HillerMyLife 0 #76 January 10, 2009 If I missed a joke I'm sorry, but you begged the question "What about stress related deaths" and used the Falkands veterans as an example. If you didn't want me to infer what I did, what was it you were getting at?Someday Never Comes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #77 January 10, 2009 Firstly, let me assure you that you didn't miss a joke. Not on such a subject. Please read what you've said towards the end of post #65, and exactly what I've said in reply on post #66. Essentially it was to point something out to you. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HillerMyLife 0 #78 January 10, 2009 Ok I think I understand what you meant. I was just stuck in the context of the thread and was thinking perhaps you thought that merited an award. I was merely saying that if it did(merit an award) than make a separate award, don't hand out Purple Hearts. But I agree with what you said 100%, all combat veterans need to be screened for evidence of PTSD and followed up on, and the ones who are having a lot of difficulty need to get as much treatment and help as they need. Its an investment in society and it is owed to veterans.Someday Never Comes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #79 January 10, 2009 Problem is, how easy is it to detect PTSD? How easy is it to diagnose what individuals will be effected in the future? You can't. Some people may well experience the most horrendous situations on ops and be forever fine mentally. Others may never cross the wire yet fall to bits 6 years after returning home. People you consider strong may fall to pieces, others you considered weak may remain completely intact. Support always available to veterans should of course always be made easily available. Sure, methods are in place in most Western countries now - but there's still a huge amount of investment needed! A massive amount in fact. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #80 January 10, 2009 QuoteProblem is, how easy is it to detect PTSD? PTSD is typically diagnosed based on symptoms, which can make it subjective (to some extent) and difficult to assign a specific underlying causal mechanism. TBI, otoh, can be physically observed, i.e., detected. If one can visually observe a case of TBI, it is often fatal, e.g., a hole in the head/crushed skull. In non-fatal cases of TBI, physical changes can (sometimes) be detected/observed using diagnostic equipment for soft tissue, e.g., something like an “Xray for the brain.” When squishy brain matters bounces off the back of the skull, there are physically observable changes such as compressed blood vessels. TBI is thought to be a causal explanation for some PTSD (not all folks with TBI manifest PTSD and not all with PTSD have TBI). Quote How easy is it to diagnose what individuals will be effected in the future? You can't. Pre-emptive diagnosis is an interesting topic to me on ethical, strategic, and technical grounds. There are folks, mostly funded by the military, trying to elucidate the mechanisms that underlie cognitive deficits and other stress-induced neuropsychological consequences of combat. Part of the intent is more therapeutic, part of the intent is diagnostic, and part of the intent is development of neuropharmacological interventions to improve the cognitive performance of military personnel under combat stress, and maybe also to prevent the development of PTSD. For example, Andy Morgan at Yale is funded by the US Army (through Army Medical Command) to research cognitive changes and to identify biochemical-physiological correlates (neurochemicals, vagal tone [pronounced like “vay-gull”]) in those soldiers that respond well under stress. He and his team have also looked at the cognitive patterns and neurochemistry of soldiers who experience PTSD versus those that don’t. His long term goals are to see if treatment with DHEA or neuropeptide Y can improve cognitive resilience under combat stress and to help prevent PTSD. Few would argue that decreasing incidence of PTSD is a ‘bad thing’ or an infringement on the autonomy of personhood of soldiers, sailors, marines, or airmen. That’s a defensive, precautionary, medical application. One can also imagine less desirable implications; a potential extrapolation – which as far as I am aware no one is proposing – is using such knowledge as a screening tool. That starts to get into ethics of trying to use genetic/proteomic/metabolomic data as restrictive indicators, e.g., if your level of “X” is too low, you’re ineligible for “Y,” not unlike some of the ethical (& economic) quandaries of genetic screening. Do you want MOS to be determined by genetics (more than it already is)? