I am a former critical care medic, and lack the scientific training to judge the merits of their claims about mechanism of action, but if history is any guide r

I am a former critical care medic, and lack the scientific training to judge the merits of their claims about mechanism of action, but if history is any guide regarding ‘miracle’ products it will not live up to the manufacturers claims. The use cases I can think of and commentary: -Hemostasis after non-emergent ear/nose/throat procedures. -Packing of the wound + local epinephrine administration is currently used. It costs nothing, is well understood, and doesn’t have the potential for embolization or immune system interaction weirdness. -Hemostasis of an extremity wound AFTER a tourniquet has been applied. -After a tourniquet is properly placed, the arterial flow is halted. Trauma teams have learned from military and orthopedic surgeons that tourniquets are much safer than traditionally understood. Even an amputated limb has a warm ischemia team of 6 hours. The addition of a clotting agent would stop venous oozing, but wouldn’t affect hemodynamics of the patient. It might assist in the case of an inappropriately applied tourniquet. -Hemostasis of an abdominal wound. - I guess they envisage pouring this material into the abdomen? That seems like the place most fraught with danger of embolization distally to the mesentery and the generation of immune system interaction weirdness beyond my knowledge base. A kaolin-based product (Quickclot) was similarly marketed as a wonder drug for treating massive hemorrhage on the battlefield, and it has been less than wonderful in practice. There are youtube videos attesting to its efficacy on the femoral arteries of swine, however these videos ignore the effect wind has upon the powder in a combat setting, and the exothermic reaction that takes place to create the plug. The only way to stop a large hemorrhage is to use copious amounts of the material, resulting in severe burns in some case reports. Concern over embolization of the clotted material led them to create a gauze-bag version. The company’s claims that holding pressure over the wound is not required runs counter to basic trauma care recommendations. The single best way to halt life-threatening hemorrhage in an extremity is a tourniquet, and the only thing that halts thorax hemorrhage is a surgeon’s finger. The inclusion of this gel in the treatment algorithm would need to be as a last resort, and must never distract from the basics of direct pressure and rapid transport to a surgeon. I don't know if this qualifies as an ad hominem on my part, but the article comes across as written by the journalist in close coordination with the companies PR firm. The 'hook' inherent in the choice of headline combined with the lack of any discussion of the limitations of the product or previous failures with regards to ‘miracle’ hemorrhage agents cements this in my opinion.