News Changing Ptsd To Ptsi?

[anthony]

I was trying to differentiate the difference between the injury and the symptoms that continue. They fit all areas, short term, long term, life long... though they are only an environmental injury in the context of injury. Example: have car accident and break your back. That is life long, however; you only broke your back in the accident, the injury occurred and has completed, now you endure the ongoing impact / symptoms / pain associated to an injury, if present. You injured your back, though every day of your life that continues you are not injuring your back... it has happened, being singular.

Injuring your brain even... you injured it. You are not injuring it daily though I take it? The injury is a past tense. Now you suffer the consequences associated to the injury, but you aren't being injured daily, repeatedly, by the injury that initially took place!

 

[Queen Boudica]

Actually, with my back problem, I do continue to injure it and have to be very careful. The damage is done but, if I twist in the wrong way, or do too much physically, I can make that injury worse, the disks are being compressed more and more.

Also it is to do with my low muscle tone and hypermobile joints and how I move and use the wrong muscles so am more likely to injure myself, so it is genetic as well . I don't have the right range of movement across my muscles so I wear out those particular disks even more because of the way I move, because there is too much wear on that area. And I am likely to use the wrong muscle set and also injure my back that way. The underlying weakness from the injury when I pulled that great big pot also makes me prone to more injury.

There are the genetic factors that made me prone to that injury and there is then the actual injury which makes me even weaker and even more prone to injury. Bit like complex trauma. I had the initial traumas, which make me far more likely to be attracted to violent abusive people and thus I am prone to more trauma.

Anyway, this is all a load of crap. It is like my back. I need to strengthen it and try and not injure it any further so I can do everyday tasks and work easily (though never as easily as if I did not have the back problem). Just like with the complex trauma. I am trying to strengthen myself and make myself less prone to trauma again and able to do everyday tasks easily (though never as easily as if I did not have the complex trauma) and, hopefully, be able to work.

Don't care what others think (that has always held me back and it isn't going to anymore) or what I am labelled as or semantics. All I care is I can get control and live my life better.

 

[Elph]

People are entitled to have whatever opinion they want, and other people are entitled to disagree with them. I don't believe that anyone should be harangued to provide 'evidence' on an opinion. What I saw was someone being harangued by an administrator to justify her opinions with evidence, and that member calmly deflecting being flamed. This is doubly problematic given that generally I would expect an Administrator to put a stop to that kind of behaviour, not carrying it out themselves.

PTSDsufferer did not incite an argument on this topic. What I'm seeing was PTSDsufferer trying to have a discussion and the Administrator jumping in and telling her/him that the opinions he/she was expressing was wrong. If that's not attacking and flaming, then what is? The tone of many of the Administrator's responses have been aggressive, dismissive and condescending to anyone who disagreed with him. How does that foster a constructive discussion.

I think that this is a very important topic worthy of discussion, but I wouldn't want anyone outside this community to find it on the internet and see the tenor. It's not going to gain us any credibility or ability to lobby for ourselves for someone in a leadership position to attack their own members, no matter what side of the debate you're on.

 

[Elph]

Somehow the discussion of the merits of PTSD vs PTSI got sidetracked to a debate on genetics and PTSD.

I don't think that the PTSI group is denying that there may be a genetic component to PTSI, just that the emphasis should be place on the environment event, not the underlying genetics. Their point is also that injuries can be healed, and that the condition doesn't have to be permanent. I liked the analogy to a back injury.

Anyways, can this thread please drop the 'is it genetic' and 'what is the proof' discussion or move that question to another thread? It's a red herring for this discussion and distracting the thread from the original topic. Now the discussion was turned into a contest to see 'who's read the most'. Myself I think that it's possible to get interesting, thoughtful input from ppl based on their personal experiences, not just on whether they are portraying themselves as a walking encyclopedia of PTSD knowledge.

Since Anthony is the administrator who has been fueling the flames of the red herring, I think that other moderators need to get involved to add some objectivity.

 

[anthony]

Actually, with my back problem, I do continue to injure it and have to be very careful. The damage is done but, if I twist in the wrong way, or do too much physically, I can make that injury worse, the disks are being compressed more and more.

