There are trials where patients take MDMA (ecstasy’s active ingredient) while talking about trauma to promote more positive and less scary associations with the events.
-The author uses a casual claim here as there is an assertion that the use of MDMA will cause patients to use more positive associations with their events. This is a cause and effect relationship. The cause being the use of the MDMA, having the effect of patients having a more positive association when talking of their trauma.
Some of the most interesting research involves beta-blockers, drugs that suppress the adrenaline response. In one small study, trauma victims given beta-blockers within six hours of the incident had a 40 percent less likelihood of developing PTSD. Brunet runs trials where patients take beta-blockers while talking about trauma so their reactions are weakened and then presumably lessened the next time it comes up, so far with promising results.
– This claim is a factual claim. The author starts with an introduction to some “interesting research.” Then adds the support by introducing a small study. This study cannot be argued – at least without someone conducting more research – making it a factual claim. The author then proceeds to expand on the trials in the study.
Like traumatic brain injury. Researchers posit that TBI can make the brain more vulnerable to PTSD, or that it can exacerbate its symptoms of exhaustion, agitation, confusion, headaches.
– The author uses what seems to be a categorical claim. The author starts off the claim by connecting TBI to being something that heightens the brain’s possibility of falling to PTSD. The author then lists other aftermath possibilities of TBI, labelling PTSD in their category.
They’re not positive about that, or about whether TBI makes PTSD harder to treat.
– This is an evaluative claim. With thorough evaluation of TBI and the connection to PTSD, there is still no conclusive evidence whether or not TBI makes PTSD more difficult to treat.