Thanks for the links
I agree that people believe in those nonsense examples based on faulty old evidence or unsupported claims their mentor told them two decades ago, but, the evidence (or lack thereof) for epi's immunologic mechanism is nowhere near as well-studied as CIN or RV hemodynamics (mostpy because the studies are impossible from an ethical standpoint).
For instance
View attachment 362104
Look at the first citation for the pulmcrit article on the myth of CIN. There is no analogous exhaustive, modern metanalysis showing lack of immunologic benefit with epi. And in modern cardiology teaching, it's well-understood that the RV is exquisitely sensitive to adverse volume or pressure conditions and will simply dilate with worsening TR and eventually fail if you jam preload to a geometry-distorting wits end. Like, that's literally a fact that been demonstrated by 3 different cardiac imaging modalities + invasive cath hemodynamics in every disease process which causes RV failure. I mean, you know this, but a rat peritoneum and dog study are nowhere close comparatively in regard to epi and anaphylaxis.