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #81 January 12, 2009 Quote How easy is it to diagnose what individuals will be effected in the future? You can't. QuotePre-emptive diagnosis is an interesting topic to me on ethical, strategic, and technical grounds. There are folks, mostly funded by the military, trying to elucidate the mechanisms that underlie cognitive deficits and other stress-induced neuropsychological consequences of combat. Part of the intent is more therapeutic, part of the intent is diagnostic, and part of the intent is development of neuropharmacological interventions to improve the cognitive performance of military personnel under combat stress, and maybe also to prevent the development of PTSD. For example, Andy Morgan at Yale is funded by the US Army (through Army Medical Command) to research cognitive changes and to identify biochemical-physiological correlates (neurochemicals, vagal tone [pronounced like “vay-gull”])(Thank goodness. . .) in those soldiers that respond well under stress. He and his team have also looked at the cognitive patterns and neurochemistry of soldiers who experience PTSD versus those that don’t. His long term goals are to see if treatment with DHEA or neuropeptide Y can improve cognitive resilience under combat stress and to help prevent PTSD. Few would argue that decreasing incidence of PTSD is a ‘bad thing’ or an infringement on the autonomy of personhood of soldiers, sailors, marines, or airmen. That’s a defensive, precautionary, medical application. One can also imagine less desirable implications; a potential extrapolation – which as far as I am aware no one is proposing – is using such knowledge as a screening tool. That starts to get into ethics of trying to use genetic/proteomic/metabolomic data as restrictive indicators, e.g., if your level of “X” is too low, you’re ineligible for “Y,” It could also be seen as another means of selection for demanding military jobs. And perhaps more effective than certain existing methods. So in sense, I'd see it being more for the common good than bad. Quote Do you want MOS to be determined by genetics (more than it already is)? VR/Marg MOS? Medical Outcomes Study? Military Occupation Skill?Member of the Opposite Sex??? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #82 January 12, 2009 "Mostly Outputting Shite" (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
deibido 0 #83 January 12, 2009 Quote It's like those berets that used to signify that a soldier had undergone extraordinary training to belong to the special forces, and then they went and gave a beret to everybody, because somebody's feelings were hurt. Oh boo freakin hoo. The beret should mean something special. Now it means nothing. Quote Only, they didn't take the Special Forces Beret and give it to everyone. They took someone else's. I know a guy or two who are still just a tad upset about that."User assumes all risk" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites steve1 5 #84 January 12, 2009 They took they ranger's black beret and gave it to everyone. Yes, wearing a beret once meant something. The only people who wore berets, in the army, during the 70's, were Special Forces and Rangers. I do think the red beret for airborne was okay though. They earned it.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites steve1 5 #85 January 12, 2009 Trying to determine who would be likely to suffer from PTSD is an interesting topic. I once read that the best soldier might be someone with little or no imagination. Someone who could sit in a trench and not think about how today may be the day you will die. I don't know about that. It takes ingenuity, intelligence, and imagination to make a good soldier in my mind. There was an interesting study on PTSD following the 9/11 disaster. It had to do with recovery from PTSD. One group was given treatment by professionals, using the latest methods. Another group was given no treatment. Guess which group recovered the most quickly. It was the group with no treatment at all. How could that be? It might be that treatment can interfere with the natural recovery mechanism in the brain. It also says a lot for the natural recovery abilities of the brain. Most people will overcome the devastating affects of PTSD rather quickly on their own. I'm not saying that no treatment is best though. If the problems persist I truly believe that Psychological help can make a big difference. Choosing the right therapist is important though. There are conflicting ideas on the best way to treat PTSD. Recurrent thoughts, anxiety, depression, anger, low self esteem, hyper vigilance, and memory loss are some signs that might stem from PTSD. A sight, smell, sound, etc. can trigger feelings of being back in combat. My Dad came back to high school following WWII. He had a kid in his class who had been an army ranger. One day someone dropped his books in class. This poor sould dived under his desk. Another guy who had returned from a war was greatly affected. Whenever he went into a room he would sit in the back corner with his back to the wall, where he could see everything. Whenever someone walked by the door he was instantly alert. He was hyper vigilant, and these behaviors kept him alive in combat. It was nearly impossible for him to adapt to a safe environment again. Some people suffer so greatly that they feel hopeless and take their own life. There are a ton of returning soldiers who deserve the best treatment available for PTSD. Those who are faking symptoms to get a check should feel ashamed..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #86 January 13, 2009 Quote There was an interesting study on PTSD following the 9/11 disaster. It had to do with recovery from PTSD. One group was given treatment by professionals, using the latest methods. Another group was given no treatment. Guess which group recovered the most quickly. It was the group with no treatment at all. Concur that would be *very* interesting. Do you have a link? What is the source? It would also be contrary to all the other experience and evidence on treatment of PTSD whether from combat, from rape, or from child abuse. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #87 January 13, 2009 QuoteQuote One can also imagine less desirable implications; a potential extrapolation – which as far as I am aware no one is proposing – is using such knowledge as a screening tool. That starts to get into ethics of trying to use genetic/proteomic/metabolomic data as restrictive indicators, e.g., if your level of “X” is too low, you’re ineligible for “Y,” It could also be seen as another means of selection for demanding military jobs. And perhaps more effective than certain existing methods. So in sense, I'd see it being more for the common good than bad. One can make that argument. Distilled to the core, the ethical arguments are (1) privacy issues and (2) rejection of the concept of biology (through genetics, etc) dictating destiny. whch is justice. Given, when one is a member of the uniformed military services, one abnegates (waives) certain privacy rights. DNA samples are currently collected but uses are very limited, e.g., identification of remains. The ethicals and legalities of using DNA screening for other decisional purposes is untested largely w/in the military realm. At the far end of the argument, one also encounters a GATACCA-esque ethical conuncdrum, which I fully acknowledge as a far end scenario. If there was such a hypothetical screen for a priori decisions, that implies that human capabilities are pre-determined from birth and dictates what one can do without recognition of human variability, training, and value of interdicting actions. Now there are many intermediary states between that scenario and nothing. Figuring out where effectiveness and value are maximized is just as much a scientific as an ethical, political, legal, and operational question. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites steve1 5 #88 January 13, 2009 No, but this study was well documented. I've also seen research that states that quick treatment for PTSD is the answer. There is so much conflicting research out there, that it's hard to decide what the truth is. Was it Mark Twain who said, "There are lies, lies, and lies, and then there are statistics."..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #89 January 13, 2009 QuoteNo, but this study was well documented. If it is well-documented, why can't you provide a link? (I provided links to hundreds of studies.) Who did the study? How many people were in it? Where? How long? Quote I've also seen research that states that quick treatment for PTSD is the answer. There is so much conflicting research out there, that it's hard to decide what the truth is. Ummm ... there are areas of disagreement w/r/t most effective treatment and methods; whether to treat or not, is not one of which I am aware. The assertion that there is "conflicting research" -- particularly in light of the lack of verifiable conflicting data -- is disengenous to put it diplomatically. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #90 January 13, 2009 I think I figured out to what you’re referring … I think you’ve blended the incidence or onset of PTSD with treatment of those who are exhibiting PTSD. Bonanno, G.A., Galea, S., Bucciarelli, A., & Vlahov, D. (2006). Psychological resilience after disaster: New York City in the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attack. Psychological Science, 17, 181-186. Abstract: “Research on adult reactions to potentially traumatic events has focused almost exclusively on posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Although there has been relatively little research on the absence of trauma symptoms, the available evidence suggests that resilience following such events may be more prevalent than previously believed. This study examined the prevalence of resilience, defined as having either no PTSD symptoms or one symptom, among a large (n= 2,752) probability sample of New York area residents during the 6 months following the September 11th terrorist attack. Although many respondents met criteria for PTSD, particularly when exposure was high, resilience was observed in 65.1% of the sample. Resilience was less prevalent among more highly exposed individuals, but the frequency of resilience never fell below one third even among the exposure groups with the most dramatic elevations in PTSD.” The study was on the onset or incidence of PTSD, which was lower than some expected, not on treatment. It suggests that regular Americans may be more resilient than previously assumed. Some folks (65.1% of those in the study) didn’t receive treatment because they weren’t exhibiting symptoms that warranted a PTSD diagnosis. I.e., one isn't treated for schizophrenia is one doesn't have those symptoms. (And this is all symptom-based diagnoses, as far as I’m aware.) One might speculate – tying into my post above on pre-screening – on neurochemical differences in those who were resilient versus versus those who did develop PTSD after 9-11. