Category: MIL-OSI

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jordan Beaumont, Senior Lecturer in Food and Nutrition, Sheffield Hallam University

Weight-loss injections have rapidly moved from specialist clinics to social media feeds and high-street pharmacies. Known as GLP-1 medications, they were originally developed to support those with type 2 diabetes but are now widely used to support weight loss.

These medicines mimic a hormone called glucagon-like peptide-1, which helps regulate appetite and blood sugar. By slowing digestion and increasing feelings of fullness, they often lead people to eat less and lose weight.

Evidence suggests they can support weight loss, at least in the short term. But as use has grown, so have questions about possible unintended effects on nutrition and overall health.

A recent review of evidence suggests that some people taking GLP-1 medications may not be getting enough key nutrients. These include vitamins A, C, D, E and K, dietary fibre and minerals such as iron, calcium, magnesium, zinc and copper.

Nutritional deficiencies occur when the body does not receive enough of a nutrient to function properly. Estimates of how common these deficiencies are in those using GLP-1 medications vary widely. Some research suggests that more than 20% of people may be at risk within the first year of starting GLP-1 medications, while other studies indicate the impact may be much smaller, affecting less than 1% of users.

Read more:
Five things I wish people knew about supplements – by a nutritionist

As concern about potential deficiencies has grown, so has a new market. Supplement companies are launching “GLP-1 support” products that claim to offset side-effects such as muscle loss and vitamin deficiencies by providing the “right” nutrients for people using these medications.

But do people taking GLP-1 medications actually need these supplements?

The use of vitamin and mineral supplements has long been debated in nutrition science. Evidence supporting their benefits in generally healthy people who already eat a balanced diet is limited. Supplements can be helpful for people who are deficient in a specific nutrient.

For example, many people in the UK are at risk of vitamin D deficiency during the winter months because there is less sunlight, which the body needs to produce vitamin D. However, if someone already gets enough of a nutrient from their diet, taking extra supplements usually has little or no additional benefit.

Read more:
Vitamin D: everything you need to know about this supplement – from when to take it, to how much you really need

Much of the research linking GLP-1 medications to nutrient deficiencies is observational. These studies studies look for patterns and associations in data but cannot prove cause and effect. In other words, they can show that two things occur together but cannot confirm that one causes the other. This means we cannot yet say for certain that GLP-1 medications directly cause nutrient deficiencies.

Even so, the concern is reasonable. GLP-1 medications often lead to reduced food intake. Eating less food can also mean consuming fewer essential nutrients, which increases the risk of deficiencies over time.

So can these potential deficiencies be addressed without expensive specialist supplements? Often, yes. Small dietary changes may be enough. Eating a range of nutrient-dense whole foods, including fruit and vegetables, whole grains, nuts and seeds, dairy or fortified alternatives, and lean or plant-based proteins, can help maintain adequate nutrient intake.

If supplements are needed, standard vitamin and mineral products available on the high street are often sufficient. There is rarely any need to pay premium prices for products marketed specifically for GLP-1 users. The evidence used in marketing for these products is often weak.

Selective science

While there is some evidence to support the use of certain supplements in specific situations or for certain groups, many GLP-1 support supplements contain ingredients that are not clearly linked to the needs of people taking these medications. These products are often described as “science-backed” or “evidence-based,” but the research behind these claims is frequently selective. Much of it has not been carried out in people using GLP-1 medications at all.

For instance, many GLP-1 support supplements include biotin, a vitamin often promoted for improving hair and skin health. However, the evidence supporting this claim is weak. There is also no strong research showing that biotin offers specific benefits for people taking GLP-1 medications. Most people already get enough biotin from their everyday diet. This means there is no clear evidence that adding more through supplements will help.

Nutritional and lifestyle support for people using GLP-1 medications should be tailored to personal needs and goals. This approach is often described as personalised care. It recognises that people differ in their diets, health status and risk of deficiency. Guidance suggests that support should be personalised to meet individual needs to meet specific needs, ideally with advice from a qualified healthcare professional such as a registered dietitian or nutritionist. This is particularly important for anyone at higher risk of nutrient deficiency.

