The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
now you talk about it being the perfect anesthetic in trauma and shock where those patients are hypovolemic their blood pressure is already going down you give them an agent that if anything slightly acts like a vasopressor raises blood pressure without the respiratory depression
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
it doesn't lower blood pressure so now you talk about it being the perfect anesthetic in trauma and shock where those patients are hypovolemic their blood pressure is already going down you give them an agent that if anything slightly acts like a vasopressor raises blood pressure without the respiratory depression
so it's used yeah as you said it's really safe physiologically as an anaesthetic because it doesn't slow your breathing or your heart rate so when you've lost a lot of floods it's good as well because it actually even vaguely increases your blood pressure