Posted on Feb 3, 2020
9
9
0
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......................
"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......................
Posted in these groups: 
Office of the President (POTUS)
TBI
Healthcare
Health and Wellness
Disabled Veterans
Office of the President (POTUS) TBI Healthcare Health and Wellness Disabled Veterans
Edited 6 y ago
Posted 6 y ago
Responses: 13
11
11
0
I have to say, it does seem like there is an excessively high number of concussions from a single rocket attack. I realize that these are bigger than anything the Iraqis or Afghans threw at us, but I don't know if we had that many injuries from rocket and mortar attacks in a whole tour, and we got several attacks per day. I am on the outside looking in, but it feels like a Purple Heart grab.
Not to belittle any injuries suffered in the slightest. I know several Soldiers who got rung and never quite were the same. Sometimes I wonder if all those IEDs made me different... or if I'm just getting old.
But in terms of what should have been said, the President's people need to ensure that he knows what is really going on so that he doesn't get facts wrong when he comments on situations. If he goes off the reservation and comments off the cuff, there isn't much they can do about it.
Not to belittle any injuries suffered in the slightest. I know several Soldiers who got rung and never quite were the same. Sometimes I wonder if all those IEDs made me different... or if I'm just getting old.
But in terms of what should have been said, the President's people need to ensure that he knows what is really going on so that he doesn't get facts wrong when he comments on situations. If he goes off the reservation and comments off the cuff, there isn't much they can do about it.
(11)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
How many of us have had our “bell rung” over the years on various deployment? How many just popped a couple advil and never went to sick call?
(2)
(0)
LTC Jason Mackay
I don’t think it’s a grab. Say an interview with a few people on the ground the following morning. Report was they had 100% of positions manned (not in bunkers) because they were unsure what the threat was. A TBM is carry thousands of tons of explosives. It’s not a chinese 122mm. I Accept it at face value. TBI is not a PH I want.
(4)
(0)
SSgt Richard Kensinger
I highly recommend you visit Brainline.ORG and review "A Primer for Clinicians" and you develop a greater sense about severity and mortality of blast trauma.
Rich
Rich
(2)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
SSgt Richard Kensinger - My comment is informed by my first hand experience in combat in that area. Four tours of it. While I am open to what I don't know about the circumstances of all these concussions, I am genuinely surprised by the exceedingly high number of reported TBIs with no other physical injuries reported. Having been in close proximity to 40+ explosions - some of them pretty damn big ones - I have questions.
(3)
(0)
10
10
0
Cpl Jeff N.
"I have yet to find "mild" concussions during these types of attacks.". There are at least 3 types of concussion recognized (Some orgs recognize as many as 6) They are grades 1, 2, and 3 typically described as mild moderate and severe. It appears your medical qualifications are as dubious as your psychological qualifications. Are you actually suggesting there cannot be a mild concussion in a given attack?
I know this as my youngest son just had a severe concussions and I have had to consult with many real doctors/neurologists on the subject. They describe the varying levels of concussions, something you say you could never find. Do you have a degree in neurology too?
I know this as my youngest son just had a severe concussions and I have had to consult with many real doctors/neurologists on the subject. They describe the varying levels of concussions, something you say you could never find. Do you have a degree in neurology too?
(0)
(0)
SSgt Richard Kensinger
SGT Robert Pryor - See Brainline.org "A Primer for Clinicians" about the severity of brain trauma and its morbidity and mortality.
Rich
Rich
(1)
(0)
SGT Robert Pryor
SSgt Richard Kensinger - I read it. A lot of it rings true to me, but some things, as I'm sure you know, differ from the military. They kind of gloss over the relative effectiveness of various explosives (I was a demo man). I did have most of those injuries, but some of the lessor ones mentioned in the article I can't be too sure about. I was wounded by rocket propelled grenades, satchel charges and small arms fire. As for the lung injury from explosions -- I have no way of knowing if that pertains to me -- probably not. I was shot in the base of the neck once, center of my chest with the bullet stopping near my heart, and in the right front upper quadrant of the chest with the round exiting just below my shoulder blade. Did the bullet mess up my lungs or was it the over-pressurization? The hell if I know. I do know that my lungs were messed up a bit because of all the tubes they had in me. I didn't loose any extremity through amputation, but my right forearm was pretty messed up -- loosing the outer muscle, having the radial and medial nerves severed plus the radius, ulna and several metacarpal bones fractured. Actually the right arm injuries were far more extensive than that, but you get the picture. Both legs were shattered. I advanced through a wheel chair, crutches and eventually leg braces, which I finally set aside about 15 years ago. (Never let them see you sweat) The biggest problem with my case was the sheer overwhelming number of wounds I received that night. So those working to save my life had for more important things to deal with than much of what was mentioned in that article. It was about impossible to separate the TBI from everything else. And like the article implies, it's pretty hard to separate TBI from PTSD. I saw some horrendous things that night. Things I still don't want to discuss out of respect and reverence for the dead. Those people died for that in which they believed and I honor their sacrifice, in spite of what they did to me. My biggest worry when I came out of a comma was two major wound I received within an inch of making me a girl. I like girls just fine, but didn't want to become one. So I have never considered my TBI to be serious when compared to everything else. Damn, what I've written here is only a very small part of my injuries. No wonder other folks felt I was severely wounded. I feel like it was no big deal and really wanted to go back into combat when they released me from the hospital. But alas, that was then, this is now. Not to take away anything from anyone with TBI. I know relatively minor TBIs can kill, so a thorough examination and appropriate treatment are indicated.
