In 2009, it was Hovda who delivered the Pentagon the recommendation that because multiple concussions could cause serious long-term injury, concussions need time to heal. A fight ensued. Hovda says some of the Army’s best doctors implied that if soldiers were told they needed rest after concussions, it was going to usher in an epidemic of fakers, or retired guys claiming disability way after the fact.
This is a factual and evaluative claim as it is telling us in 2009 is when the government started to look at long-term brain injuries and it is looking at how the army approached taking care of soldiers
Although, the NFL was given the same memo in the 1990s, and brain damage in boxers is even older news, so it doesn’t seem like it would take a neuroscientist—or the top medical brass of an Army that builds laser cannons—to figure out that if 25 mph punches to the head cause brain damage, IED blasts that hit at 330 mph probably do too.
This is a quantitative and ethical claim as it is telling us that the nfl was using the same type of technology in the 1990s. Now the army is realizing with neuroscientists that it is likely that if an object hits your head you are likely to receive brain damage no matter the size of the object.
Eventually, Honda’s cause prevailed. These days, there are MRIs in theater, assessments after blasts, mandatory rest periods after a concussion.
This is a causal claim as it is telling us that with the technology that we have today we can figure out how long a person should rest after they have gotten a concussion from a blast.
That they will never be the same—researchers “have tried hyperbaric oxygen, hundreds of clinical trials; we’re just failing miserably in trying to make a difference”—but that they should not panic.
This is an evaluative claim. The reasoning is that even with the trials that have been done to help with PTSD, there still is not a way that shows why that is panicking.
The human brain has an enormous amount of plasticity. New cells are born every day. New connections can be made. The good news is, teleologically speaking, if we didn’t have the ability to recover from brain injury, we’d have ended up as somebody’s breakfast.”
This is a causal claim. The reasoning is that it claims that the brain is able to handle this trauma, but our brain should not be doing it very often.