Original sentence: Fackler argued that since a lithotriptor, a tool commonly used to break up kidney stones via sonic pressure waves stronger than those caused by most handgun bullets, produces no damage to soft tissues whatsoever, ballistic pressure waves cannot damage tissue either.However, tissue damage due to lithotriptors has been documented
Edited sentence: Because subtle damage in neural tissues was difficult to detect, denials of "hydrostatic shock" (remote neural effects) as a real wounding mechanism persisted for some time.Fackler argued that since a lithotriptor, a tool commonly used to break up kidney stones via sonic pressure waves stronger than those caused by most handgun bullets, produces no damage to soft tissues whatsoever, this is conclusive proof that the ballistic pressure waves cannot damage tissue either.However, as discussed below,  scientific progress eventually provided considerable support.However, tissue damage due to lithotriptors has been widely documented.Other than reference to lithotriptors and Harvey et al.Rather than provide proof of absence, the case against "hydrostatic shock" (ballistic pressure wave effects) relies on absence of proof.’s 1947 results which did not study neural tissue, authors arguing against remote wounding effects of ballistic pressure waves have not provided any concrete evidence against remote neural effects