Where deficiencies are identified or likely, support may include small dietary changes or the use of standard supplements. However, this does not justify the routine use of expensive GLP-1 support supplements. These products are unlikely to offer benefits beyond those provided by basic, affordable supplements. A higher price does not guarantee higher quality or effectiveness.

The key message is simple. Supplements are most useful when someone has a confirmed deficiency or cannot meet their nutritional needs through diet alone. Taking supplements without a clear need is unlikely to provide any benefit and may simply be a waste of money.

Jordan Beaumont receives funding from the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR). He is affiliated with the Association for the Study of Obesity and the Faculty of Public Health.

– ref. Weight-loss drug ‘support supplements’: do they address nutrient deficiencies, or are they just another fad? – https://theconversation.com/weight-loss-drug-support-supplements-do-they-address-nutrient-deficiencies-or-are-they-just-another-fad-275525

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Natasha Lindstaedt, Professor in the Department of Government, University of Essex

When the US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, delivered a speech at Europe’s biggest security conference in the German city of Munich on February 14, leaders from across the continent were relieved by its content. In contrast to the previous year, when US vice-president J.D. Vance had launched a scathing attack on European-style democracy, Rubio’s tone was far more friendly and conciliatory.

He described the US as a “child of Europe”, assuring European leaders that his country was intent on building a new world order together with what he called “our cherished allies and our oldest friends”. The president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, said she was “very much reassured” by these remarks.

However, Rubio also repeated several of the Trump administration’s familiar criticisms of Europe’s approach to immigration and climate action, cautioning that the US is prepared to chart its new path alone. And while he claimed his country wants to reinvigorate the transtlantic alliance, Rubio questioned Europe’s will and capacity to do so.

The speech underscored the balance Rubio must strike between aligning himself with the political priorities of Donald Trump and reassuring European partners. Unlike much of the Trump administration, the secretary of state understands that the US needs to be more diplomatic with Europe to achieve its foreign policy objectives.

This isn’t the case with Vance. One year ago, he chastised Europe for its migration policies and accused its governments of suppressing free speech and populist parties. He claimed that the greatest threat to Europe’s security came “from within”, rather than Russia. According to Vance, Europe had become too politically correct, abandoning fundamental values in the process.

Vance’s speech came as a shock to European leaders in the audience. They were not completely prepared for such a blistering attack, having thought he would focus his address largely on the war in Ukraine. The speech drew praise from Moscow, including from former Russian president and prime minister Dmitry Medvedev, and triggered a year of turmoil in transatlantic relations.

In his speech, Vance echoed Trump’s view of Europe – but it’s a view that matches his own. The vice-president has never really respected Europe. This was made clear in a series of leaked messages between Vance and other US national security officials in March 2025.

When Vance discussed plans for a military strike against Houthi forces in Yemen, which he noted posed a larger threat to European shipping than American trade, he lamented: “I hate bailing out Europe again.” Though he wrote in his 2016 memoir that visiting the UK was a childhood dream, Vance had become a Euro sceptic.

This contrasts with Rubio, who has traditionally been a strong supporter of Europe and the transatlantic alliance. Although ideologically hawkish in foreign policy, he has never been an isolationist – and has consistently backed traditional collective security institutions such as Nato.

In 2015, Rubio declared that the US must make a tough response to any Russian aggression against its Nato ally Turkey. And in 2019, he was part of a bi-partisan effort to prevent any US president from leaving the Nato alliance. He said: “It is critical to our national security and the security of our allies in Europe that the United States remain engaged and play an active role in Nato.”

This stance initially put Rubio at odds with Trump. But after Trump’s election defeat in 2020, Rubio recalibrated and slowly gained his trust. And since entering Trump’s inner circle, he has thrived. Rubio now serves as the president’s national security advisor as well as secretary of state, and has gained tremendous influence in foreign affairs.

Rubio’s delicate balance

To gain so much power, Rubio has had to be ideologically flexible. In Latin America, where his hardline stance against socialist regimes strongly aligns with Trump’s foreign policy goals, Rubio is in the driver’s seat and has largely determined what the US’s interests are. This has included pressing for the ouster of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, taking a tough stance on Cuba, and pressuring Panama to push out Chinese influence.