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites steve1 5 #91 January 13, 2009 If you are so concerned about this study, possibly you could do some looking. Have you looked at much research. Surely it doesn't all agree. Aren't their conflicting studies out there. Frankly I've better things to do at the moment than jump through hoops to please you. If you don't believe this research, that is fine. It's out there if you care to look. What in hell does disengenuous mean? Are we having a contest to see who can use the most big words? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #92 January 13, 2009 QuoteIf you are so concerned about this study, possibly you could do some looking. < points to post above, #90 > QuoteHave you looked at much research. Responding as if that was a question: yes. QuoteSurely it doesn't all agree. Aren't their conflicting studies out there. "Ummm ... there are areas of disagreement w/r/t most effective treatment and methods; whether to treat or not, is not one of which I am aware." QuoteFrankly I've better things to do at the moment than jump through hoops to please you. If you don't believe this research, that is fine. It's out there if you care to look. The nature of a disussion forum is to discuss. If one makes an assertion, it is reasonable to request clarification or evidence of that assertions validity, especially in light of a large body of contradicting evidence. As far as making it personal, no one requested you "jump through hoops." What's the metaphor? Play the ball not the player. QuoteWhat in hell does disengenuous mean? It means my spelling is less than perfect: disingenuous; it's also a polite way of saying your assertion was wrong. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites steve1 5 #93 January 14, 2009 Quote I think I figured out to what you’re referring … I think you’ve blended the incidence or onset of PTSD with treatment of those who are exhibiting PTSD. Bonanno, G.A., Galea, S., Bucciarelli, A., & Vlahov, D. (2006). Psychological resilience after disaster: New York City in the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attack. Psychological Science, 17, No, this is not the study I was referring to. There are litterally hundreds of studies relating to PTSD and the 9/11 disaster. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites steve1 5 #94 January 14, 2009 . Ummm ... there are areas of disagreement w/r/t most effective treatment and methods; whether to treat or not, is not one of which I am aware. The assertion that there is "conflicting research" -- particularly in light of the lack of verifiable conflicting data -- is disengenous to put it diplomatically. VR/Marg[/reply ............................................................... In the course of working as a licensed therapist I look at all kinds of research in the course of a year. I don't keep all these articles to argue about on the internet. That doesn't mean that research doesn't exist. If I'm hearing you right, disengenous is another fancy way of saying bull shit. I wish you'd come right out and say what you really have to say rather than using fancy words. I don't see anything polite about that. If you really study pshychology you'll find that it is filled with conflicting theories and treatments. In many cases there is little research to support a form of treatment. Treating suicidal people is one example. Most therapists have their treatment strategies, but what are these really based on?...... It would be considered unethical to do clinical trials with groups of suicidal people. Can you imagine the law suits that would result from that. As a result, we know little about what works best in treating suicidal clients. Cognitive Behaioral Therapy is probably the most popular treatment when working with PTSD clients.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #95 January 14, 2009 Quote No, this is not the study I was referring to. There are litterally hundreds of studies relating to PTSD and the 9/11 disaster. To what are you referring then? You keep referring to somethingyou assert is "well-documented" with no evidence beyond what amounts to little more than “trust me.” Show us some data. Otoh, I have provided (1) literally hundreds of studies showing the need for treatment, and (2) what sounds like it was the study to which you were referring. I can also point to a 3rd set of data showing that lack of treatment doesn’t work. Can you even provide one credible expert to whom one could look to support your assertion? Prove me wrong. I used “disengenous/disengenous” because I consider what you asserted to be *more* than just inaccurate. It potentially perpetuates what was observed after Vietnam in which returning service members with PTSD were not acknowledged and were not treated. As you probably know, PTSD is more than just “a little stress,” “a few restless nights,” or having a beer every now and then. PTSD can be debilitating. “A large body of research indicates that there is a correlation [emphasis nerdgirl] between PTSD and suicide.” More. The specific causal mechanism is an area of ‘conflicting research’ – not whether to treat or not and not whether PTSD is real or not, which is the slippery slope message of your initial assertion. While perceptions that returning service members should just “suck it up” or “man up” still exist, they have decreased over the last three decades; nonetheless “the perception of stigmatization has the power to deter active-duty personnel from seeking mental health care even when they recognize the severity of their psychiatric problems” today. (Source: “Combat Duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, Mental Health Problems, and Barriers to Care,” NEJM, 1Jul04, the authors evaluated 6201 soldiers and Marines who had served in OIF & OEF, and the authors are affiliated w/WRAIR). Of the 9-17% who reported symptoms of PTSD, only 23-40% sought treatment. “Stigmatization” was cited as a main reason. That’s why your assertion is disingenuous. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites steve1 5 #96 January 14, 2009 You're not telling me anything that I don't already know. I mentioned one study that found that no treatment can produce results and you are acting like this is the end of the world. Frankly I don't have time to wade through all the PTSD studies relating to 9/11. I'm busy working with real people suffering from PTSD and potential suicide. I took a brief look recently, and yes, there are hundreds to look through. So, If you're saying I'm making things up, I don't give a rat's ass. If, I have time, I'll try to get this study to you. The other people I work with have read the same study. Perhaps they can help me find it again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #97 January 14, 2009 QuoteYou're not telling me anything that I don't already know. I mentioned one study that found that no treatment can produce results and you are acting like this is the end of the world. Play the ball not the player. I'm also curious as to what your metric is for behavior that qualifies as "acting like this is the end of the world"? Again you asserted: QuoteThere was an interesting study on PTSD following the 9/11 disaster. It had to do with recovery from PTSD. One group was given treatment by professionals, using the latest methods. Another group was given no treatment. Guess which group recovered the most quickly. It was the group with no treatment at all. Repeatedly, I've asked you, in what was intended to be nicely & respectfully, to provide *any* evidence to support that assertion. Substantive counter-evidence has been provided. QuoteFrankly I don't have time to wade through all the PTSD studies relating to 9/11. I'm busy working with real people suffering from PTSD and potential suicide. I took a brief look recently, and yes, there are hundreds to look through. Thank you! I do hope that you're not attempting to use your quoted assertion as a guide for determining treatment. QuoteSo, If you're saying I'm making things up, I don't give a rat's ass. Is that the most useful reaction when challenged? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites steve1 5 #98 January 14, 2009 Like I said, If I have time to find this article I will. So long, Nerd Girl. Perhaps you can move on to another topic you know little or nothing about..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #99 January 14, 2009 Quote Perhaps you can move on to another topic you know little or nothing about..... (How did you come to that conclusion?) And what relevance does it have to the question, which isn't even that tough of a question, of supporting your assertion? If students asks about the validity of something you assert, how do you respond? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites likearock 1 #100 January 17, 2009 Quote Frankly I don't have time to wade through all the PTSD studies relating to 9/11. I'm busy working with real people suffering from PTSD and potential suicide. However, if the results of the study you mentioned are correct, it would be better for those people to not pursue therapy. Are you now saying you disagree with those findings and believe that people with PTSD should have therapy? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 4 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
steve1 5 #84 January 12, 2009 They took they ranger's black beret and gave it to everyone. Yes, wearing a beret once meant something. The only people who wore berets, in the army, during the 70's, were Special Forces and Rangers. I do think the red beret for airborne was okay though. They earned it.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steve1 5 #85 January 12, 2009 Trying to determine who would be likely to suffer from PTSD is an interesting topic. I once read that the best soldier might be someone with little or no imagination. Someone who could sit in a trench and not think about how today may be the day you will die. I don't know about that. It takes ingenuity, intelligence, and imagination to make a good soldier in my mind. There was an interesting study on PTSD following the 9/11 disaster. It had to do with recovery from PTSD. One group was given treatment by professionals, using the latest methods. Another group was given no treatment. Guess which group recovered the most quickly. It was the group with no treatment at all. How could that be? It might be that treatment can interfere with the natural recovery mechanism in the brain. It also says a lot for the natural recovery abilities of the brain. Most people will overcome the devastating affects of PTSD rather quickly on their own. I'm not saying that no treatment is best though. If the problems persist I truly believe that Psychological