Well, like usual on HN I don't read the actual linked content and probably won't here as well. For my own peace of mind, I'll recuse myself from reading the website and it's likely necessary launch rhetoric. You're right that HN suffers from less than rigorous medical analysis more often than I would usually like, but there are usually at least a few penetrating questions on the medical threads I read.

However, I have met Tim before and can attest to his interpersonal candor on problems with EMS, and the reputation for rigor of his medical training. In short, I think he's a smart, hard working guy who is legitimately committed to solving a real problem.

Given my own experience (as an EMT, working in the ED as an admin and medical student, and as a federal emergency response officer in a previous life), I do think solutions along the lines of higher fidelity information on scene will be useful for patients and providers.

There will need to be piles and piles of evidence before we can conclude that products like this will provide the outcomes we want in our health system. In the meantime, I'll try to appreciate the obstacles I know this team has overcome to get as far as they have.

I still don't know who this is writing this, but I thank you for the sentiments!

We've done our best to research the stats and present a thoughtful representation of the current state of EMS. We have many official and unofficial EMS advisors who have spent tireless hours to make sure this is true. I assure you, nothing on our site or in our advertising is meant to be misleading - the 911 system is antiquated and could benefit from an overhaul. Like many large systems, there are a lot of good, smart people involved, but change is difficult. We hope to work from the outside in, and save lives/improve outcomes in the process.

Research and academic integrity is important to me and my Call9 colleagues.