Top critical review
156 people found this helpful
Lazy, full of mistakes, but now in color
on April 3, 2012
It is incomprehensible that a review book that simply summarizes other books, that changes so very little of its material every year, can have SO many mistakes. Seriously, do a search for First Aid Errata and you'll see the pdf with all the errors. It's put out by the same folks; they offer $10 for writing in with an error. It's 10 pages long, about 20 errors listed per page, just for the 2012 edition. I'm no math whiz, but that's like 2 grand worth of payouts. How about you pay the same for someone to actually READ the book before you publish it? There was a similarly long errata pdf last year for the 2011, so either they're not correcting old errors or they're managing to screw up whole new things. Who is editing these things? I mean, it's pretty much the same exact book every year!
Yes, they've gone to color. And that is appreciated. But giving someone stars for including color diagrams is, well, lame. This is 2012. Color has been around in print for some time now. They've even got it in movies, I hear.
And they even managed to screw up the colors! Green for inhibitory, red for stimulatory. Really? Someone's been taking too much Ethambutol.
First Aid is like the fat, lazy General Motors of the 70's. Consider themselves the Standard of the World, too complacent to fix their problems, much less improve their product (with the exception of this year's big move to color - Now you're on the trolley!). And everyone uses them because that's what the old folks used.
Where are you, Japanese First Aid?
EDIT/UPDATE: Holy cow. The Errata has errata. Seriously. They have updated the long list of mistakes to acknowledge that the previous list of mistakes has mistaken mistakes. There...there are no words...