Last night we publishedÂ this editorialÂ and today received an email response from Dr. Bukata. His comments are reproduced in-part below:
â€œ[T]he purpose of the chart [Editor’s note: Dr. Bukata is referring to our concern that the imagery associated with his commentary appealed to emotion rather than reason] is to summary the facts â€” which are straightforward â€” Mag didnâ€™t work â€” the idea of creating an infrastructure to potentially give drugs in the field that have not been proven to work in the ED is the issue â€” and the fact that FastMag should have been done as a pilot in the ED setting. Two assertions that are not particularly emotional. Somebody on the funding side needed to take a much closer look at this study â€” but they didnâ€™tâ€¦EMS seems to be viewed as apple pie and motherhood and not open to critical assessment. Sorry. Thatâ€™s just not the caseâ€¦I stand by my article â€” every word.â€
We fully agree with Dr. Burkata that there is nothing in science and medicine which should be closed to critique. We appreciate his time and insight as well as that of Drs. Stratton and Saver.