Kansas City, Kansas firefighter recovering after fainting at first responder's funeral
The KCKFD employee, who has not been publicly named, lost consciousness and fell near the end of a processional ceremony in Hoffman's honor. Scott Schaunaman, a KCKFD spokesperson, said that the firefighter experienced a syncopal episode.
Syncope, commonly known as fainting, happens when blood pressure or heart rate temporarily drops, according to the Cleveland Clinic. This can be caused by a variety of factors and results in a temporary decrease in blood flow to the brain.
As several funeral attendees attempted to provide aid, the employee came to and could be seen sitting up and moving independently by the time he was brought into an arriving ambulance. The firefighter was in stable condition at a local hospital as of Friday evening and responding well to various tests, according to Schaunaman.
Graham Hoffman, 29, was killed in the line of duty on April 27 when an ambulance patient fatally stabbed him as Hoffman attempted to treat her. His funeral took place at Pleasant Valley Baptist Church in Liberty on Frida and drew a vast crowd of mourners, including community members and first responders.
American flags were flown at half-mast in Hoffman's honor on Friday at firehouses statewide, as well as at Cass, Clay, Jackson, and Platte County government buildings and Fire Fighters Memorial of Missouri in Kingdom City.
PJ Green contributed reporting.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
an hour ago
- Atlantic
A MAHA Progress Report
This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has spent the past six months working fast to embed his Make America Healthy Again creed into American life. Over the summer alone, he has struck deals with some food companies to phase out some petroleum-based food dyes, waged a war against pediatricians over COVID-19 vaccines for young children, seemingly toyed with the idea of shipping fresh food to Americans in ' MAHA boxes,' and pledged to reboot the nation's dietary guidelines from scratch. I spoke with the Atlantic staff writer Nicholas Florko, who reports on health policy, about how the MAHA-fication of the country is coming along. Nicholas Florko: We've seen Robert F. Kennedy Jr. take actions that will weaken our vaccination system in the United States, confirming some of public health's worst fears. But there have also been some surprising successes in his term. RFK Jr. has embraced the role of a dealmaker, and we've seen him leaning on food companies in particular to change their offerings and get rid of synthetic dyes. He's been able to do that simply by asking and by making handshake agreements, as opposed to what we would normally expect from a health secretary—for him to use his regulatory power to force these changes. Stephanie: Why are these handshake agreements proving successful? Nicholas: Food companies likely realize that it's in their best interest to get on the good side of the Trump administration. We see this throughout all sectors of business, but for the food sector, these changes are small enough that companies can make them without dramatically hurting their bottom line, while also earning a lot of brownie points with the administration. Stephanie: That reminds me of President Donald Trump's announcement in July that Coca-Cola, famously his favorite drink, had agreed to make their soda with cane sugar rather than high-fructose corn syrup. To what extent is Trump influencing health policy? Does RFK Jr. have a lot of latitude? Nicholas: The Coca-Cola issue is an interesting one because while it's true that RFK Jr. is very anti–high-fructose corn syrup, he's also publicly called sugar a 'poison.' So this is one of those instances where you wonder what is behind RFK Jr. supporting this change. He must know that this isn't actually going to significantly improve public health, but also probably realizes that this is important to his boss. That being said, I think that RFK Jr. does have some latitude. If you left Trump to his own devices, you probably wouldn't see the same level of aggression toward food companies overall, unless he had a personal stake in the situation. Stephanie: With back-to-school season under way, many students are getting up-to-date on their shots. How does this year's vaccination season compare to years past? Nicholas: We haven't seen huge changes, but we are seeing some hints of what might come. Much of the action thus far is around COVID vaccines. In February the president issued a largely symbolic executive order barring schools from enforcing COVID-19 vaccine mandates, but by the time that was issued, virtually no schools actually had such a policy. RFK Jr. also softened the CDC's recommendation for kids to get the COVID-19 vaccine. That's probably been one of his most controversial decisions, prompting a high-profile clash with pediatricians; a leading pediatrics group put out its own suggestions saying that children should be getting vaccinated. But we haven't seen major changes to the other vaccines typically required for returning to school. Stephanie: That disagreement must make it confusing for parents to know who to listen to. Nicholas: It's reasonable to assume that a good portion of people will listen to RFK Jr., but those people may be already skeptical of vaccines