help can make a big difference. Choosing the right therapist is important though. There are conflicting ideas on the best way to treat PTSD. Recurrent thoughts, anxiety, depression, anger, low self esteem, hyper vigilance, and memory loss are some signs that might stem from PTSD. A sight, smell, sound, etc. can trigger feelings of being back in combat. My Dad came back to high school following WWII. He had a kid in his class who had been an army ranger. One day someone dropped his books in class. This poor sould dived under his desk. Another guy who had returned from a war was greatly affected. Whenever he went into a room he would sit in the back corner with his back to the wall, where he could see everything. Whenever someone walked by the door he was instantly alert. He was hyper vigilant, and these behaviors kept him alive in combat. It was nearly impossible for him to adapt to a safe environment again. Some people suffer so greatly that they feel hopeless and take their own life. There are a ton of returning soldiers who deserve the best treatment available for PTSD. Those who are faking symptoms to get a check should feel ashamed..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #86 January 13, 2009 Quote There was an interesting study on PTSD following the 9/11 disaster. It had to do with recovery from PTSD. One group was given treatment by professionals, using the latest methods. Another group was given no treatment. Guess which group recovered the most quickly. It was the group with no treatment at all. Concur that would be *very* interesting. Do you have a link? What is the source? It would also be contrary to all the other experience and evidence on treatment of PTSD whether from combat, from rape, or from child abuse. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #87 January 13, 2009 QuoteQuote One can also imagine less desirable implications; a potential extrapolation – which as far as I am aware no one is proposing – is using such knowledge as a screening tool. That starts to get into ethics of trying to use genetic/proteomic/metabolomic data as restrictive indicators, e.g., if your level of “X” is too low, you’re ineligible for “Y,” It could also be seen as another means of selection for demanding military jobs. And perhaps more effective than certain existing methods. So in sense, I'd see it being more for the common good than bad. One can make that argument. Distilled to the core, the ethical arguments are (1) privacy issues and (2) rejection of the concept of biology (through genetics, etc) dictating destiny. whch is justice. Given, when one is a member of the uniformed military services, one abnegates (waives) certain privacy rights. DNA samples are currently collected but uses are very limited, e.g., identification of remains. The ethicals and legalities of using DNA screening for other decisional purposes is untested largely w/in the military realm. At the far end of the argument, one also encounters a GATACCA-esque ethical conuncdrum, which I fully acknowledge as a far end scenario. If there was such a hypothetical screen for a priori decisions, that implies that human capabilities are pre-determined from birth and dictates what one can do without recognition of human variability, training, and value of interdicting actions. Now there are many intermediary states between that scenario and nothing. Figuring out where effectiveness and value are maximized is just as much a scientific as an ethical, political, legal, and operational question. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steve1 5 #88 January 13, 2009 No, but this study was well documented. I've also seen research that states that quick treatment for PTSD is the answer. There is so much conflicting research out there, that it's hard to decide what the truth is. Was it Mark Twain who said, "There are lies, lies, and lies, and then there are statistics."..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #89 January 13, 2009 QuoteNo, but this study was well documented. If it is well-documented, why can't you provide a link? (I provided links to hundreds of studies.) Who did the study? How many people were in it? Where? How long? Quote I've also seen research that states that quick treatment for PTSD is the answer. There is so much conflicting research out there, that it's hard to decide what the truth is. Ummm ... there are areas of disagreement w/r/t most effective treatment and methods; whether to treat or not, is not one of which I am aware. The assertion that there is "conflicting research" -- particularly in light of the lack of verifiable conflicting data -- is disengenous to put it diplomatically. