Post-traumatic stress disorder

Battle ready?

It may be possible to “vaccinate” soldiers against the trauma of war

See article

Readers' comments



The virtual presentation should rather be employed for screening. After viewing the presentation prospective combat fighters should be offered to opt out following the biblical directive -
Deuteronomy 20:8
English Standard Version (ESV)
This was successfully employed by Gideon.


This tool could be used to find those with no stress reaction at all (psychpaths) and get them sent to therapy (the other extreme). It does not have to increase the average brutality of the army, it simply has to remove the tails of the normal distribution of people.

In practice the US army already practices desensitisation since they found out that their soldiers were not shooting at the enemy as much as they hoped they were. It is necessary to overcome the human revulsion felt by an ordinary human being when being put into a situation where he/she has to kill another human.

Explorer71 in reply to Omricon


I can't see how this can be a good thing. War is a horrible, sometimes necessary, thing. If it is too easy, we would often do it, especially those who are best protected from its harm.

I do sympathize with the soldiers, and I think they should be helped. Yet dehumanization has always brought disaster and tragedy.

Omricon in reply to Wolseley

That is very interesting, I had no idea that the idea was so controversial.

Regardless though of whether this holds up or not, military policy did change and desensitisation is part of military training now (whether or not it is needed clearly!)

baldy 63

An interesting article but even were it technically possible, would such "immunization" be desirable ?

There are two distinct strands of thought to consider the first of which is to differentiate between "Warriors" and "Armies" which are not the same thing at all. There have always been "warriors" throughout history and in all societies, they are either genuinely heroic or sociopaths and in either case are a very small percentage likely 2-3% at most.

The "Army" on the other hand represents less individual courage although obviously that can and does exist, it emphasises more organisation and discipline, the ability to reliably bring forces to bear on situations. The difference is between an individual wielding weapons and a military unit working in unison.

One could argue that the creation of "professional" as opposed to conscript armies has produced more efficient soldiers/forces but the downside has been that the military is outside of normal society and the pressures on not just those who serve but also their families are little understood by the majority. Taken further, not being a "citizen army" may make politicians see them as just another arm of the State and be too ready to commit them to war.

On balance, selecting only genuine "warriors" would not produce armed forces in sufficient numbers to form an army and would further isolate them as people which might produce new dangers. Whatever name you give combat related stress, I suspect that it has been a constant factor throughout history and the real issue lies in society itself, those who suffer from it need to feel part of that society and the 'host' society needs to embrace them.

If I remember rightly, as many Vietnam vets died violently back in the US as died on the battle field. That was a conscript army but the combination of it being disproportionately "Afro-American" combined with middle class mainly white protests on the campuses of universities meant returning soldiers were rejected and alienated from that society. Perhaps the real solution has nothing to do with immunizing people, we just need to learn what we already know...

Kochevnik in reply to baldy 63

"That was a conscript army but the combination of it being disproportionately "Afro-American"... "

My understanding of the statistics is that the proportion of African Americans who served in the military and their proportion of fatalities was not far off from their proportion of the overall population (all figures around 12-14%).

I've also seen that draftees were a minority of the US military deployed in Vietnam, but I can't confirm the sources for those figures.

baldy 63 in reply to Kochevnik

Frankly I don't have any data to share with you on this. My understanding has always been that due to not having the various ways of dodging the Draft that the white middle class had - studying abroad, joining the National Guard which was not deployed overseas in those days, Afro-Americans were a disproportionate element relative to their demographic. The consequence was the major "Positive Affirmation Programme" for the benefit of Afro Americans that followed post Vietnam period in the USA.
As to the percentage of "professional" military personnel to the percentage of those Drafted, I have no idea either but there was a Draft or Conscription, perhaps you are suggesting that conscription was only 'partial', an odd idea. But I would go further than that and ask you, does that change the thrust of what I'm saying with reference to this article ? The only reason I cited Vietnam was that it was a war where returning soldiers were often shunned, it certainly wasn't a case of "Welcoming the Boys Back Home".

Another Innocent Bystander

Ensuring everyone gets a dose of the full range of possible battlefield horrors would seem set up to do more harm than good.

Not all soldiers have to face the worst case horror scenarios (child death, leaving comrades), and those that do don't have to deal with 12 or more different types of soul scarring psychological damage. Preparing everyone in advance "just in case" seems excessive.

What are the impacts on soldiers pre-deployment in their interaction with others, and how does knowing VR gives you problems might result in even greater fear that can't cope with for real. Might even nudge recruitment mix in wrong direction. Reducing the will to fight across the force, in order to reduce the eventual impact on a limited number of the veterans might not be in the militay's interests.

