Misleading reference to unpublished wound ballistics data regarding distant injuries

TL;DR

This paper critiques a previous article for citing unpublished data to dismiss distant injuries in wound ballistics, clarifying that the data actually supports their existence.

Contribution

It clarifies the misrepresentation of wound ballistics data and emphasizes the importance of accurate citation regarding distant injuries.

Findings

Unpublished data actually contains evidence of distant injuries.

The cited article's claim that distant injuries are a myth is unsupported.

Proper interpretation of wound ballistics data confirms the occurrence of distant injuries.

Abstract

An article (J Trauma 29:10-18, 1989) cites unpublished wound ballistics data to support the authors' view that distant injuries are a myth in wound ballistics. The actual data, published in 1990, actually contains a number of detailed examples of distant injuries. (Bellamy RF, Zajtchuk R. The physics and biophysics of wound ballistics. In: Zajtchuk R, ed. Textbook of Military Medicine, Part I: Warfare, Weaponry, and the Casualty, Vol. 5, Conventional Warfare: Ballistic, Blast, and Burn Injuries. Washington, DC: Office of the Surgeon General, Department of the Army, United States of America; 1990: 107-162.)