G&R Tactical
Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 74

Thread: Quick Clot

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    GA
    Posts
    39
    Feedback Score
    0

    Quick Clot

    are there good reasons not to use quik clot? i have several left over from OIF in my kit, but the army stopped playing with it and gave us HEMCON bandages (which they also stopped giving out). What are the reasons the military stopped issuing these two products, and are they worth holding onto for emergency use in the field? Or, are they dangerous?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    459
    Feedback Score
    0
    I would really like to hear any negative reasons as I have considered getting some for a bug out kit
    Joshua 1:9

    Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be frightened, and do not be dismayed, for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    888
    Feedback Score
    8 (100%)
    I am a HUGE proponent of QuikClot, as I would be dead had it not been for that wonderful powder!

    Six years ago, on April 12, 2003 while serving in Iraq as a US Marine Infantryman during the initial invasion of that country, I was shot under the left armpit by an AK-47 fired by a Fedayeen Fighter from a distance of roughly 30-40 feet away. The bullet also severed my spinal cord, completely and permanently paralyzing me from the waist down... trust me when I say that I was in a real bad way.

    The Navy Corpsman who came to my aid on the battlefield poured QuikClot on my entry wound to help stop the bleeding. Not only did it instantly stop the bleeding, but because it basically cauterized the wound and gave me a nasty chemical burn it kept me awake. As soon as he poured the powder on my entry wound, I remember softly yelping (my lung was punctured too by the bullet so I couldn't scream) and clenching and clawing the dirt with my fingernails because of the intense pain. That might sound awful, but it really helped to keep my eyes open for a little while longer, which in turn helped to keep my alive as well.

    The only downside I can possibly see with QuikClot is that it gives patients a nasty chemical burn... but so ****ing what? I'd rather have the large tennis-ball-size chemical burn under my left armpit and be ALIVE than not have the burn and be rotting six feet under.

    The burn required a skin graft too, which sucked, but like I said, it ain't that big a deal in the larger scheme of things.

    If I were you I'd hold onto the QuikClot just in case. However, just don't use it unless the circumstances are truly life-threatening, as there's no need to burn the hell out of someone unless they are dying.

    That's just my two cents. I'm not a doctor or medical professional, just a jarhead whose life was undoubtably saved by QuikClot.

    -Paul

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    308
    Feedback Score
    0
    Main arguments against it is the likelihood of a serious burn. That and folks really weren't being trained to use the stuff properly. I still keep a few packs in my kit, because at the end of the day the stuff does tend to work when used properly.

    RH, glad you pulled through that experience.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    459
    Feedback Score
    0
    thanks for the info guys
    Joshua 1:9

    Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be frightened, and do not be dismayed, for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Where the 2nd Amendment still lives.
    Posts
    2,729
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Any info for HEMCON bandages or the new sponge that hit the market?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,433
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    When you say, "Main arguments against it is the likelihood of a serious burn. That and folks really weren't being trained to use the stuff properly." Do you mean the soldiers were not using the stuff effectively or using it incorrectly so that it did not actually stop bleeding? or caused MORE damage? Or were the soldiers pouring it in every GSW and causing the burns when a medic would have deemed the GSW did not need QClot and as a result many non life threatening GSWs had burns and excessive debridement...? Just curious if it was not being used effectively...or... was being used unnecessarily?
    Last edited by M4Fundi; 08-18-09 at 16:18.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Westside
    Posts
    228
    Feedback Score
    0
    I was under the impression that the newer variations made with chitosan didn't have the chemical burn issues. Was I told wrong?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    308
    Feedback Score
    0
    Basically all of the above. A lot of folks are taught to pretty much rip the package open and start pouring, but there's a lot more involved. Proper cleaning of the wound, getting the correct amount of quikclot to the source of the bleeding (I've seen guys in the field just pour it into the hole thinking that will do it), compressing the wound properly, etc, all come into play. Forgetting to dry up as much water as possible before applying it was also an issue. That stuff touches water and you better have a small fountain ready to wash it away. What I've seen (mainly from my time in Iraq) is a rush to use it on small, but heavily bleeding wounds, where conventional methods would have arguably been just as effective, without the burning that can result. We're also talking about a situation where each man is given a couple packets, but only two medics or in some instances 1 medic is on the team. While the medics are usually pretty well versed on the use of the stuff or can adequately supervise its use, you give Joe a packet and run him through a 30 minute module on how the stuff should be used and you end up with situations where it's being poured all over the place and some dude is being burnt like a mofo.

    Quote Originally Posted by M4Fundi View Post
    When you say, "Main arguments against it is the likelihood of a serious burn. That and folks really weren't being trained to use the stuff properly." Do you mean the soldiers were not using the stuff effectively or using it incorrectly so that it did not actually stop bleeding? or caused MORE damage? Or were the soldiers pouring it in every GSW and causing the burns when a medic would have deemed the GSW did not need QClot and as a result many non life threatening GSWs had burns and excessive debridement...? Just curious if it was not being used effectively...or... was being used unnecessarily?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    308
    Feedback Score
    0
    I'll have to check what they gave me in '07, which was the last time I asked for a couple packages. Recall the medic mentioning a change in the formula, but can't remember right now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cascades236 View Post
    I was under the impression that the newer variations made with chitosan didn't have the chemical burn issues. Was I told wrong?

Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •