Michael Courtney (I mean Pasteur) is now peddling his snake oil . . .

[BAC]

I don't believe it is fair to compare CPR chest compressions with high-velocity missile impacts. A bullet might not reach the same pressures as the compressions, but any pressure spikes are achieved in much less time. Elapsed time relative to total pressure is the key, I would think.

Note: as I said earlier, I'm just a psych student, but my area of interest lies in the brain itself and the more physiological aspects of psychology. I have the good fortune of having some of the greatest minds in many areas of the medical field at my university. My physiological psych professor and his colleagues are not aware of this phenomena (pressure waves in the extremities or thoracic cavity from high-speed, small-mass impacts resulting in damage to parts of the brain). On this I'll refer to my previous comments here (the topic as a whole is a good one to read on the subject). Once midterms are over I'll have to pass along the article Pastuer is referencing to the med and psych professors on campus and see what they think.


-B

[Augusto]

One more try:
"Findings of Ronald F. Bellamy regarding indirect ballistic injuries"

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1136512

[WS6]

Well, I think this is BS that is being peddled, BUT! I do know that the pressure/pulsatile nature of the circulatory system has an effect on the brain.

We studied in class the other day about the "roller" style pumps (supplying a constant flow of circulation) used during CABG's when the heart was completely bypassed for the operation. Every now and then, people would wake up "not right". They were just a little "off" somehow and never recovered (the phenomina was termed "pump head", among health-care workers in private). Now that the pumps are pulsatile, mimicking the body's normal delivery of blood, this phenomina is much less common.

That is the only correlation I have seen thus far between what I know, and what is being peddled here, and I am not worried about the BG's personality shifting ever so slightly. I want him STOPPED.

[MK108]

...a note aside...

...in the book "Forensic Pathology of Trauma" by MJ Shkrum, MD and DA Ramsay, MB at page 319 you can see the pics of a man who shot himself two times in a suicide attempt....the first bullet hit him in the head but the bullet did not enter in his cranium vault so he shot himself a second time in the chest: that was the bullet that killed him...

...at page 344 of the same book you can see the dissected brain of the same deceased....and a large hemorrage(..in a zone more or less like triangular in shape about 1 1/2" deep with a base about 1" long..) in his brain because the former non fatal tangential wound....

..so I asked myself...even if there are microscopic capillaries rupture in the white matter because some blood vessels pressurization in the chest due to the bullet travel...what's their importance and reliability to stop a violent action in a short time when such a large hemorrage, certainly not microscopic, did not stop this man to kill himself pressing another time his pistol's trigger?

All the best
Andrea

[Glock17JHP]

Courtney's stuff is like a bad religion... all he has to do is make you doubt just a little bit as to whether or not his stuff might be true... that's enough to mess you up...

I read his papers he refers to, it took a lot of time and effort. In fact, he was kind enough to email me some of them, including some digital pictures of deer he supposedly shot...

When all is said and done, we are wasting our time still discussing it...

[Glock17JHP]

Oh, by the way... Courtney is reading this thread...
He emailed me about my last remarks...

[Molon]

Originally Posted by BAC

I don't believe it is fair to compare CPR chest compressions with high-velocity missile impacts. A bullet might not reach the same pressures as the compressions, but any pressure spikes are achieved in much less time. Elapsed time relative to total pressure is the key, I would think.

And what data do you have to support that statement?

[misanthropist]

Originally Posted by Molon

And what data do you have to support that statement?

I am not an expert in this field...or even a novice. As such I have data totaling approximately zero.

However, here is a guess: I am thinking the velocity of application of hydraulic pressure is probably significant in the same way that velocity of application of mechanical pressure is significant.

I don't think anyone would dispute that if you took two identical 55 grain projectiles and launched them at two identical people, one at 2900 fps, and one at 29 fps, that the 29 fps guy would be less disturbed by the result than the 2900 fps guy.

I am GUESSING that the elapsed time relative to the application of pressure is important because it reflects the amount of energy imparted to the hydraulic fluid. Energy being the ability to do work; hydraulic fluid with lots of energy imparted to it would do more work on whatever substance to which it was applied.

Again that's a guess. I work with a lot of hydraulic machines and have seen a lot of hydraulics failures but I am not a hydraulics expert any more than I am a ballistics expert.

And I definitely agree that although theoretically I see the possibility of imparting energy to the nervous system via hydraulics, in practise I believe that the elasticity of blood vessels would tend to absorb the majority of any energy being transmitted in this way, and that it would definitely not lead to reliable incapacitation.

I think if human anatomy were very different, and the nervous system was housed in, say, the abdominal cavity, there would be a greater chance for a pressure wave generated by the impact of the bullet to damage the nervous tissue.

But in practise I think we've been designed pretty well. A lot of the critical processors have been stuck out in the ball at the top of the machine, and encased in a sturdy container. I think the neck would do a fairly good job of reducing harmful hydraulic or mechanical shocks to the brain. And the other critical brain bits seem to be pretty sturdily housed in a bony column surrounded by much more easily compressible tissue. I think it would be difficult to transmit sufficient energy via "hydrostatic shock" to do a lot of damage unless the energy was imparted very close, and the amount of energy was very high.

And then in that case, I think if you've rammed something in with a ton of energy very close to any of the critical nervous system bits, then you're pretty much done anyway. I would be surprised if the human body could regularly absorb 500 foot pounds of energy in a small area right next to the brain or spinal column without wrecking some other key parts. I guess this would be possible in the abdomen, but I would think the areas within three inches of your spinal column and brain are mostly filled with either major parts you need to keep, like heart and lungs, or else the support systems for those parts, like blood vessels.

But of course I am not an anatomist either. I am not speaking from experience or training. I am just guessing on the basis of my general knowledge of physics and anatomy, which is not all that much better than your average college student, I would guess.

[DocGKR]

A lot of people have been shot in the face, zygoma, maxilla, and mandible with both handgun, rifle, and shotgun projectiles and lived--even when hit very close range with no intervening obstacles.

[misanthropist]

I never really thought about it, but I wonder if that whole facial structure could act as a bit of a "crumple zone".

If you took a hard hit to the frontal or parietal bones, for instance, well, there's not much to distribute the force.

On the other hand, there's a lot of small, crunchable stuff in the face...I wonder if that helps to slow the bullet down like the crumple zone on a car?

And if there was just a big gap where the sphenoid is, would the brain be more susceptible to wave-related injury from shots to the maxilla that might currently be survivable? I have no idea...but it doesn't seem like a very reliable means of incapacitation, regardless.

I guess there are instances of people being shot right through the cranial cavity and right though one hemisphere of their brain and surviving...if there is no major damage to the other hemisphere despite being immediately adjacent, then for me that would pretty much clinch it. If there is any situation in which a "ballistic pressure wave" effect would destroy neural tissue, I think that would be it, so if it doesn't happen there, I guess as a layman I would conclude it would never reliably happen ever.

Again I am just guessing here...I don't know what happens to people who get shot on one side of the head.

[Molon]

Originally Posted by misanthropist

I am not an expert in this field...or even a novice. As such I have data totaling approximately zero.

You’re right. You have absolutely “zero” factual data pertaining to why a bullet which supposedly creates a rapid increase in pressure, yet has a low magnitude of pressure, will produce a mythical remote pressure wave that will cause traumatic brain injury from a GSW to the thorax, when the very real and substantial pressure produced during chest compressions does not cause traumatic brain injury. Also, your references to “hydrostatic shock” and “energy transfer” were debunked as wounding mechanisms for small arms fire by Dr. Martin Fackler years ago.




WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE WOUND BALLISTICS LITERATURE, AND WHY

by M.L. Fackler, M.D.
Letterman Army Institute of Research
Division of Military Trauma Research
Presidio of San Francisco, California 94219
Institute Report No. 239


The “Shock Wave” Myth

By Dr. Martin Fackler

Wound Ballistics Review, Winter 1991 and the Journal of Trauma, (29[10]: 1455, 1989).


Ballistic Injury

By Dr. Martin Fackler

Annals of Emergency Medicine, December 1986

[misanthropist]

Well, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything nor do I support either of those theories as methods of incapacitation or even reliable wounding...I am just pointing out that there is no reason there could not be a theoretically measurable increase in pressure at a site some distance away from the site of impact.

I don't think that's particularly outlandish...I would be surprised if you could not measure an increase in pressure a foot away from the flight path of a bullet in mid air if you had a sensitive enough instrument.