But outside of Latin America, Rubio has adopted a more measured communication style. He has engaged in damage control while ultimately clarifying and reinforcing Trump’s positions.

Trump prefers a world where the US acts unilaterally and ignores the rules-based international order. This has been illustrated by the US attacks on Iranian nuclear sites in 2025, as well as the more recent capture of Maduro and threats to take control of Greenland from Denmark.

Rubio tried to defuse tensions with Denmark in January, claiming the US merely wanted to purchase Greenland rather than intervene militarily. He has also toned down his hawkishness on Russia, a country Trump has sought to forge closer relations with. In 2016, Rubio had stated that the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, posed the biggest threat to global security.

As recently as 2024, Rubio praised the bravery of Ukrainians in their fight against Russia. But in his Munich address, he barely mentioned Ukraine, on which Trump has been applying pressure to end the war. Rubio also did not appear at a gathering with European allies immediately before the conference to discuss the conflict in Ukraine, claiming there was a scheduling issue.

Later, he reportedly offered Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelensky some assurances of US commitment. Despite also warning that Ukraine would need to accept hard concessions to end the war, this was an improvement from Vance’s past questioning of why the US was spending millions of dollars defending a “few miles of territory”.

Ultimately, while Rubio’s speech in Munich was less divisive and shocking than Vance’s a year earlier, it does not resemble any significant change in US foreign policy under Trump. The US has some shared interests with Europe, but not shared values.

Natasha Lindstaedt does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. In his Munich speech, Marco Rubio balanced loyalty to Trump with reassurances to Europe – https://theconversation.com/in-his-munich-speech-marco-rubio-balanced-loyalty-to-trump-with-reassurances-to-europe-275983

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Alicia Denby, Lecturer in Sociology and Criminology, Manchester Metropolitan University

Reports of widespread “dating burnout” and a cultural shift towards heteropessimism – a feeling of disappointment or despair at the state of relations between men and women – have caused panic in the media and dating apps.

Cultural debates have emerged around an alleged “rise of lonely single men” and what it means for society and future generations. Some have suggested that male singleness is a social problem partly caused by women’s supposed reluctance to “settle” in heterosexual partnerships.

For women, singlehood has largely been rebranded as a time for self-love and personal growth. The “single positivity” movement has removed much of the stigma around being a single woman (at least in one’s 20s). Women are allowed to embrace freedom and reclaim singlehood as a chosen identity.

My research on singlehood in Manchester found that single men had equally chosen to be single and were happily so. But they did not feel they could embrace this positivity. Instead, they remain polarised by harmful masculine ideals that misrepresent single men as either carefree bachelors or socially dysfunctional incels (involuntary celibates).

I interviewed ten men, aged 21-55, about their experiences of being single. Lamenting the lack of nuanced or positive portrayals, Simon, in his 40s, commented that single men are typically seen to be “having sex with half the town, or one rejection away from blowing up a school”.

From the playboy trope, characterised by Barney Stinson in How I Met Your Mother, to Theodore in the 2013 film Her, a divorcee who turns to AI for companionship, single men are represented in superficial terms. This can leave men feeling as though they must prove they are neither bachelor nor incel.

Bachelors and incels

Research on men and masculinity has long shown that young men are assumed to experience a period of sexual freedom before eventually “settling down”. Masculine ideals presume men commit to a monogamous relationship only once they have “sown their wild oats”.

On this basis, we might assume that young single men rarely face judgement for being single, and are instead celebrated for pursuing a liberated and carefree lifestyle.

However, in my research, men in their 20s spoke of the challenges they faced being single. Their singlehood was often assumed to be a result of “commitment-phobia” and a reluctance to settle down, rather than their lack of desire for an intimate relationship. In comparison, single women in their 20s did not face the same assumptions, with their singlehood rather understood as “a time to put themselves first” and enjoy freedom from being “tied down”.

Distancing himself from stereotypical representations of single men as “bachelors”, Harvey, in his mid-20s, explained:

You feel like you have to justify being single at times, and it’s because you have to differentiate that you’re not one of those stereotypes, you’re not one of “those guys” who mess girls around.