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #90 January 13, 2009 I think I figured out to what you’re referring … I think you’ve blended the incidence or onset of PTSD with treatment of those who are exhibiting PTSD. Bonanno, G.A., Galea, S., Bucciarelli, A., & Vlahov, D. (2006). Psychological resilience after disaster: New York City in the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attack. Psychological Science, 17, 181-186. Abstract: “Research on adult reactions to potentially traumatic events has focused almost exclusively on posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Although there has been relatively little research on the absence of trauma symptoms, the available evidence suggests that resilience following such events may be more prevalent than previously believed. This study examined the prevalence of resilience, defined as having either no PTSD symptoms or one symptom, among a large (n= 2,752) probability sample of New York area residents during the 6 months following the September 11th terrorist attack. Although many respondents met criteria for PTSD, particularly when exposure was high, resilience was observed in 65.1% of the sample. Resilience was less prevalent among more highly exposed individuals, but the frequency of resilience never fell below one third even among the exposure groups with the most dramatic elevations in PTSD.” The study was on the onset or incidence of PTSD, which was lower than some expected, not on treatment. It suggests that regular Americans may be more resilient than previously assumed. Some folks (65.1% of those in the study) didn’t receive treatment because they weren’t exhibiting symptoms that warranted a PTSD diagnosis. I.e., one isn't treated for schizophrenia is one doesn't have those symptoms. (And this is all symptom-based diagnoses, as far as I’m aware.) One might speculate – tying into my post above on pre-screening – on neurochemical differences in those who were resilient versus versus those who did develop PTSD after 9-11. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steve1 5 #91 January 13, 2009 If you are so concerned about this study, possibly you could do some looking. Have you looked at much research. Surely it doesn't all agree. Aren't their conflicting studies out there. Frankly I've better things to do at the moment than jump through hoops to please you. If you don't believe this research, that is fine. It's out there if you care to look. What in hell does disengenuous mean? Are we having a contest to see who can use the most big words? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #92 January 13, 2009 QuoteIf you are so concerned about this study, possibly you could do some looking. < points to post above, #90 > QuoteHave you looked at much research. Responding as if that was a question: yes. QuoteSurely it doesn't all agree. Aren't their conflicting studies out there. "Ummm ... there are areas of disagreement w/r/t most effective treatment and methods; whether to treat or not, is not one of which I am aware." QuoteFrankly I've better things to do at the moment than jump through hoops to please you. If you don't believe this research, that is fine. It's out there if you care to look. The nature of a disussion forum is to discuss. If one makes an assertion, it is reasonable to request clarification or evidence of that assertions validity, especially in light of a large body of contradicting evidence. As far as making it personal, no one requested you "jump through hoops." What's the metaphor? Play the ball not the player. QuoteWhat in hell does disengenuous mean? It means my spelling is less than perfect: disingenuous; it's also a polite way of saying your assertion was wrong. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steve1 5 #93 January 14, 2009 Quote I think I figured out to what you’re referring … I think you’ve blended the incidence or onset of PTSD with treatment of those who are exhibiting PTSD. Bonanno, G.A., Galea, S., Bucciarelli, A., & Vlahov, D. (2006). Psychological resilience after disaster: New York City in the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attack. Psychological Science, 17, No, this is not the study I was referring to. There are litterally hundreds of studies relating to PTSD and the 9/11 disaster. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steve1 5 #94 January 14, 2009 . Ummm ... there are areas of disagreement w/r/t most effective treatment and methods; whether to treat or not, is not one of which I am aware. The assertion that there is "conflicting research" -- particularly in light of the lack of verifiable conflicting data -- is disengenous to put it diplomatically. VR/Marg[/reply ............................................................... In the course of working as a licensed therapist I look at all kinds of research in the course of a year. I don't keep all these articles to argue about on the internet. That doesn't mean that research doesn't exist. If I'm hearing you right, disengenous is another fancy way of saying bull shit. I wish you'd come right out and say what you really have to say rather than using fancy words. I don't see anything polite about that. If you really study pshychology you'll find that it is filled with conflicting theories and treatments. In many cases there is little research to support a form of treatment. Treating suicidal people is one example. Most therapists have their treatment strategies, but what are these really based on?...... It would be considered unethical to do clinical trials with groups of suicidal people. Can you imagine the law suits that would result from that. As a result, we know little about what works best in treating suicidal clients. Cognitive Behaioral Therapy is probably the most popular treatment when working with PTSD clients.