Should POTUS be better briefed before making commentary?

Background: In a 01 Feb 2020 STARS AND STRIPES article entitled "I'm not the same': Hurdles remain for troops, veterans with TBI despite increase in awareness" the following language was provided:

"More than headaches

As of Thursday, more than 60 U.S. military personnel have been diagnosed with TBI from an Iranian missile attack Jan. 8 in Iraq. That’s far from President Donald Trump’s initial announcement that no one was harmed in the attack. News of the brain injuries came out soon after and the number of cases has continued to rise.

Trump later described the injuries as “headaches,” and said he had seen far worse.

Several veterans organizations are accusing Trump of minimizing the severity of TBI."

Also, seems like this comment in the same article...

"Continuing pain

Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters Thursday the full extent of the injuries from the Jan. 8 missile attack might not be known for a year or two. In some cases, he said, troops would be monitored 'for the rest of their lives.' "

...is something the JCOS should have thought about at the time POTUS needed his 'wise council' to not sound unduly insensitive.

Discussion: While no one was "killed", which is what I suspect POTUS was trying to say, the words "no one was harmed" came out. We know now that these troops were apparently "harmed" because TBI is not only direct contact trauma to the head, but also concussive from the force of a concussive wave such as with an IED, grenade, or missile explosion. This may also be directly proportional to the proximity of the individual to the location of the explosion.

This said, I am NOT a neurologist, but as a retired US Navy Corpsman I have treated what were initially minor head injuries (usually cuts / bruises after some bar fight induced by alcohol on liberty), only to see such injuries get work with headaches 3-5 days later. Then requiring transfer to a hospital for further diagnosis.

The attached adult head picture shows how a concussive wave from an explosion operates. During my career when I was a young ER Corpsman we saw all sorts of trauma, but none disturbed me more that trauma to kids. The other picture shows "Shaken Baby Syndrome" that induced a form of TBI, but in infants or small children that are abused.

So my question is this:

Should POTUS, when NO ONE is "killed" also state something like 'we also have to assess the health status of those attacked for other injuries' before using words like 'no one was harmed'?

I am NOT into "political correctness"; however, I am into "health and welfare appropriateness"! Meaning, when a senior non-medical (aka Line) officer asked me about a status of someone in my sickbay, I always erred on the side of caution to make sure that for any status of an injured sailor or Marine it was based on as much information as possible so I provide an accurate status that also held to my patient's privacy, but complied with my CO's need to know.

Note: I use the words "extended-medical" to mean that a senior medical officer should brief POTUS in such a say as to help him communicate more effectively that not only was NO ONE KILLED, but, the extend of other injuries is not yet know. Frankly, instead of using "no one was harmed" the real objective was to communicate that no one was killed and that direct message language is what, at least IMHO should have been used.

Also, I don't care who is POTUS his General/Admiral level briefers should also make sure they brief POTUS in such a way so as to allow POTUS to communicate in a more effective manner.

Just saying......................