and see him as a trustworthy messenger, versus folks who are on the fence. I think that's really the question: Where do those people who are on the fence go? Do they take RFK Jr.'s suggestion, or do they trust their doctor? Stephanie: In May, you wrote a story that was alarming for salad lovers, specifically about how bagged lettuce should be avoided. What's happening with America's food-safety system? Nicholas: One of the earliest, most concerning changes for food safety happened when DOGE came into the federal agencies. Advisory committees focused on food-safety questions were shut down. People were being laid off—such as the administrative staff in charge of making sure that inspectors can go out to farms. Some layoffs seem to have been rescinded, but there's a broad worry about what will happen to the day-to-day operations that we all depend on to keep us safe. Stephanie: A recent story about the recall of frozen shrimp with potential radioactive contamination has caused a bit of a panic about where America's food safety is headed. How did you take that news? Nicholas: One thing that gives me some hope is the fact that this is the sort of thing that we caught, and there have been recalls by Walmart. That's really the big fear when it comes to food safety: that if we attack these federal programs, they're not going to be able to actually find the food that might get us sick before a lot of people get sick. So I think this is actually a good sign that things are working relatively well. Stephanie: Out of all the stories you've written this past summer about the MAHA movement, is there one that keeps you up at night? And is there one that makes you feel hopeful for where American health and safety is going? Nicholas: Honestly, the stories that keep me up at night are by our colleague Katie Wu. Her recent one on RFK Jr.'s COVID revenge campaign has really stuck with me. My own story that both keeps me up at night and that makes me hopeful is related to states, which are taking up the MAHA charge in a very quick fashion. It's felt like Republican governors and legislatures are all trying to out-MAHA one another to ingratiate themselves to Trump and to RFK Jr. Some of these ideas are good from a public-health perspective, but these states are doing a lot of things really fast, which is what worries me. For example, some states are blocking people from using food stamps to buy soda and other junk food. There's a question of how that policy will be implemented, how the attempts to enact these restrictions could affect the entire food-stamp system. Other states have passed laws banning artificial dyes in their school meals. Again, it's one of those ideas that's a good step, but the devil is in the details of how it's executed. How does this flurry of activity in the states actually affect people in the coming months? Does this ultimately make America healthier, or does it send our food system into chaos? Here are three new stories from The Atlantic: Today's News A New York appeals court voided the roughly $500 million civil-fraud penalty against President Donald Trump, calling it 'excessive,' but upheld the finding that Trump and his company committed long-running business fraud. Business restrictions on Trump in New York remain, and the state plans to appeal. More immigrants are leaving the U.S. than arriving, according to the Pew Research Center. The shift, affected by Trump's strict immigration policies, is the first of its kind since the 1960s. California lawmakers passed the first of three bills on a redistricting plan backed by Governor Gavin Newsom that would shift as many as five Republican-held U.S. House seats toward Democrats ahead of the 2026 midterms. The move comes a day after Texas state House Republicans passed a new congressional map that could add five U.S. House seats for the GOP. Evening Read What We Gain When We Stop Caring By Anna Holmes Sometime in the early aughts, the comedian Amy Poehler made a vulgar joke while sitting in the Saturday Night Live writers' room waiting for a midweek read-through to begin. As detailed in Tina Fey's 2011 memoir, Bossypants, Jimmy Fallon, who was also in the show's cast at the time, jokingly recoiled and told Poehler to stop it. 'It's not cute!' Fallon exclaimed. 'I don't like it.' 'Amy dropped what she was doing, went black in the eyes for a second, and wheeled around on him,' Fey writes. ''I don't fucking care if you like it.'' Read the full article. More From The Atlantic Read. In 2022, The Atlantic 's Culture writers recommended the books that they read too late —but that you should read now. Take a look. This is how the 17th-century painter Rachel Ruysch became one of the greatest still-life painters in the history of art, Zachary Fine writes. When you buy a book using a link in this newsletter, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump VP JD Vance makes liberals explode: ‘Lying through his teeth'