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #95 January 14, 2009 Quote No, this is not the study I was referring to. There are litterally hundreds of studies relating to PTSD and the 9/11 disaster. To what are you referring then? You keep referring to somethingyou assert is "well-documented" with no evidence beyond what amounts to little more than “trust me.” Show us some data. Otoh, I have provided (1) literally hundreds of studies showing the need for treatment, and (2) what sounds like it was the study to which you were referring. I can also point to a 3rd set of data showing that lack of treatment doesn’t work. Can you even provide one credible expert to whom one could look to support your assertion? Prove me wrong. I used “disengenous/disengenous” because I consider what you asserted to be *more* than just inaccurate. It potentially perpetuates what was observed after Vietnam in which returning service members with PTSD were not acknowledged and were not treated. As you probably know, PTSD is more than just “a little stress,” “a few restless nights,” or having a beer every now and then. PTSD can be debilitating. “A large body of research indicates that there is a correlation [emphasis nerdgirl] between PTSD and suicide.” More. The specific causal mechanism is an area of ‘conflicting research’ – not whether to treat or not and not whether PTSD is real or not, which is the slippery slope message of your initial assertion. While perceptions that returning service members should just “suck it up” or “man up” still exist, they have decreased over the last three decades; nonetheless “the perception of stigmatization has the power to deter active-duty personnel from seeking mental health care even when they recognize the severity of their psychiatric problems” today. (Source: “Combat Duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, Mental Health Problems, and Barriers to Care,” NEJM, 1Jul04, the authors evaluated 6201 soldiers and Marines who had served in OIF & OEF, and the authors are affiliated w/WRAIR). Of the 9-17% who reported symptoms of PTSD, only 23-40% sought treatment. “Stigmatization” was cited as a main reason. That’s why your assertion is disingenuous. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steve1 5 #96 January 14, 2009 You're not telling me anything that I don't already know. I mentioned one study that found that no treatment can produce results and you are acting like this is the end of the world. Frankly I don't have time to wade through all the PTSD studies relating to 9/11. I'm busy working with real people suffering from PTSD and potential suicide. I took a brief look recently, and yes, there are hundreds to look through. So, If you're saying I'm making things up, I don't give a rat's ass. If, I have time, I'll try to get this study to you. The other people I work with have read the same study. Perhaps they can help me find it again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #97 January 14, 2009 QuoteYou're not telling me anything that I don't already know. I mentioned one study that found that no treatment can produce results and you are acting like this is the end of the world. Play the ball not the player. I'm also curious as to what your metric is for behavior that qualifies as "acting like this is the end of the world"? Again you asserted: QuoteThere was an interesting study on PTSD following the 9/11 disaster. It had to do with recovery from PTSD. One group was given treatment by professionals, using the latest methods. Another group was given no treatment. Guess which group recovered the most quickly. It was the group with no treatment at all. Repeatedly, I've asked you, in what was intended to be nicely & respectfully, to provide *any* evidence to support that assertion. Substantive counter-evidence has been provided. QuoteFrankly I don't have time to wade through all the PTSD studies relating to 9/11. I'm busy working with real people suffering from PTSD and potential suicide. I took a brief look recently, and yes, there are hundreds to look through. Thank you! I do hope that you're not attempting to use your quoted assertion as a guide for determining treatment. QuoteSo, If you're saying I'm making things up, I don't give a rat's ass. Is that the most useful reaction when challenged? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steve1 5 #98 January 14, 2009 Like I said, If I have time to find this article I will. So long, Nerd Girl. Perhaps you can move on to another topic you know little or nothing about..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #99 January 14, 2009 Quote Perhaps you can move on to another topic you know little or nothing about..... (How did you come to that conclusion?) And what relevance does it have to the question, which isn't even that tough of a question, of supporting your assertion? If students asks about the validity of something you assert, how do you respond? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 1 #100 January 17, 2009 Quote Frankly I don't have time to wade through all the PTSD studies relating to 9/11. I'm busy working with real people suffering from PTSD and potential suicide. However, if the results of the study you mentioned are correct, it would be better for those people to not pursue therapy. Are you now saying you disagree with those findings and believe that people with PTSD should have therapy? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