Several participants noted that masculinity and sexuality felt inescapably linked. Being in a sexual couple was understood as a key marker of masculinity. As a result, some young men worried that, if they were not visibly pursuing a relationship and not regarded as a “bachelor”, they would instead be questioned about their sexuality or desirability.

Stuart, in his early 50s, described how these pressures shaped his experiences in his 30s. He was content being single as it afforded him time to focus on his career and the ability to prioritise his friendships and hobbies. But Stuart’s friends questioned his sexuality and suggested he must be gay or asexual. This experience compelled him to participate in speed dating, not out of personal desire, but to demonstrate that he was “normal”.

Others preferred to remain single as a time to “find themselves” after experiencing difficult relationships, to accommodate caring responsibilities, or simply because they enjoyed their solitude. However, their reasoning was rarely accepted by peers, who failed to accept that their singlehood was by choice.

Pressures on women to couple up are often linked to the biological clock. But accounts in my research suggest that men, too, face age-related expectations.

The expectation for men to settle down in their 30s appears less tied to biology, and more to cultural norms that view coupledom and family life as markers of successful, responsible adulthood. According to my participants, settling down with a partner is seen as conducive to “growing up”.

Read more:
Why being single might feel empowering as a woman in your 20s, but not your 30s

Sexuality and masculinity

While men were expected to display sexual interest, being perceived as too sexually active beyond a certain age was also stigmatised. Evan described how he enjoyed the experimentation of singlehood in his early 20s, but by his late 20s felt that remaining single was no longer acceptable. He felt he was increasingly viewed by peers as “sad” or “desperate”, revealing the narrow norms governing masculinity.

When mainstream culture offers few credible or positive narratives about single men’s lives, the search for recognition and belonging can be redirected elsewhere – sometimes with harmful consequences.

Simon, 41, described joining the online group “Men Going Their Own Way” (MGTOW) in search of community with other men who were single by choice. He quickly became concerned by the group’s misogynistic orientation and its links to the broader manosphere, where MGTOW can act as a gateway to incel communities. However, while Simon recognised the risks and disengaged, he worried that younger men seeking belonging might not.

It’s time we challenged reductive stereotype of singlehood and asked: why is being single treated as a social problem? We must create space for nuanced portrayals of single men beyond the bachelor or incel.

Alicia Denby does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Carefree bachelor or incel: men are judged for being single too – https://theconversation.com/carefree-bachelor-or-incel-men-are-judged-for-being-single-too-272479

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Quynh Hoang, Lecturer in Marketing and Consumption, Department of Marketing and Strategy, University of Leicester

For years, big tech companies have placed the burden of managing screen time squarely on individuals and parents, operating on the assumption that capturing human attention is fair game.

But the social media sands may slowly be shifting. A test-case jury trial in Los Angeles is accusing big tech companies of creating “addiction machines”. While TikTok and Snapchat have already settled with the 20-year-old plaintiff, Meta’s CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, is due to give evidence in the courtroom this week.

The European Commission recently issued a preliminary ruling against TikTok, stating that the app’s design – with features such as infinite scroll and autoplay – breaches the EU Digital Services Act. One industry expert told the BBC that the problem is “no longer just about toxic content, it’s about toxic design”.

Meta and other defendants have historically argued that their platforms are communication tools, not traps, and that “addiction” is a mischaracterisation of high engagement.

“I think it’s important to differentiate between clinical addiction and problematic use,” Instagram chief Adam Mosseri testified in the LA court. He noted that the field of psychology does not classify social media addiction as an official diagnosis.

Tech giants maintain that users and parents have the agency and tools to manage screen time. However, a growing body of academic research suggests features like infinite scrolling, autoplay and push notifications are engineered to override human self-control.

A state of ‘automated attachment’

My research with colleagues on digital consumption behaviour also challenges the idea that excessive social media use is a failure of personal willpower. Through interviews with 32 self-identified excessive users and an analysis of online discussions dedicated to heavy digital use, we found that consumers frequently enter a state of “automated attachment”.

This is when connection to the device becomes purely reflexive, as conscious decision-making is effectively suspended by the platform’s design.

We found that the impulse to use these platforms sometimes occurs before the user is even fully conscious. One participant admitted: “I’m waking up, I’m not even totally conscious, and I’m already doing things on the device.”