(1)
(0)
SSgt Richard Kensinger
Bless you for having served in combat. Most of us did not. So glad you survived. I conduct my research to honor those who served in combat, those who never came home alive, and those who came back still quite traumatized. I've counseled them at length. They have taken me into those zones and I do not abandon during the process. We refer to this as revisit, relive, and revise. I can send you copies of my research. It is painful to relive it. " [login to see] ".
My very best to you and those you love,
Rich
My very best to you and those you love,
Rich
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
The POTUS doesnt respond well to being briefed. He is briefed and doesn’t retain it or is briefed something and discards it for a variety of reasons.
(6)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
Dick, you offer nothing of substance in your analysis. You are entitled to your opinion of Trump but to attempt to stretch it to a clinical observation is complete BS and you know it. Your articles are words on paper. You may think them clever, well thought out and on the mark but since you have never treated the object of the paper you don't really know anything.
Your notion that I am denigrating a "fact teller" is laughable. What fact have you actually put out there. None is the answer Dick. You have no facts about Trumps mental health as you have never evaluated him. You hate him, loathe him and that is fine but you are the one that needs help, not him.
What would you call a professional clinician that attempts to diagnose patients they have never met? Unethical perhaps?
Why don't you peruse this from the NIH. I will cut an paste the first paragraph for you. Does the Goldwater Rule sound like something you are doing? Why yes Dick, it does.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5809224/
Psychiatrists should never provide professional opinions in the media about public figures they have not personally examined, the American Psychiatric Association reiterated in a statement. The association was reminding members about what is known as “The Goldwater Rule” — a guideline penned in 1973 after more than 1000 psychiatrists went public with views about US presidential candidate Barry Goldwater’s fitness to hold office, calling him, among other things, “a dangerous lunatic.”
Your notion that I am denigrating a "fact teller" is laughable. What fact have you actually put out there. None is the answer Dick. You have no facts about Trumps mental health as you have never evaluated him. You hate him, loathe him and that is fine but you are the one that needs help, not him.
What would you call a professional clinician that attempts to diagnose patients they have never met? Unethical perhaps?
Why don't you peruse this from the NIH. I will cut an paste the first paragraph for you. Does the Goldwater Rule sound like something you are doing? Why yes Dick, it does.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5809224/
Psychiatrists should never provide professional opinions in the media about public figures they have not personally examined, the American Psychiatric Association reiterated in a statement. The association was reminding members about what is known as “The Goldwater Rule” — a guideline penned in 1973 after more than 1000 psychiatrists went public with views about US presidential candidate Barry Goldwater’s fitness to hold office, calling him, among other things, “a dangerous lunatic.”
Is it ever ethical for doctors to diagnose patients they haven’t examined?
Psychiatrists should never provide professional opinions in the media about public figures they have not personally examined, the American Psychiatric Association reiterated in a statement. The association was reminding members about what is known as “The Goldwater Rule” — a guideline penned in 1973 after more than 1000 psychiatrists went public with views about US presidential candidate Barry Goldwater’s fitness to hold office, calling him,...
(0)
(0)
SSgt Richard Kensinger
I am not a psychiatrist and not a member of APA. As he is not my patient, I am not under any obligation to protect his PHI. If he were my patient, I would never release this info w/o his written expressed permission as it is unethical/illegal to do so. You remain quite under-informed of my clinical profession.
Rich
Rich
(1)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
We can have a treaty if you can stop acting as though your profession gives you insight and final judgment on peoples mental health who you have never met or treated. Disagreeing with Trump policy and even antics is fair game but attempting to clinically assess his mental state as a mental health professional in a forum like this is over the line and I think you know that. You are pretty far down the path on doing so and I know it can be difficult to stop, put it in reverse etc.
