SASless
I fear you are getting too agitated here in your understandable and valid zeal to see the EMS safety record improve. I have made no comment on this year's rate or what might be acceptable losses.
What I have said is that if this 135 accident turns out to be wake turbulence, the fact that the type of operation was EMS will probably not have been a contributary factor. Yes it was EMS, I know that perfectly well. But the accident could equally well have occurred to any corporate or private helo assuming they were entitled to use that route. This is quite unlike the extra risk of EMS operations landing at unimproved sites at night, for example, which is part of the territory for EMS ops. An accident involving that phase of flight, which many seem to be, clearly is related to the extra risk of EMS ops.
Understand my point now? It is important to try and differentiate which accidents occurring to EMS flights occur because of the specific type of operation, rather than despite it. And in my book, wake turbulence would be despite.