modern medical practice! Aggressive use of oxygenation has been studied and is consistently found to worsens patient outcomes [0]. There should be no controversy, but aggressive oxygenation is a common treatment in modern medical practice. Maybe you know why this is the case? [0] Mortality/morbidity: acutely ill adults liberal vs. conservative Oxygen Tx(2018) (thelancet.com) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22993262 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22993262