Using your mental health credentials (whatever they may be) to attempt to bludgeon people you disagree with is unprofessional and reflects poorly on your profession.
Using your mental health credentials (whatever they may be) to attempt to bludgeon people you disagree with is unprofessional and reflects poorly on your profession.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
Or everyone could stop being so sensitive... When did we turn into a nation of emotional lightweights. My son was a pedestrian hit by a car, TBI was the mechanism of death. I'm not pissed off because my President is not a medical expert and I sure as Hell don't expect him to be on a leash. But if you want to be wronged by someone you hate... any excuse will do.
Guess what our enemies don't give a damn if they hurt our feelings, in fact it emboldens them.
Guess what our enemies don't give a damn if they hurt our feelings, in fact it emboldens them.
(5)
(0)
(2)
(0)
Maj John Bell
Cpl Jeff N. - Yep, I've told him what I think of the ethics of offering "clinical" opinions when his only exposure is snippets provided by a hostile press. As an EMT I lose my license it I tell you, over the phone, how to deal with a cut I haven't seen and an examination I haven't conducted.
(1)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
Why doesn’t he verify himself here on Rally Point? I will accept a bunch more crap from a verified veteran!
(1)
(0)
Maj John Bell
MSgt (Join to see) - Imagine this. He's in a press conference. He's asked a question. "I'm sorry but I can't answer you until I get every aspect fact checked." Does it sound as silly coming off my keyboard as it does coming off your keyboard.
Here is an unpleasant truth about me. If I decide someone has crossed a red line with me, I'm an unforgiving SOB and I look for, and find, offense where none was offered. If I can hang my hat on some perceived slight, even if it is BS I don't care!!! It is one more reason for me to justify my unforgiving distaste for the jackass. So I understand the mindset from where most of the Trump haters are coming. Since I don't share that particular hatred it is a reason to pity them and work on my own flaws.
Here is an unpleasant truth about me. If I decide someone has crossed a red line with me, I'm an unforgiving SOB and I look for, and find, offense where none was offered. If I can hang my hat on some perceived slight, even if it is BS I don't care!!! It is one more reason for me to justify my unforgiving distaste for the jackass. So I understand the mindset from where most of the Trump haters are coming. Since I don't share that particular hatred it is a reason to pity them and work on my own flaws.
(2)
(0)
5
5
0
Trump is playing a "role". Yes, yes...I voted for the man (and likely will again for reasons I've repeatedly stated here and elsewhere), but I've cautioned many against believing in the "character" he has been playing to secure votes. That "role" includes projecting a mindset that believes everything was "better" in the "good old days". Forgive me, but I have to believe that many view the advanced body armor, expensive systems, platforms, and initiatives of today's Armed Forces as evidence of a "weaker" force when compared to what "they" remember from their own service...let alone the service of those that went before them. I know I'm speaking heresy here; but tell me it's not a common thread to believe that if warfighters of the past endured the "Battle of the Bulge", Iwo Jima, and Khe Sanh in cotton utilities and a steel pot helmet...warriors in GoreTex and Kevlar, riding about in armored vehicles and connected by "advanced" communications networks should fare at least as well? True or not, this is what Trump is capitalizing upon...embracing a narrative that lacking any practical experience, he cannot control. Even if the Surgeon General wrote his speeches, Trump would likely "wing it", if he thought it's what his "base" wants to hear...the other candidates in the upcoming election are no different. For my own part, I wish he would've acknowledged the fact that there is no such thing as conflict without casualty...and that we've learned a great deal about the physical risks of warfare over the last half-century. We join up knowing these risks, and if the cause we fight for is just...it is worth the risk. If he's sure in his policy, the President should not downplay these threats. There is simply no way to know how many veterans of previous wars went home with "invisible injuries" that led to substance or spousal abuse, lost potential, and ruined lives.
(5)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
Sorry he is not playing a role to dishonor people for their injuries is not a role. Yes we all sign up for combat but that don't mean we have to be labeled as having a headache when hurt by artillery.
(3)
(0)
LCDR Joshua Gillespie
1SG (Join to see) - Couldn't agree more; please don't misunderstand my cynicism for apathy. The point I wished to convey is that "if" (and there's not much value in that, I'll grant you) the President had merely stated that these very real injuries do not mitigate the value of the overriding strategy...he may have been more in his lane.
(2)
(0)
LCDR Joshua Gillespie
MAJ Byron Oyler - Excellent points, and your expertise adds much to the conversation. The issue I'm addressing is the lack of experience and knowledge that influences such statements. I believe the overall strategy of not allowing Iran to operate in the shadows is a sound one. There are inherently casualties in taking aggressive steps, and (in my opinion) the President should've acknowledged this, as opposed to attempting to downplay their severity.