Isn't deliberate desensatizing what has been done to child soldiers for years? And that is one of the most vile crimes of conflict.

Where this technolgy would be useful - in threapy, that the soldier is not alone in their experience; and as reality check for anyone advocating premeptive military action from the safety of an armchair.

BTW - TE insensative timing a week after Armistice?

Yes. I worked in an industry where we interfaced with people whose job was to clean up locations where people had died. One of them found that he could no longer eat rice, because it reminded him of the maggots. This was not even wartime, and it was a job that often directly benefited grateful survivors (cleaning up a room where a family member had shot themselves, for example).

This is not even an example from wartime. Ensuring that everyone gets traumatized before they ever get to the front is not the answer, any more than wounding them and making them recover is -- esp since (as AIB points out) the soldier in question might never end up exposed to it in combat.


"Mind How You Go" The Economist, March 2003 is a key reference for the PTSD discussion. "Combat soldiers are by selection and training,well prepared to deal with stress. The PTSD rate for deployed troops is 3%."

The Economist 2012 "PTSD vaccine" piece states the US rate is 17%. Why such a big difference?

Is misdiagnosis a factor? Is it possible that soldiers diagnosed with PTSD have a organic disease?

A 2011 US Military Medical report states "all of the 800 soldier
suicides between 2002 and 2008 had very low DHA levels."

And "that all 800 members of the control group,matched for age sex and rank, had low DHA levels, and those with the lowest DHA levels
had the highest risk for suicide." (key words US military suicide DHA)

DHA affect brain function. The report states that 2 grams of fish oil solved the problem of low DHA levels.

Is it possible that US DHA research is the equivalent of the finding
of a British Physician over 200 years ago, that lime juice cured
scurvy? The British Navy 60 years later started giving sailors lime juice.

Back to PTSD. I have met a number of Canadian Forces (CF) members who were "diagnosed" with PTSD and discharged as medically unfit for service. They are substantially disabled, and have been for many years.

"PTSD is a treatable psychological problem it is not disabling." (CF Chief Psychiatrist Col Randy Boddam MD..Globe and Mail J Friesen Kandhar Afghanistan March 2005)

Is it possible that some of the young soldiers diagnosed with PTSD suffer from Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME), a disease of the central nervous system? The World Health Organization classified ME
as disease of the central nervous system in 1993. In the United States and Canada is commonly referred to a "chronic fatigue syndrome CFS."

The United States Centres for Disease Control issued a report
in 2010 that estimated 3 million Americans had ME/CFS and that 80%
were misdiagnosed. Is it possible that soldiers are also misdiagnosed?

The crux of the matter is that Prozac and other SSRIs are often prescribed for PTSD. People with ME report severe adverse reactions to Prozac and other SSRIs. (ref What is ME? Guidelines for Physicians)

A Canadian Forces military police officer, who was troubled by a number of suicides of young soldiers he had investigated, when he was told about the misdiagnosed/mistreated factor, said "now I understand."

"What you don't know can hurt you." (Dr Ben Goldacre,"Bad Science")

This issue deserves far more serious investigation. Could the Economist journalist who wrote "Mind How You Go" in 2003, update
the history? And maybe Dr.Goldacre could help.

"Oslers Web" (pub Penquin 1997) is a good reference for the history of ME/CFS in the US Military. "it has to be a virus,nothing else could produce those symptoms."(US Army Chief of Infectious Diseases

over to you...


When reading the article, my thoughts was that if this treatment really can prevent PTSD, it's not a good thing but a bad thing. I'm glad to see from other comments that many others had the same reaction. We should not strive for more efficient killing machines, we should strive for alternatives to war altogether. If you kill others, let it come with a cost!


I heard about this young man returning from Afganistan to BC after serving as a gunner in a LAV. He had recurring visions of the “pink cloud” left behind when the exploding bullets of his gun found their target. After many months back home, he could not sleep more than two hours, he could not bear to go out in public places, he could not function in any normal life. The reality of what he was doing somehow went past the video game stage and into the horror of what he was actually doing. Does anyone in the West yet recognize the horror of the infamous desert storm? When did we decide that the only path to peace is to wage war in such a manner that only the “enemy” can suffer harm? There is a “cure” for preventing PTSD of those courageous young men – don’t wage war, just stop.