Another described this loss of agency vividly: “I found myself mindlessly opening the [TikTok] app every time I felt even the tiniest bit bored … My thumb was reaching to its old spot on reflex, without a conscious thought.”

Social media proponents argue that “screen addiction” isn’t the same as substance abuse. However, new neurophysiological evidence suggests that frequent engagement with these algorithms alters dopamine pathways, fostering a dependency that is “analogous to substance addiction”.

Strategies that keep users engaged

The argument that users should simply exercise willpower also needs to be understood in the context of the sophisticated strategies platforms employ to keep users engaged. These include:

1. Removing stopping cues

Features like infinite scroll, autoplay and push notifications create a continuous flow of content. By eliminating natural end-points, the design effectively shifts users into autopilot mode, making stopping a viewing session more difficult.

2. Variable rewards

Similar to a slot machine, algorithms deliver intermittent, unpredictable rewards such as likes and personalised videos. This unpredictability triggers the dopamine system, creating a compulsive cycle of seeking and anticipation.

3. Social pressure

Features such as notifications and time-limited story posts have been found to exploit psychological vulnerabilities, inducing anxiety that for many users can only be relieved by checking the app. Strategies employing “emotional steering” can take advantage of psychological vulnerabilities, such as people’s fear of missing out, to instil a sense of social obligation and guilt if they attempt to disconnect.

Vulnerability in children

The issue of social media addiction is of particular concern when it comes to children, whose impulse control mechanisms are still developing. The US trial’s plaintiff says she began using social media at the age of six, and that her early exposure to these platforms led to a spiral into addiction.

A growing body of research suggests that “variable reward schedules” are especially potent for developing minds, which exhibit a heightened sensitivity to rewards. Children lack the cognitive brakes to resist these dopamine loops because their emotional regulation and impulsivity controls are still developing.

Lawyers in the US trial have pointed to internal documents, known as “Project Myst”, which allegedly show that Meta knew parental controls were ineffective against these engagement loops. Meta’s attorney, Paul Schmidt, countered that the plaintiff’s struggles stemmed from pre-existing childhood trauma rather than platform design.

The company has long argued that it provides parents with “robust tools at their fingertips”, and that the primary issue is “behavioural” – because many parents fail to use them.

Our study heard from many adults (mainly in their 20s) who described the near-impossibility of controlling levels of use, despite their best efforts. If these adults cannot stop opening apps on reflex, expecting a child to exercise restraint with apps that affect human neurophysiology seems even more unrealistic.

Potential harms of overuse

The consequences of social media overuse can be significant. Our research and recent studies have identified a wide range of potential harms.

These include “psychological entrapment”. Participants in our study described a “feedback loop of doom and despair”. Users can turn to platforms to escape anxiety, only to find that the scrolling deepens their feelings of emptiness and isolation.

Excessive exposure to rapidly changing, highly stimulating content can fracture the user’s attention span, making it harder to focus on complex real-world tasks.

And many users describe feeling “defeated” by the technology. Social media’s erosion of autonomy can leave people unable to align their online actions – such as overlong sessions – with their intentions.

A ruling against social media companies in the LA court case, or enforced redesign of their apps in the EU, could have profound implications for the way these platforms are operated in future.

But while big tech companies have grown at dizzying rates over the past two decades, attempts to rein in their products on both sides of the Atlantic remain slow and painstaking. In this era of “use first, legislate later”, people all over the world, of all ages, are the laboratory mice.

Quynh Hoang does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Is social media addictive? How it keeps you clicking and the harms it can cause – https://theconversation.com/is-social-media-addictive-how-it-keeps-you-clicking-and-the-harms-it-can-cause-276022

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Arshad Majid, Professor of Cerebrovascular Neurology, School of Medicine and Population Health, University of Sheffield

An explosion does not need to strike the head to injure the brain. When a blast occurs, it generates a sudden pressure wave that can pass through the body and skull in milliseconds, potentially deforming brain tissue and blood vessels along the way.

For soldiers exposed to improvised explosive devices or other blasts, and civilians caught in industrial accidents or explosions in conflict zones, the neurological effects can be long-lasting – even when brain scans appear normal.