(2)
(0)
LCDR Joshua Gillespie
Not to detract from my point here (there's on in there I swear)-but in light of some of the other (better) posts on this subject; I'm going to personally label my initial post on this one as, "The most 'Officer' comment" I've made on RP in some time...hey, it's an "off" day.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
He had to say something in the aftermath of the attack, and it was not immediately known the extent of any injuries.
(3)
(0)
SGT Robert Pryor
SGT Steve McFarland As I see it, Trump had three choices. 1) He could say "nothing and be slammed for failing to show concern. 2) He could say they were "severe" or "very sever"e and be bashed for using the incorrect ratings as indicated by the military's rating system. or 3) He could correctly say they were "Not severe" and be slammed by people unfamiliar with the DOD system. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
(3)
(0)
PO2 (Join to see)
SP5 Dennis Loberger - You've had the best reply yet. That covers the bases and new damage and injury reports would coming soon.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
I believe that when your not checked then you tend to make statements that are all over the map. Everyone needs someone to check their internal facts!
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
Headaches have never been considered a “serious injury” and when he said that he went on to clarify further that the injuries were not serious RELATIVE to other injuries he’s seen. Injuries such as ruptured organs, severed limbs and arteries, sucking chest wounds, collapsing lungs, etc. He wasn’t sayingTBI isn’t serious, he said headaches weren’t serious. Are they going to go back and examine ALL of the individuals who have been under rocket or mortar attack, or IED/VBIED explosions etc. who didn’t even know that the headaches or other symptoms of TBI they may have experienced, were related to any such injury? Or, scrutinize the docs, or leadership who have them the Motrin cure-all and told them to suck it up??? Or is this only a big deal, now, because it was an opportunity to jump on Trump?
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
It wasn't just that he didn't know what he was talking about, he was attempting to minimize the importance of those types of injuries.
It would have been better if he said something along the lines of, "service members exhibited TBI/concussion-like symptoms and are receiving treatment, yadda yadda yadda, some expectation of recovery." Instead of basically being like, "no big deal".
The issue is that there were initially definitive reports of zero casualties and that was used as a way to minimize the missile strikes as "face-saving" measures by Iran. So, we stood down, they stood down, whatever. Then it comes out that there were casualties and I get it, TBI symptoms can take time to show. It can really start out as "just a headache" and then it's like, "oh, this isn't getting better like a normal headache."
So it becomes a back-and-forth where people are like, "I thought you said there weren't casualties" and his response is, "oh, it's not a big deal. Just headaches. I've seen worse."
The minimization and trying to save-face is where I had the biggest issue. It wouldn't matter really if he had been properly briefed because he shoots from the hip so much when he tries to backtrack and cover himself.
It would have been better if he said something along the lines of, "service members exhibited TBI/concussion-like symptoms and are receiving treatment, yadda yadda yadda, some expectation of recovery." Instead of basically being like, "no big deal".
The issue is that there were initially definitive reports of zero casualties and that was used as a way to minimize the missile strikes as "face-saving" measures by Iran. So, we stood down, they stood down, whatever. Then it comes out that there were casualties and I get it, TBI symptoms can take time to show. It can really start out as "just a headache" and then it's like, "oh, this isn't getting better like a normal headache."
So it becomes a back-and-forth where people are like, "I thought you said there weren't casualties" and his response is, "oh, it's not a big deal. Just headaches. I've seen worse."
The minimization and trying to save-face is where I had the biggest issue. It wouldn't matter really if he had been properly briefed because he shoots from the hip so much when he tries to backtrack and cover himself.
(3)
(0)
SSgt Richard Kensinger
You are absolutely correct!! If interested, I can send you copies of my published articles re: Trump's clinical pathology. I am working on a 5th in the series. " [login to see] "
Rich
Rich
(1)
(0)
CPO Nate S.
SSgt Richard Kensinger (aka PsyD R D Kensinger) - Data Science and Research is what I do.
I found this article interesting https://www.thefix.com/predicting-and-preventing-patient-suicide. Also, I see some of the work you have collaborated on in the online medical repository known as PUBMED (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=richard+kensinger).
I will download and read them in the next few days.