Wolseley in reply to EMah

What exactly is your point?
If you're arguing for unrelenting pacifism then do so plainly.
If you're trying to suggest that killing fellow humans in battle is unbearable, then you have some explaining to do, as such killing has been rather common for all of recorded history.
But most bizarre of all is your convoluted construction "to wage war in such a manner that only the 'enemy' can suffer harm?" What are you trying to suggest -- that it would be better somehow if there were a more even balance of Westerners to non-Westerners killed in recent wars?

the idler of march in reply to Wolseley

I agree. It's stupid to mix up these arguments. If you assume that wars have to be fought, it is obviously better that those doing so are not badly traumatized by the experience. Whether wars have to be fought is an entirely different argument. Realistically, it's not like there's some feedback loop whereby the more people that are traumatized, the less likely future wars are.

EMah in reply to Wolseley

My point is that if you show the world that you can be more savage and brutal and heartless than anyone else, it comes back to bite you. We claim the moral high ground but at the same time annihilate fellow human beings that have virtually no chance to fight back! I know it's old fashioned to honour a fair fight and I know the warring won't stop, but I think it's time that we try something else.

Wolseley in reply to EMah

EMah -- Sure, but just who exactly is showing the world that they can be "more savage and brutal and heartless than anyone else?" It is not obvious to me that Western nations engaging in a few minor wars in which they suffer low numbers of casualties constitutes said Western nations showing that they are "more savage and brutal and heartless than anyone else." Were I to rank order the nastiness of conflicts around the world, Western military interventions would not come near the top of my list.
Look Emah, it is plain that what you want to do is argue against recent Western military interventions. Fair enough, there is an argument to be made there. So why don't you do so directly?

EMah in reply to Wolseley

I believe the Iraqi casualties (killed or maimed) were about 100,000 in desert storm vs. about 200 for the Allies, which are not particularly big numbers, but the method and timeframe were historic. An F18 pilot being interviewed just after a mission during those fateful first hours, describing what it was like, said “It was like Duck Hunt”, then immediately looked down and away from the camera. He was referring to a popular video game of the time in which a plastic gun was aimed at cartoon ducks on a TV screen. Mercilessly bombing some of the best men that Iraq could muster while they sat helplessly on the ground was like Duck Hunt? While the Pentagon was high fiving “shock and awe” and the US President smirked, did anyone consider what this must look like to the other side? Of course, many on the other side lived in clay huts without power, so how would they know? There may even be some that still wait and hope that by God’s mercy their son, husband, father will someday return home. This PTSD experiment for me eludes description. What minds could hatch a plan to make compassionate humans less compassionate, make humans less humane, even inhumane. Does this not go against everything we have ever fought, suffered, and died for? This is insidious and evil beyond words. We plan to sow seeds of destruction among our own people, across our entire land, Bin Laden would have been so proud.

Wolseley in reply to EMah


Sorry if it seems like I'm piling on against you, but I'm going to take strident exception with your latest post as well.

You seem to be belabouring under the impression that most PTSD or other psychological stress in war is caused by, well, what one might term moral repugnance at killing. Alas, the data simply do not support that interpretation. What causes stress is loss and fear of loss -- loss of one's one life and/or limb, of one's comrades that one cares about, and fear of same.

Note also that the aim of the vaccination therapy is not described as numbing people to killing others -- the article describes three types of exposures: "seeing and handling human remains, experiencing the death of virtual comrades ... and watching helplessly as a child dies." No mention of deadening emotional responses to killing.


This is probably the worst article I've ever seen in TE.
It conflates CSR and PTSD, and misunderstands both.
Not anywhere near up to TE's usual standards.

John Steele

The public will be engaged in war policy only if they have skin in the game. The US had a healthy and vigorous debate over the Vietnam war precisely because being drafted was such a real and present reality for ordinary people. Wrenching as it was, it was appropriate and necessary. No nation that calls itself civilized should go to war without intense soul searching.

With the introduction of the all-volunteer military in the 80s we have seen the erosion of this public engagement, and a correspondingly callous approach to human life. Today, almost the only hand-wringing we see in the public square about warfare concerns PTSD.

Take that away and we'll take one further step towards total indifference to (non-American) human life.


Or dose them all up with propranolol... of course then, they'll be spending the rest of their lives feeling horrible about having no emotional affectation from such horrible things.

Canadian Engineer 1917

Why fear futuristic killer robots when today’s modern brainwashing produces the same inhumane effect? This program will further reduce the soldier’s ability to make their own decisions regarding the appropriateness of whom they are killing. Does anyone else disagree with this extreme level of control the government will have over its soldiers? Maybe post dramatic stress disorder is a sign that the horrors Americans are committing in Iraq and Afghanistan are unacceptable. When all is said and done, are wars ever worth it? The pretext for World War One was the assassination of one man! What was the result (other than a few monuments, massive debt for all and a second world war)?
If soldiers could see the little effect of their wars, decades on, no-one would fight.


Perhaps we could "vaccinate" politicians, generals and journalists from cheerleading for war...


