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. In animal trials, rats are lightly tortured and then injected with a protein that will stop the enzymes in their brains from being able to form memories of it. Some of the most interesting research involves beta-blockers, drugs that suppress the adrenaline response.”

This is an example of an illustrative claim because it goes into the details and paints a picture of what is occurring. The statement mentions animal trials that took place and were developed aimed at relieving symptoms of PTSD.

“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 lower likelihood of developing PTSD.”

This is an example of a factual claim because it says that in one small study, trauma victims administered beta-blockers within six hours of the incident experienced a 40 percent lower likelihood of developing PTSD, showing that the drug they are testing is doing well and has a very promising response and effect to fixing this problem.

“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 is an example of an illustrative claim because it gives a description of what is going on and makes it so that the reader is able to make a visual description of what is happening. It says, “Brunet conducts trials in which patients undergo beta-blocker treatment while discussing trauma. This process makes it so that their reaction is slowed, showing that the effects are good and working, which will result in a positive outcome.

“But as of yet, “pharmacologically, there’s no magic bullet,” he says. And “we’re much less effective at treating more complex PTSD” with traditional therapy. “Treatment offered vets might be less effective than what’s offered to civilians with trauma. With veterans, there are important concomitant issues.”

This is an example of a Comparative and Attributive claim in which, according to the statement, pharmacologically, there is no exact solution. The effectiveness of traditional therapy in treating PTSD is described as lower compared to simpler cases. The treatment provided to veterans may be less efficacious compared to that offered to civilians experiencing trauma due to the presence of significant accompanying issues. This is a perfect example of a comparative claim in which the veterans and civilians are put into the same categories.

“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.”

This is an example of a categorical claim that elaborates on the relationship between the TBI and PTSD and how they both share a similarity together by sharing something similar which is having an impact on people’s health. It also gives a few symptoms which is a perfect example of a categorical claim.

“They’re not positive about that, or about whether TBI makes PTSD harder to treat. James Peterson’s post-injection chill-out wore off after a month, faster than it does for other patients—maybe because of his TBI. Maybe not. Either way, as for TBI, well, “there is no cure,” says David Hovda, director of UCLA’s Brain Injury Research Center and an adviser to the Department of Defense.”

This is an example of a credibility claim for this statement because it shows a factual claim directed from David Hovda and it identifies the quote and the who it is being directed from as well. Maybe not. Either way, as for TBI, well, “there is no cure,” says David Hovda.