Vice President JD Vance continued his tour touting President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' in Georgia on Thursday — but one of his points raised the eyebrows of critics. While speaking to a crowd in Peachtree City, Vance aimed to promote how the GOP's sweeping budget bill could help working-class American families. During his remarks, he tore into former President Joe Biden's administration, claiming that some of its policies have caused rural hospitals to struggle as a result. 'So what we did is we put a lot of resources and a lot of changes and regulations to make it possible for rural hospitals to stay open, despite what the Biden administration did to them for four years,' Vance told residents just outside of Atlanta. Since Trump signed his signature policy package into law last month, rural hospitals across the country have maintained that they now have to consider tough choices, including affording services or even closing down their facilities, NBC News reported, as well as other outlets and organizations. Many rural hospitals rely on Medicaid funding, given they serve a higher share of low-income patients compared to other areas — but according to KFF, a health policy research group, the bill could lead to around 17 million people losing their health care coverage due to changes to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act. Meanwhile, Democratic lawmakers have argued that nearly 300 rural hospitals are at risk of shutting down due to the legislation. It includes a federal spending cut more than $1 trillion over a decade from health care and food assistance, mainly stemming from new work requirements for those receiving aid and differences in how states can fund their programs through a provider tax. The bill also contains a $50 billion fund called the Rural Health Transformation Program, which has been framed as a way to offset losses for providers due to some of its provisions. Vance's comments were met with pushback from some social media users. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) tore into his claims about rural hospitals, writing on X that 'Donald Trump's Big Ugly Bill puts 29 rural hospitals in New York on the chopping block.' 'Lying through his teeth,' she said. 'We will hold you — and your boss — accountable." MeidasTouch, a progressive network, posted that 'Rural hospitals are literally closing because of this bill. He is lying. This is beyond cruel and evil.' One user said: 'At least he believes what he's saying. Doesn't help all of the rural clinics that had to close because they lost funding. Or the major hospitals that had to cut back on services because their funding was pulled as well.' 'The simplicity in which he lies should be really concerning to people. Thankfully he's about as likable as sitting on a thumbtack,' a different user said. Someone had attached a screenshot of a story from Health Affairs, which argues that the bill does not protect rural hospitals, adding 'No, you guys are going to close rural hospitals.' Vance also went on to say that the Trump administration's health care policy is 'very simple.' 'Whether you're in a big city or a small town, we're going to fight for your access to health care. Whether you're an American citizen who's been here for 70 years, or an American citizen who's been here for two years, we're going to fight for your access to a government that serves you,' Vance said. 'But if you're an illegal alien, you do not deserve government-paid health care benefits. You need to get out of our country, and that's simple as that,' he continued. Our journalism needs your support. Please subscribe today to
Medscape
6 hours ago
- Medscape
New Blood Pressure Guidelines: My Likes and Concerns
The American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology, along with numerous other professional societies, have released new guidance on hypertension. The 105-page document updates guidance from 2017. Here are a few highly selected likes and worries. Things I Like Accurate measurement of blood pressure. The authors place great emphasis on the accurate measurement of blood pressure (BP). This includes a picture of a patient who is sitting, feet on the floor and arm resting on a table. Adjacent to the picture is an 8-point list of how to take a BP. It boggles my mind how badly BP is taken in the healthcare setting. I don't think I've ever witnessed it done properly — not once, in 30 years of practice. I am not sure how the culture evolved not to care about accurate BP measurement. We have time-outs, sepsis protocols, and quality measures for numerous conditions, and yet, something as simple as accurate recording of a vital sign is virtually ignored. Mediocrity has been codified as standard when it comes to measuring BP. A healthcare system could improve its quality overnight if it made accurate BP recording a point of emphasis. Good on the authors. Home-based BP monitoring. A corollary of accurate BP measure is the class 1/evidence level A recommendation to supplement office BP measures with home-based monitoring. While this makes sense, it's actually supported by multiple RCTs which, taken together, show that home monitoring of BP plus lifestyle interventions leads to clinically significant BP reduction that persists for at least 12 months. The authors emphasize that cuffless technology options that are often embedded in wearable devices are not reliable enough for clinical use. One caveat the authors did not mention, but which I find important, is practical guidance on use of home BP devices. I have seen people who spend far too much of their life recording and pondering their BP. Patients need clear education regarding the natural fluctuations