View Single Post
Old April 20, 2005, 12:30 PM   #1
Senior Member
Join Date: May 19, 2004
Posts: 259
That CAN'T be right

I've noticed a number of advertisements in SWAT for QuikClot, a product designed to stop bleeding in severe trauma patients. They claim it is the same product as issued to the armed forces, including the Marine Corps. From
The BattlePack is based in part on the current United States Marine Corps trauma kit.
That page further goes on to state that
QuikClot brand hemostatic agent speeds coagulation of blood, even in large wounds, through a very simple process: It physically adsorbs the liquid from blood, thereby concentrating the clotting factors and encouraging rapid clotting to stop the bleeding.

QuikClot brand hemostatic agent is different from similar products in that it is chemically inert, and therefore is safe to leave in or on the wound until the patient receives medical treatment. Furthermore, since it contains nothing biological or botanical, there is little or no danger of an allergic reaction.
The Marine Corps' IFAK (Individual First Aid Kit) does indeed contain QuikClot. However, the period of instruction I received about using it could not have painted a different picture of the product. We were told it was to be used only as a last resort, after a pressure dressing with direct pressure and a tourniquet had failed to stop the bleeding.

Why should it be put off until the last possible second? It causes severe second and third degree burns! Our instructions were to pour it into the wound and then hold pressure on it until the dressing became too hot to touch, at which point the wound should be irrigated with water and a fresh dressing applied. Dire warnings were issued about allowing it to come in contact with eyes, respiratory system, or bloody hands.

There are two possibilities here.
One is that the product being sold is not the same one being issued to our troops. This would constitute mere false advertising.
The second is that the product is the same, and the QuikClot people are being deceitful about the side effects. This would constitute reckless endangerment of the customer.

Either way, the ads do not seem to meet the standards of a reputable magazine such as SWAT.
Balog is offline   Reply With Quote
Page generated in 0.11702 seconds with 7 queries