[HeadStrong]

I ran across this video explaining concussions and how they can really disrupt people's lives. The second link has more videos that discuss (MTBI). They are worth viewing.

http://bcove.me/stxtfor0

http://www.braintrauma.org/concussion-videos/

[Mark in Idaho]

These videos of the president of the Brain Trauma Foundation show how much is not known about concussions. They will be interesting when he has some conclusions from his federally funded study to define a concussion.

I struggle to understand why so much effort needs to be put into a consolidated definition. Defining concussion is is like the old question of Congress trying to define pornography. They Congressman said, I can't define it but I know it when I see it.

Concussion is just as obvious. There is a group of symptoms that follow a head trauma that combine to define a concussion.

As he mentions, the EEG community has 'had their hands dirty' about defining concussion. They have solid research that shows qEEG with a computerized analysis can pin-point concussion with a 97 to 99% reliability. This information has been available for at least 20 years. Now, there are multiple comparative databases that provide the same level of accuracy in diagnosing concussion.

The only industry that has denied these diagnostics have been the insurance companies that are liable for the treatment and compensation of these concussion patients.

Even the Social Security Administration denies the validity of qEEG for diagnosing concussion. So, instead of a $300-$400 qEEG diagnostic with a high level of accuracy, the patient has to fight to get a $2000 to $4000 NeuroPsych Assessment and hope the NeuroPsych Doctor does not have a bias against concussion and instead diagnoses depression as the cause of the cognitive symptoms.

Maybe the brain Trauma Foundation should look at the Ontario Trauma Foundation's report as start for their work.

From what he says, it sounds like the money should be spent teaching doctors that concussions have lasting symptoms and that they should stop discounting the patients complaints. The PCS community has been driving this information when the doctors and medical schools would not.

This money could also be spent assisting the injured stand up against the insurance companies by establishing validated databases of the many permutations of symptoms, images, and bio-markers that meet the Daubert Standard of evidence. Getting proper care and compensation should not depend on the arguing abilities of attorneys but rather on the many validated studies of the symptoms of concussion. Current prolonged litigation only enriches the legal profession at the expense of the injured.

Imagine how the lives of the PCS community would be changed if just half of the money spend on attorneys' fees and other legal expenses was instead available for the care and treatment of the injured.

[GlassHead]

@Mark

You are absolutely right and I couldn't have written it better myself. Just recently I stumbled upon an insurance case about a man involved in a car accident.

He did not get his insurance claim even though he clearly had severe PCS. The reasons for denying his claim were:

- Negative CT scan, which they translated to no structural damage.

- Claiming that his symptoms was a result of him having a lower than average intelligence.

- Blaming his following depression like state to his severe cognitive difficulties.


In other words, the man was stupid and mentally ill. They completely ignored the fact that his head had smashed through the windshield and that he was hospitalized for several days.

The number of misunderstandings about concussion injuries in that case were mind blowing.

[HeadStrong]

It is interesting how people can view things and have different perspectives. For instance, my take on the videos is a little different. I hear him talking about how historically concussions have been taken too lightly....people had the "shake it off" mentality.

He also says now concussions are beginning to be looked at in a similar light to severe head injuries. He is frustrated by the fact that there are over 30 definitions for concussions, and believes there should be 1 standard definition.

That definition should be based on best evidence seen from the injured (signs, symptoms, neurocognitive symptoms etc).

If you go down to the second link and view the videos there, you will see him stating that he doesn't care what it takes, he is focused on getting better outcomes for TBI patients. He understands the need for the science and research, but he wants it to be done more quickly and with a purpose, becuase results are needed.

That is my view on what I saw anyway.