That is exactly one of the issues with this though, in that you have varying aspects to an injury versus a disorder. A disorder either is, or isn't. An injury is a mixed basket. As you outlined, you can reinjure yourself due to environmental factors, ie. twisting your body (behaviour).

PTSD can manifest for no reason what so ever, no environmental factor, no behaviour, just because it wants to.

The best side by side analysis for this discussion would be TBI versus PTSD. TBI in an injury that causes symptoms similar to PTSD. The symptoms are more a constant versus what PTSD produces. Some people get PTSD due to the trauma that caused TBI, and it is difficult for physicians to accurately diagnose both together unless they have a person for longevity assessment to differentiate. Again, TBI produces a more constant with its symptoms, PTSD adds a couple and shifts the symptoms all over the place. Hence, longevity assessment.

PTSD can manifest itself without any type of environmental influence (the injury aspect), which comes back to the persons genetic makeup. If you hit two peoples ankles with a baseball bat, both are going to break. If stand two people in front of a loaded gun pointed at them, one may get PTSD one may not. Hence, genetics and prior learning are combined to base whether the person obtains the disorder or not.

 

[anthony]

People are entitled to have whatever opinion they want, and other people are entitled to disagree with them. I don't believe that anyone should be harangued to provide 'evidence' on an opinion.

There is a difference between an opinion and a statement. An opinion is neither right nor wrong, no argument there. When you include statements within your opinion, sorry, they can be right or wrong. That is exactly what has happened. I have questioned the statements, to no evail an answer has been provided. When my statements have been questioned, I have provided source material to substantiate them.

Documentation to cite your statements is actually exactly what you should be providing in any debate. This is such a debate.

If you cannot debate, then you should not enter it. Simple as that. It is a debate, not a heated argument.

Anyways, can this thread please drop the 'is it genetic' and 'what is the proof' discussion or move that question to another thread? It's a red herring for this discussion and distracting the thread from the original topic.

This is the exact point I guess. You want to now drop one part of PTSD, directly linked to the topic title, PTSD to PTSI, being it is factually proven that genetics plays a role in PTSD, though your view is to discard that because then an environmental only argument can be sustained to push injury versus disorder.

Sorry... this isn't being argumentative, this statement you made is completely ludicrous. Since when do you drop something from a debate because it doesn't fit to suit the argument, though is directly part of the argument?

PTSD is not passed on from parent to child, genetically, like some illnesses. No disagreement there and the facts clearly state that. Genetics however play an integral role in who obtains PTSD versus who doesn't, when faced with an environmental event.

The PTSI group are also only focused on criterion A, being the event. What about the rest of the illness? What about the physical manifestations? What about the social? What about the delayed onset aspect that can be 20 years. That injury, whether physical or psychological, is only being used to meet the criterion for a diagnosis, even though it could simply be a relationship breakdown that caused your brain to form PTSD.

Are we now going to state that a relationship breakdown is an injury? Where does trying to expand the definition of words stop, in order to try and meet your argument? Do we take disorder and toss it completely out of the dictionary, and substitute it with injury where it would be used? Why not, if not so?

Since Anthony is the administrator who has been fueling the flames of the red herring, I think that other moderators need to get involved to add some objectivity.

I think you should err on the side of caution to be perfectly honest, especially with your little running diatribe PC between yourself and PTSD Sufferer. Another aspect never hidden, I have full access to read everything and I make no secrets about my distaste in collusion. Act independently, not an issue... collude, that will piss me off and people get banned from the administrator, not because you debated with me or disagree with me, I don't find that an issue... but because you colluded with others to cite points not otherwise your own... which falls under being spiteful and petty, none of which I'm doing in this. I am independent and always looking to expand my knowledge on PTSD. I don't though simply read something and take it for what it is, I want evidence to substantiate any statements of fact. This is what is currently missing from the PTSI angle.

Right now, I'm not even phased by this discussion... it is just a debate, nothing more. People struggle to get past that administrator badge to discuss and go back and forth. Again, opinions are right nor wrong, but statements are either factual or not. You can't wrap a statement in an opinion and call it an opinion, because that aspect can be right or wrong.