In a medium as dense as human tissue, I would be extremely shocked if there was no way to detect any sort of pressure a few inches from the impact site.

I think that gelatin testing bears this out...after all the outer edges of the blocks do seem to be temporarily deformed by the impact of the bullet, and I don't know how to describe the origin of this movement without saying that a wave has passed through the medium.

Do I think that wave is strong enough to damage neural tissue? No, probably not, and in any case our neural tissue is fairly well protected, so I think it would be very surprising if this had any sort of pronounced terminal effect.

But that doesn't mean that no wave exists, or that no pressure increase in blood vessels struck occurs; it only means that the pressure is not significant and does not generate sufficient trauma to be worth worrying about, which is in fact what my position has been all along.

I think you've mistaken me for someone who buys in to BPW theory as a method of incapacitation, but that is not what I am.

[sgalbra76]

I've spend a great deal of time reading over lots of different ballistic research materials. Most of Fackler's work, in addition to IWBA articles make a lot of sense to me and the researchers have lots of examples to demonstrate their points. Basically, "here is my theory, here are a bunch of highly qualified people that agree, here are a bunch of applicable experiments to prove the theory, and here are a bunch of real life examples that prove the theory".

I wouldn't say I'm a genius when it comes to physics, mathmatics, and science.......but I did get through differential and integral engineering calculus. Looking at Courtney's work, it does look impressive on paper, but it seems to not coincide with what I've read from medical field experts. It seems to be so physics focused, that it only skims over the physiological aspect of the body and assumes that the body will react a certain way without any evidence to demonstrate this. I've read of a number of medical doctors and surgeons that have looked over his papers and said that many aspects to his medical assumptions are wrong, and seem to lack educated knowledge of the subject. Kinda like when medical professionals and professors read the Strasbourg Goat Test report and stated that without a doubt it was a fraud because as smart as it sounded, the details of the writing indicated that the author was not educated in the medical field and it was full of assumptions and subject errors. Sometimes I wonder if someone like Courtney wrote that report as it was dated around the same time as he supposedly was an undergrad, already researching the subject with dreams of getting his doctorate.

Here's how I view pressure wave theory.........."here is my theory, here are a handful of highly qualified people in physics that agree with how physics work, here are some calculations and equipment experiments that show that the math part of the theory works, and here are a couple of real life examples that kinda(not really) show that I "might" be right..........but because you can't outright prove that I'm wrong, I must be right."

[Glock17JHP]

I am still amazed how he put the small deer in a 5 gallon bucket of water up to the neck and then shot vertically into the bucket with a rifle to see the effect it would have on the poor little guy...

Fear, most likely!!!

[sgalbra76]

Originally Posted by Glock17JHP

I am still amazed how he put the small deer in a 5 gallon bucket of water up to the neck and then shot vertically into the bucket with a rifle to see the effect it would have on the poor little guy...

Fear, most likely!!!

Good Lord.......

[BAC]

Originally Posted by Molon

And what data do you have to support that statement?

"I think" is a pretty important part of what I said, especially as I stated nothing as if it were proven, factual, documented evidence. I've made it clear here and elsewhere my position on "ballistic pressure waves causing damage to the brain", so I'm not sure what you're arguing against.


-B

[Aurispector]

The simplest, most common sense way to look at Courtney's work is this: at best, it shows that an unreliable phenomenon sometimes occurs. There are far too many instances where people survive large caliber, high velocity wounds without succumbing to some postulated injury from BPW.

It seems a bit far fetched for him to assert that this should factor into caliber choice, particularly when people often simply can not shoot the larger calibers as accurately.

The trade off in accuracy can't be proven to be worth it.

[Heavy Metal]

Any website that pre-emptively bans Larry Vickers can s*** my ***k!

Let Glocktalk have him, they deserve each other!

[Zhukov]

Courtney has been a busy little beaver on Wikipedia, inserting references to his "research" into many gun-related pages and removing doubt about the hydrostatic shock nonsense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special...chael_Courtney

[Glock17JHP]

This is why we still need the IWBA, or another similar organization. As long as folks like him generate volumes of junk to the public unchecked, we will continue to have misinformed masses.

Although... maybe that's OK... I mean, I would rather have a potential attacker be uninformed when he/she picks a weapon or ammo to use against me or a loved one...