Posted on 09/09/2007 12:43:59 PM PDT by james500
it’s a higher percentage of wounds and it’s more about the impact of blast on confined areas and hard helmets and body armour
the concussion essentially somewhat different than field or air arty impact when the explosive itself or the shrapnel was lethal
some of these guys have little projectile wounding but serious brain movement injury and survived
i know a number of vandy medical staff...there are as a rule not very whimsical or liberal
in fact one freeps on occasion but wishes not to be disclosed
if they say it looks a certain way to them, I tend to believe them
in all fairness...govt medical care has never been on par with private....and that is a stain on our military folks and out troopers deserve better
but it’s nothing new to be sure
i would not dismiss this out of hand and I do believe that a high incidence of IED merits new discovery and treatments likely
it’s like chem poisoning 40 years ago....nobody was ever sure
or maybe Desert Storm downwind nerve agent damage...who really knows
i sure don’t view it as left versus right...though granted the left exploits it but they do that to anything short of nut licking
Okay, I’m going to respond to the points you raised, but I’m not trying to nail you. I’m simply trying to reason with you concerning these issues. I do appeciate your response.
Our troops did have helmets in prior wars. They did have shells going off nearly on top of them as they lay in Foxholes. The shock wave could and did effect these men, without killing them in many instances. They didn’t have the troop carriers we do today, but they did have trucks, tanks and aircraft. I guess physicians could say that foks in prior wars were more likely to have these types of inujuries for the reason they weren’t in a troop carrier, providing at least some protection. I’m not trying to be testy, but I do have a very hard time thinking our men at Iwo Jima, Normandy and too many other campaigns to mention, didn’t have massive munitions going off in their direct vicinty without dying. Some might be shielded by other troops, trees, terain for instance, but still be very close to a munition going offf, causing a massive shock wave.
As for the physicians who are treating these ailments, I’m not trying to cast any dispersions their way either, but how many of them served in WWII, Korea or even Vietnam? I am not trying to caste them as Liberals or fronting for this writer. I just can’t help but try to consider what happened in other wars, compared with that is taking place now. I can see troops survivability being increased these days. That’s a given IMO. I do think that is reasoned, but with the massive numbers of troops injured in WWII during certain campaigns, I can’t help but reason that a reduced percentage of troops with this type of injury survived, but that a number of them did due to the shere numbers of overall casualties in those campaigns.
I don’t fault you for believing these phsyicians. It’s not important that they or you are wrong. If everything reported in this article were true, I would still find it highly unusual for a member of the MSM to actually give a damn.
Please take note of the articles that appeared today. Please take note of the add in the New York Times. Please take note of the polling data from Iraq that was published today. What we have seen is a concentrated effort to build opinion against this war. It’s my opinion that this A.P. story was merely one more aspect of that disinformation campaign, containing some truth, but ulimately designed to cast Bush as an uncaring Commander in Chief because he won’t bring the troops home, and doesn’t care to get them proper care once they are injured.
This is the MSM. I’m sorry, but I do not think they would print an article like this one right in the middle of a push to end the war, unless it fit in somehow with that effort.
Now, are our troops getting the care they need? I’ve not been convinced of that since Vietnam. This does trouble me quite a bit actually, but the idea that it is Bush’s fault is rediculous to me.
Is the the fault of every president since 1975? Well, I might buy into that to be honest. It may even be true that Ronald Reagan didn’t pay as much attention to our war wounded as he should have. Should this be remedied today? I believe it should. Will it be? I’ve been waiting a long time to hear that it has. I’ll more than likely be waiting for a lot longer.
As much as this drives me nuts, I don’t know what I can do about it. I don’t know what any of us can do about it. I would hope that things aren’t as bad as I could imagine, but my faith in our leaders has taken a hit over the years.
You take care.
possibly...I do recall seeing a shell shocked man lead out of church service when I was a boy....but he was WWI I think
my uncle R.E. was gassed in WWI and lived a hard life thereafter for 40 or so years and died young and drunk
I agree that this is not Bush’s fault and that the media is only paying attention to create a negative news story.
I also agree that new medical advances like MRIs, CAT, PET scans etc may simply be making this more obvious than in the past. We will see.
TBI is caused by actual head trauma. It isn’t a stress related illness. TBI is actual brain damage, resulting from a severe trauma to the head. It can and often does result in permanent impairment. This isn’t some imaginary injury, it is real and it is prevalent. Twice a week, I feed 10-12 of them breakfast, because they are unable to feed themselves. Maybe you are an expert at “how these people operate” but you should do some research on traumatic brain injury, before you determine that it is a non existant or uncommon problem. Sure, the media is sabotaging the war effort by publishing negative stories. But, there are many seriously injured soldiers that deserve our sincere respect for their sacrifice. Confusing the two plays right into their hands.
Thank you for your comments. Have a good day Wardaddy...
There may have been a point in this thread where I mistakenly referenced PTSD. If I did, it was a momentary lapse. I do think these men have a serious injury. I do not think it is purely psychological. I do think it is related to shock wave trauma on the brain. I appreciate what you are doing for these men. Thank you.
You have no clue what your talking about.
Have you talked to anyone whose vehicle was a near miss by an IED. The person I talked with said he felt the concussion blow and his ears were ringing for a day. No physical inuries (shrapernal) but we have no way to measure if there was any trauma to the brain. Its worse if your in an armored vehicle and have a near miss.
“our troops are being injured worse than ever before.”
The issue is that soldiers are surviving serious injuries that would have killed them in past wars. The military and the VA are now trying to help this wounded live a normal life.
As I said before, if I lose a limb in combat, I know the military and the VA will help me since they have seen this wound before and know how to treat it.
I don’t have full confidence if I have other injuries such as paralysis or a brain injury, that I will get the best care from them. It will take them a while to catch up and learn effective treatments.
“If these same doctors’s and technology existed 50 years ago, would we have seen more.......brain damage?”
I don’t think so because in the past if you were that close to an artillery shell that you suffered the concussion, you would be killed by the shrapernal.
In past wars, soldiers suffering this type of blast usually died. The body armor and advances in battlefield medicine allow many more to survive, although with terrible injuries.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.