Biphasic should replace Monophasic Defibrillators

==== "My studies 'vs' my opponent's" Note that our studies do not conflict in any way. My opponent showed in R1 that biphasics were superior to monophasics, a fact I've never denied. I've shown that triphasics are superior to both monophasics and biphasics, and that converting biphasics to triphasics is a simple firmware update away. My opponent explains that only monophasics and biphasics are 'commercially available in hospitals.' First, unless there is a market set up inside of most hospitals, that is not true. The only units available in hospitals are units that are currently there. But then, we're not talking about what the hospitals can use IMMEDIATELY. We're talking about what they _should_ use moving forward. Perhaps I haven't been as clear as I could be on my advocacy. I will list out all the points in my advocacy. 1. FDA should allow use of triphasics and/or quadriphasics immediately, since they are superior. 2. All biphasics that can be converted to triphasics or quadriphasics via firmware updates should be updated as such. 3. Manufacturers who produce biphasics should stop immediately, due to their superiority with little to no additional manufacturing cost. 4. The market should then be allowed to run its course. Newly converted or newly manufactured triphasics or quadriphasics would no doubt come to replace the outdated monophasics over time. You see, it does not matter that the FDA has not approved tri's or quad's in the status quo, since they do so as part of my advocacy. ==== ICD's vs. External Defibrillators Neither of the studies I presented state that they are talking about ICD's. In fact, the first study I gave explained that it used EXTERNAL defibrillation: "Under fluoroscopic guidance, via right external jugular access, a 0094 Endotak lead (CPI) with a 4.7-cm-long RV electrode and a 6.9-cm-long superior vena cava electrode was positioned with the tip at the RV apex. A titanium can with a surface area of 92 cm2 was placed in the left pectoral region and made electrically common with the superior vena cava electrode." My opponent has completely fabricated this nonsense about how my studies are talking about internal defibrillators. Here is a statement from the other study I presented: "The defibrillation shocks were delivered from commercially available self-adhesive monitor-defibrillator electrode pads (model M3501A, Philips Medical Systems, Andover, Massachusetts) with a conductive area of 102 cm2, placed on the shaved chest of the pig. One pad was placed anteriorly over the sternum, and the second pad was placed posteriorly over the vertebral column." For those who don't know, the M3501A is an EXTERNAL defibrillator pad. Source: http://emecompany.com... Both of my studies used external defibrillation. My opponent is fabricating all claims to the contrary, and I have supported my claim that they are external defibrillation. Even so, if they were internal, it would make no difference. The studies were done to compare the effectiveness of different waveforms, not the effectiveness of internal vs. external. ==== "Manufacturing cost of monophasic vs. biphasic" I never claimed to know the difference in manufacturing cost between monophasics and biphasics. I simply know that the difference in manufacturing cost between biphasics and triphasics is quite small, due to identical hardware with only software differences. ==== "Existing tech" Triphasics are currently available, by way of the fact that a simple firmware update will change most biphasics into triphasics. See my first source, which I've shown was talking about external defibrillators, which claims that they can be converted quite easily, with only software updates. This also makes sense, since biphasics already have hardware capable of 1. giving a pulse for a certain amount of time, and 2. Automatically switching to a new pulse after the first pulse. There's nothing new that a triphasic would need. Due to this small difference between biphasics and triphasics, biphasics could be converted immediately, and biphasic manufacturers could switch the default firmware immediately. ==== "Mang's Expertise" Sorry, but claiming to have expertise and asserting that I am wrong does not amount to a good argument. I have provided a credible source - a rigourous, professional study in a well-respected journal. I have also explained why there would need be no hardware changes to convert biphasics to triphasics - biphasics already have all the mechanisms necessary to operate as triphasics. All that's necessary is a simple firmware change. But just in case someone believes my opponent's argument here makes sense, that his self-proclaimed expertise is superior to my sources, I hereby proclaim myself a super-expert, and I'm saying my opponent is wrong. Therefore he is wrong, because I said so and I claimed I'm more of an expert than he. And once again, my opponent ignorantly claims that my studies were using ICD's and this mysterious 'Mac computer,' with nothing but the sound of his voice backing him up. And as of this round, I've shown that both my studies were in fact using EXTERNAL defirillation, contrary to my opponent's unbacked claims. ==== "Not in opposition" My opponent claims that my advocacy is not in opposition to his, but it is. I detailed my advocacy quite well earlier in this round, and it does not contain the replacement of monophasics by biphasics. Thus, I am negating the resolution, I am explaining why, RATHER THAN monophasics being replaced by biphasics, they should be replaced by something better than biphasics. My opponent must simply show why his advocacy, which includes biphasics replacing monophasics, is superior to mine. ==== "Lastly" I explained last round that my opponent's advocacy requires the manufacturing of more biphasics. There are simply not enough biphasics sitting idly on merchants' shelves to replace all monophasics. Even so, it doesn't matter. Biphasics can be converted to triphasics quite easily, with naught but a change in firmware. And perhaps even into quadriphasics, though I don't have a source backing me up on that one. In either case, either would be superior to the biphasics my opponent wishes to use, and since biphasics can be converted to triphasics rather easily, it only makes sense to do that right away. Oh, and thanks for the study showing that quadriphasics are the best of the first four waveforms. If biphasics can be converted into them easily, that's just one more way to negate the resolution. ==== "My opponent should either concede the debate, or educate himself on the subject if he is to continue." Thanks for the advice, Mang, but I'm already quite educated on this topic. If you remember, I'm a super-expert. Hopefully you don't up the ante and proclaim yourself a super-super-expert, or things might get a little crazy. Good luck to my opponent in the following rounds.