of BP, and that the goal is to reduce average BP over days to weeks. We want patients to have good BP and good lives. More often than not, I find myself telling patients to use their home BP cuff less, not more. Single-pill combination drugs. My view of single-pill combination drugs has changed. I used to be against combining agents in a single pill because it can be hard to change course. The guidelines give a class 1 recommendation for using combination pills for patients with stage 2 hypertension (systolic BP ≥ 140 mm Hg and diastolic BP ≥ 90 mm Hg). I like this call on both efficacy (it probably will take multiple drugs) and efficiency grounds; having only one pill and one prescription to fill and refill is important. Renal denervation caution is warranted. Renal denervation (RDN) is on the precipice of becoming cardiology's biggest blemish — even worse than left atrial appendage occlusion. Doctors and hospitals are coiled and ready to deploy this procedure to the millions with high BP. The only thing maintaining sanity is the reluctance of payers — thankfully. Here is a quote from the guideline document: While some trials showed a small but significant reduction in 24-hour ambulatory SBP by 3 to 5 mm Hg over the sham arm, others failed to reach their primary endpoint. Although broader indications are approved for the RDN devices by the FDA, given the relatively short duration of follow-up in clinical trials with modest BP-lowering effects and the absence of CVD outcome trials, RDN should not be considered as a curative therapy for hypertension or full replacement for antihypertensive drugs. I would have been stronger, but this is decent. The problem comes in that RDN makes the colored recommendation box, albeit with the lowest 2b level. I call this a problem because procedure-loving doctors only need it to be recommended. The level of recommendation does not matter in the real world of US medicine. I reiterate: RDN trials found either no significant or clinically small reductions in systolic BP. There are no sham-controlled efficacy data beyond a few months and not even a hint of clinical outcome data. A middle-aged person does not require BP control for 3 months; they need it for 3 decades. RDN was a nice idea, but before a single dollar is paid to a doctor or hospital for this procedure, we should have far more persuasive evidence. I would have left it out of the colored box of recommendations. Two Things I Worry About Summary statements and colored boxes. The document begins with take-home messages. I take from this that the writers think clinicians are not capable of reading the document. These efforts to dumb down medicine, which are not specific to hypertension guidelines, worry me greatly. Hypertension is one of the most common and modifiable risk factors for cardiovascular health. Clinicians should be encouraged and expected to read the details of the document — including the references. Few things could be more important in the prevention of cardiovascular disease than extreme knowledge of hypertension. I feel the same way about the colored boxes of recommendations, which attempt to simplify what is complex. I believe it best to provide the narrative review and references — with a table, perhaps — but jettison the summary boxes, because the vast majority of patients do not fit into such algorithms. Risk-based recommendations use the new PREVENT risk score. A major feature of this guideline is to base treatment not only on BP measures but also on overall cardiovascular risk. For instance, for patients with stage 1 hypertension and a 10-year PREVENT risk score of < 7.5%, the recommendation is for lifestyle interventions only. Risk-based intervention is a decent idea; my worry here is the use of the new PREVENT score. PREVENT is a new AHA initiative; it replaces the pooled cohort equation (PCE). Proponents of the score cite its many advantages. These include broader outcomes, such as heart failure, atrial fibrillation, stroke, as well as atherosclerotic events. PREVENT is also derived from more diverse and contemporary data that include kidney function and social determinants of health. These factors are believed to lead to improved calibration between expected and observed event rates. The provocative feature of PREVENT in the statin decision was that more accurate calibration — with less risk overestimation — led to fewer patients being labeled statin eligible. Similar concerns arise in the hypertension guideline. Will use of PREVENT lead to undertreatment? Another highly provocative feature of PREVENT is that it does not include race as a determinant of risk. While this may satisfy equity concerns, some cite strong associations of race and risk in hypertension — and not considering race may lead to undertreatment of vulnerable people. I am neither a statistician nor an epidemiologist, but decreeing a new risk score that could affect so many patients, and the most important modifiable cardiovascular risk factor, seems like a major risk. The authors give this a class 1/evidence level B rating, but I find no trials comparing PREVENT and PCE as risk modifiers. I am not saying it is wrong to use PREVENT; rather, I am saying that even a little undertreatment of BP could be a public health disaster. Let me know what you think in the comments section.