Blast injuries can trigger changes in the brain and its blood vessels that standard medical scans do not always detect. When these injuries go unrecognised, people may receive the wrong care or be left without an explanation for symptoms that persist for years.

Most people are familiar with traumatic brain injuries caused by impacts such as falls, road traffic collisions or sports injuries. In these situations, the brain moves suddenly within the skull, leading to bruising or localised damage that can often be seen on scans.

Blast injury works differently. The rapid rise and fall in pressure created by an explosion can travel through the skull and the fluid that surrounds and cushions the brain. This generates complex mechanical forces that stretch and strain brain tissue. As a result, someone can sustain a brain injury even without any direct blow to the head.

Rather than producing one clearly visible injury, blast exposure tends to cause widespread microscopic damage. These tiny injuries can disrupt how brain cells communicate with each other, and can also damage the blood vessels that keep brain tissue healthy.

Although blast injury is often associated with military settings, it is not confined to war zones. Civilians may be exposed through industrial explosions, terrorist attacks or demolition work. In all these situations, the underlying mechanisms of brain injury are similar.

Despite these differences, blast injuries are often managed in the same way as concussions or other head injuries. When damage to blood vessels is overlooked, the severity of the injury and its long-term impact can be underestimated.

More sensitive diagnostic tools, including advanced imaging and specialised blood tests, could improve detection of subtle blood vessel damage. This would allow for more targeted treatment aimed at reducing inflammation, protecting the brain’s circulation, and ensuring patients receive appropriate long-term care.

Blast-related brain injury can also disrupt the brain’s waste-clearance system. This system normally removes harmful proteins and metabolic waste. When it is impaired, vulnerability to long-term post-concussion symptoms and neurodegenerative diseases may increase.

Brain blood vessels are especially vulnerable

One of the most important, and often overlooked, consequences of blast injury is damage to the brain’s blood vessels.

Blood vessels are thin-walled and flexible, allowing them to cope with normal changes in blood flow and pressure. During a blast, however, the rapid pressure shifts can stretch these vessels beyond their limits. This can cause tiny tears and weaken the protective barrier that normally prevents harmful substances in the bloodstream from entering brain tissue.

This protective layer, often called the blood–brain barrier, plays a crucial role in controlling what passes from the blood into the brain. When it is damaged, inflammatory cells and proteins can leak into brain tissue.

The resulting inflammation may persist long after the initial injury, interfering with normal brain function. Over time, this can contribute to symptoms such as headaches, memory problems, difficulty concentrating, slowed thinking, mood changes and fatigue.

Damage to the blood–brain barrier may help explain why some people experience ongoing symptoms months or even years after blast exposure.

Why scans can appear normal

One of the most frustrating experiences for people with blast-related brain injury is being told that their CT or MRI scan is normal, despite persistent symptoms.

Standard imaging techniques are very good at detecting fractures, bleeding or large areas of tissue damage. Blast injuries, however, often involve microscopic changes such as small vessel damage, disruption to communication between brain cells, and ongoing inflammation. These changes are usually too subtle to be seen on routine scans.

This mismatch between symptoms and imaging can delay diagnosis, complicate rehabilitation and, in some cases, affect access to appropriate support or compensation.

Researchers are increasingly using laboratory models and real-world data to understand how blast forces affect the brain and its circulation. Long-term studies are beginning to show how early damage to blood vessels may evolve into lasting neurological problems.

Progress will require close collaboration between neuroscientists, clinicians, emergency services and policymakers. Blast injury is not only a military concern. It offers broader insights into how pressure-related forces damage the brain, and how these injuries might be prevented or treated.

Recognising blast injury as a distinct form of brain trauma, particularly one that affects the brain’s blood vessels, is a crucial step towards improving care for those affected.

Arshad Majid is a NIHR Senior Investigator and his research is funded by the NIHR EME programme and the NIHR Sheffield BRC. His research is also funded by the Stroke Association UK.

Favour Felix-Ilemhenbhio receives funding from the British Heart Foundation (BHF).

Klaudia Kocsy receives funding from Alzheimer’s Research UK.

– ref. How blast waves can damage the brain without a head injury – https://theconversation.com/how-blast-waves-can-damage-the-brain-without-a-head-injury-274238