Elph, I welcome you to provide evidence prior asked. I want to understand, I love to learn and see new things, but I simply can't see any real value in this argument based on the underlying fundamentals that comprise PTSD... unless off-course as you suggested, we toss pieces out from PTSD to help make the argument for PTSI, which the PTSI group have already done so. Or we agree to discard the rest of the diagnostic assessment for PTSD and only focus on criterion A, again which the PTSI group are doing.

 

[cherryblossom]

Since Anthony is the administrator who has been fueling the flames of the red herring, I think that other moderators need to get involved to add some objectivity.

I'm not sure why you think other moderators should get involved. Everyone here is entitled to their opinion, whether they are an administrator, a moderator, a long term member or a newbie. As far as I'm concerned every member's opinion is equally valid. There is no hierarchy here as to who has the best opinion.

Moderators are here to generally oversee the functioning of the forum, to deal with basic day to day issues regarding forum rules, not to solve disputes or lead discussions in one way or another.

I have followed this thread, purely out of interest. Since you (Elph) ask for my opinion, I'll give it. I couldn't care less what PTSD is called (which is why I haven't previously commented in this thread). All I know, is I've got it. Having that diagnosis has given me this forum, and hence the tools I need to manage my condition. The name of the 'condition' is irrelevant to me. There will always be stigma, whatever you call it. Changing the name doesn't change the symptoms, it doesn't change the cause, nor does it change the treatment or management of this condition.

 

[anthony]

Been out researching this issue... and it keeps coming back to pretty much what I'm already thinking.

Firstly, the only people who have a chance in hell of changing PTSD to PTSI is if the US DOD become the primary pusher for it. It won't happen by any level of civilian jumping up and down. The exact reasoning I have already concluded, is what I've also just found by one ex US general, who obviously has ties into the DOD still and is the CEO of a recent organisation trying to coordinate brain neuroscience for PTSD, to get this thing kicked in the butt by speeding up the process and bottlenecks currently, with everyone doing their own things. The organisation is trying to amalgamate as much of the industry as possible through a central process, get the left hand talking to the right, so to speak.

The second issue, which still cannot be argued very well against, is anxiety. Is anxiety an injury or a disorder? It isn't an injury, that is for certain, as it requires no environmental component for it to be present. Anxiety is also empirically proven to be part of a person genetic makeup, and even passed from generation to generation. Anxiety is the primary component still of PTSD, via general anxiety, panic attacks, hyper vigilance, etc etc... all anxiety stream. Hypervigilance is more learnt / a behavioural outcome to the precursor of anxiety... so that one goes to the other side of the fence.

Until the second is solved, and argued reasonably amongst those with any power to be proven otherwise, PTSD is going to be around for a good 5 - 10 years more yet until the next DSM update, bare minimum, by the looks of it. At the end of that, if anything ever changes, it would have to convince the psychiatric community that the definition of disorder be tossed out the window and replaced by injury... which I'm not sure how that would sit in that community.

Time will tell... though research seems to only present a view voices, nothing close to what CPTSD had.

 

[Nicolette]

Since Anthony is the administrator who has been fueling the flames of the red herring, I think that other moderators need to get involved to add some objectivity.

I honesty cant be bothered...... if they re-named cancer it would still have the same medical effects so I really don't see the big deal.

 

[Elph]

I'm not sure why you think other moderators should get involved.

Because IMO someone got banned because they disagreed with an admin and had to defend against getting flamed, he had lost his objectivity. That is why.

 

[Elph]

I'm officially removing myself from this discussion/debate/flame war, whatever it is.

 

[cherryblossom]

Because IMO someone got banned because they disagreed with an admin and had to defend against getting flamed, he had lost his objectivity.

At the end of the day, admins have the final say. Admins own / run the forum and we are all guests here. It is their choice how they run the forum. Perhaps it's your opinion that anthony had lost his objectivity, I don't see that. You are entitled to your opinion. Again, a mods role is not to intervene in discussions, unless discussions become attacking, which is not the case here.

Also just to clarify the member is not banned from the forum, just a temporary ban from this particular thread. [DLMURL]https://www.ptsdforum.org/c/threads/thread-ban-implemented.26558/[/DLMURL]