PO1 (Join to see) It about, being able to tell POTUS the following in boldness known that you might fire me, but I have to say what is one my mind:
"Mr. President, WADR Sir, I don't like to see you make a fool of yourself. I realize you have a 'run and gun' style and that is fine. But, you risk isolating the very men and women whose bravery your applaud by minimizing, or a least appearing to minimize, their 'hidden wounds of war injuries.' Sir, it make little difference to me if you want to hurt our younger warriors with your words. I don't think it is about hurting their feelings, rather it is about damaging their chances for recovery, because their are those who don't really believe they have been injured if they are not missing body parts. Sir, when one misses their mind that had not been missing before and was in perfect operation they cannot afford the Leader of the Free World thinking them 'sickbay commandos' with a mere sustained 'head ache'. Sir, all I am saying is this please show the honor to all our honored injured. Let me help you be successful in this regard. If nothing else sir, it is Ok in briefings to say in situations like this - 'While no one way killed, we still have to access the extent of any injuries minor or major that we sustained. That is all folks'. Thank you sire for hearing me out."
I have to say that I am on the outside looking in as 1SG (Join to see) stated earlier, and my comments have a degree of "Monday Morning quarterbacking" as best. The whole point of this the premise that generated this post is that TBI and PTSD induced by a TBI is an issue. As medical science advances we continue to learn more. There is NO doubt that many from past wars experienced TBI issues, and YES many, in time overcame those effects. [1605328: lcdr-joshua-gillespie] is SPOT ON in his historical analysis. This is why I repeat his words here:
"...For my own part, I wish he would've acknowledged the fact that there is no such thing as conflict without casualty...and that we've learned a great deal about the physical risks of warfare over the last half-century. We join up knowing these risks, and if the cause we fight for is just...it is worth the risk. If he's sure in his policy, the President should not downplay these threats. There is simply no way to know how many veterans of previous wars went home with "invisible injuries" that led to substance or spousal abuse, lost potential, and ruined lives...." Truer words were never spoken!
In closing, the comments here have been insightful and help me in the work I am currently doing. Thank for your thoughts!
I found this article interesting https://www.thefix.com/predicting-and-preventing-patient-suicide. Also, I see some of the work you have collaborated on in the online medical repository known as PUBMED (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=richard+kensinger).
I will download and read them in the next few days.
PO1 (Join to see) It about, being able to tell POTUS the following in boldness known that you might fire me, but I have to say what is one my mind:
"Mr. President, WADR Sir, I don't like to see you make a fool of yourself. I realize you have a 'run and gun' style and that is fine. But, you risk isolating the very men and women whose bravery your applaud by minimizing, or a least appearing to minimize, their 'hidden wounds of war injuries.' Sir, it make little difference to me if you want to hurt our younger warriors with your words. I don't think it is about hurting their feelings, rather it is about damaging their chances for recovery, because their are those who don't really believe they have been injured if they are not missing body parts. Sir, when one misses their mind that had not been missing before and was in perfect operation they cannot afford the Leader of the Free World thinking them 'sickbay commandos' with a mere sustained 'head ache'. Sir, all I am saying is this please show the honor to all our honored injured. Let me help you be successful in this regard. If nothing else sir, it is Ok in briefings to say in situations like this - 'While no one way killed, we still have to access the extent of any injuries minor or major that we sustained. That is all folks'. Thank you sire for hearing me out."
I have to say that I am on the outside looking in as 1SG (Join to see) stated earlier, and my comments have a degree of "Monday Morning quarterbacking" as best. The whole point of this the premise that generated this post is that TBI and PTSD induced by a TBI is an issue. As medical science advances we continue to learn more. There is NO doubt that many from past wars experienced TBI issues, and YES many, in time overcame those effects. [1605328: lcdr-joshua-gillespie] is SPOT ON in his historical analysis. This is why I repeat his words here:
"...For my own part, I wish he would've acknowledged the fact that there is no such thing as conflict without casualty...and that we've learned a great deal about the physical risks of warfare over the last half-century. We join up knowing these risks, and if the cause we fight for is just...it is worth the risk. If he's sure in his policy, the President should not downplay these threats. There is simply no way to know how many veterans of previous wars went home with "invisible injuries" that led to substance or spousal abuse, lost potential, and ruined lives...." Truer words were never spoken!
In closing, the comments here have been insightful and help me in the work I am currently doing. Thank for your thoughts!
Daily website for alcohol and drug addiction recovery news and information. Your source for addiction recovery news, rehab reviews and sober living tips.
(1)
(0)
SSgt Richard Kensinger
CPO Nate S. - I appreciate your interest in my clinical research. I also have published articles on combat trauma dating back to WW Two.
Rich
Rich
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
POTUS repeated what he was told by someone from the pentagon who repeated what they were told by the theater command who repeated what they were told by the base commander who got his information from an all hands muster. If you were in the formation and not bleeding, you were considered uninjured. The brain injuries were not discovered in time for the reporter's question
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google