It would definitely not eliminate the "horrors" themselves; it would just stop soldiers from caring about them. It even makes it more likely that soldiers engage in atrocities, since the more brutal ones would be selected.


I don't even know where to begin. Suffice it to say much much of what this article reports is grossly distorting of what PTSD is.

As a clinical psychologist with a specialty in treating PTSD, I have worked with Khmer Rouge survivors and Vietnam veterans with some success. I also worked with victims of rape. I ought to know a thing or two on this topic. Nothing I know bears any resemblance to what I have read in this TE article, which cites a single research study on a very narrow aspect of what antecedes the formation of PTSD symptomatology.

The sequalae of psychological trauma ought not to be trivialized. For those who are affected and/or seriously seek information on PTSD for self or others, please google the National Institute of Mental Health website for a basic grasp of this diagnostic entity. Other helpful source material may be books by Donald Meichenbaum and Bessel A. van der Kolk.


Note to editor...I am having computer problems..this may need

What is PTSD? This term has been bandied about for over ten years.

Here is a brief summary of PTSD in the Canadian Forces.

February 2002; The Canadian Forces (CF) Ombudsman, Andre Marin issued a report stating that 3000 CF members suffering from PTSD
were badly treated. (Front Page Toronto Star Graham Fraser)

September 2003;I discussed the PTSD issue with CF Brig Gen (retd)Joe Sharpe who was well informed on the topic. He stated "only
20% of the 3000 have PTSD, the other 80% mainly suffer from Myalgic
Encephalomyelitis...aka Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS).

In 1993 the CF Surgeon General, denied ME/CFS was a disease.

In 1993 The World Health Organization classified ME/CFS as a disease of the central nervous system. Unless diagnosed early
and managed properly, it is often permanently, and substantially disabling.

The Economist, "Mind How You Go" March 2003, quoted a UK Forces
Psychiatrist "sending in the doctors with goatees and couches can do more harm than good." The article also stated that the UK PTSD rate for deployed troops was 3% and the background rate was 1%.

2004;The former Marshall of the Royal Air Force told a UK Public Inquiry..."the disabling illness is not caused by stress."

In 2005 The Canadian Forces Chief Psychiatrist, Col Randy Boddam MD
stated "PTSD is a treatable psychological problem, it is not disabling."

2010; I emailed a CF epidemiologist and asked him where the CF Ombudsman got his "20% of CF members have PTSD statistic"
The epidemilogist replied "He made it up."

There are two reports CF "Goss Gilroy" 1997 and a StasCan report
that state the PTSD rate in the CF is under 3%.

note to editor

disclosure; I am a 69 year old Canadian, who was diagnose I am writing a book about Canada's disabled young
soldiers. It is a complex story. The main point...many who have been diagnosed with PTSD have signs and symptoms that are similar
to the US Centres for Disease Control Diagnostic Criteria for ME/CFS.

The sad and dangerous reality is that Prozac and other SSRIs
are often prescribed for PTSD. People with ME/CFS have adverse
reactions to Prozac and its cousins. ("What is ME;Guidelines for Physicians)

"Myalgic Encephalomyelitis: A Baffling Syndrome With a Tragic Aftermath" by UK Infectious Disease specialist Melvin Ramsey MD
is another good reference. "The assertion that ME is caused by stress is simply untenable."

Th Economist article March 2003 "Mind How You Go" was one of the keys to decoding the cover-up of the misdiagnosis and mistreatment of hundreds of young Canadian soldiers/veterans.

World War One..."Shell shock" was actually caused by encephalitis.
(ref The Great Influenza pub Penquin 2005)



American kids, who are stuffed with a diet of sanitized and glorified killing from TV, movies and video games, are generally clueless about what they're getting into. Would they enlist otherwise?

LexWraith in reply to bampbs


Some of us enlisted knowing that the horror of combat and war can never be depicted through any medium other than the one of being in it. We also knew we might lose limbs, watch friends die, and of course die ourselves.

We did it anyways because we thought it was the right thing to do, naive or otherwise. We also knew the millions of men before us, across all borders of race, religion, or country had witnessed the same thing, and carried on with strength and dignity.

Before you spit on us from your moral high horse, why don't you try to recall the last time you were willing to give everything for something greater than yourself?

-Infantry Marine, 1st Battalion 8th Marine Regiment.


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
Gun laws: Prayers and pistols
Democracy in America July 11th, 17:43
Daily chart: Justice on trial
Graphic detail July 11th, 13:40
Technology and fashion: Storming the maisons
Schumpeter July 11th, 10:05
Financial literacy: Back to basics
Free exchange July 11th, 10:01


Products and events



