There are 2 points on this. First, if bolded is your approach, then we should cancel football. In fact, we should cancel everything because ANY activity can result in an injury. So if you truly think that we must be assured of injury-free life, then we gotta get into pod and be fed intravenously Matrix-style. Second, related to this specific study. Yes, I remember you saying that the group was self-selected and you said that the numbers might be somewhat off. What I don't think you realize is how much off they really are. Now, I cannot put any exact numbers, just like those "researchers" can't (ofcourse, I hove no problem admitting I don't have sufficient data). But is you try to make some generous assumtions, the numbers will look something like this: Note that all my approximations will favor the article's position - 32 teams x 53 players = 1696 players - About 20% rotation annually (probably much higher, but I promised to favor the article = 339 new players per year. - From 2002 (year they mentioned several times): 15 years * 339 = A little over 5000 players - 110 players out of 5000 = 2.2% AT MOST!. This is if you believe all those "maybe", "showing signs" cases are in fact CTE and not due to excessive drinking and partying Third.... How come these "researchers" didn't pull actual numbers like this? This practice is a very basic science. Nothing would bolster their argument than a line "Out of XXXX total player from 2000 to 2010, YYYY have CTE, this is a whopping ZZ%% !!!" No... they are saying "110 out of 111 we looked at have CTE" Well, why the fuck didn't they go and look at more than 111 people?! If CTE is at 99.9% rate, finding another dozen would be easy! Again.. this is hype, lawsuite-setting piece that has little to do with science and everything with social agenda and money.
RUJ I don't necessarily disagree with you I just want to point out that the headlines are different than the study itself. Don't attack the researchers. The researchers aren't claiming by any means that 99% of NFL players have CTE, its very clear that they are talking about the "convenience sample" of 111 specific players.The researchers aren't trying to trick anyone about that they are reporting their findings very clearly. http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2645104 Your beef should be with the journalists taking claims made in that study and applying outside of the realm of the researchers conclusions. Attack them if ya want as that's more appropriate. Don't attack the medical professionals trying to save lives and simply reporting their findings. If you look at the actual article the only definitive conclusion the researchers make is: "Players of American football may be at increased risk of long-term neurological conditions, particularly chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE)." I mean I think that's pretty obvious and not exactly a controversial claim.... As for why they didn't look at more than 111 people? We're talking about analyzing the brains of dead people here. They can only work with the samples they are given. They can't go digging up every dead football player from decades.
As dumb as saying 99% of players have CTE, this is a order of magnitude dumber lol That 2.2% is a floor and , plenty of other players with issues didn't get autopsied. Yeah you get CTE from drinking and partying, is that what's wrong with OBJ? hahahaha
BN, You're absolutely correct! It's not the researchers, it's the media using selective quotation to trump up the issue. And fans willing to swallow the narrative without even bother smelling it first. Thank you for posting the full article. Here is the actual conclusion from the actual study: "In a convenience sample of deceased football players who donated their brains for research, a high proportion had neuropathological evidence of CTE, suggesting that CTE may be related to prior participation in football." They actually say that it's "Convenience sample" = they know it's not representative And based on that small sample they suggested a theory that "CTE may be related to prior participation in football."
You get your news from ambulance-chasing media, is that what's wrong with you? You don't know if 2.2% is floor, ceiling, or average. There is absolutely no data that supports your bolded statement.
except for your math lol don't BS me that there isn't a single other case of undiagnosed CTE RG3 is a spring chicken, right?
Show me where I stated or even implied bolded You have a cute way to argue: - state what you think is my position - believe that that is true - then accuse me of BSing It's very convenient because it doesn't require you to read and understand, just to pick and assume. Just to make it slear for you: I do believe that there are some CTE due to playing football My argument is that there is no evidence to support any kind of definitive percentage of CTE due to football.
Guy there is no point in discussing anything with you anymore, you have zero reading comprehension of YOUR OWN posts quote: "You don't know if 2.2% is floor, ceiling, or average" It can't be anything BUT the floor based on YOUR math because there are at LEAST 110 cases out of the entire player pool you estimated Man what a fucking dumbass
How exactly does "You don't know if 2.2% is floor, ceiling, or average" Translate into "There isn't a single other case of undiagnosed CTE" ? You seems to have hard time comprehending the concept of "we don't know because there was no sufficient research". It important to understand basic linguistic concepts before offering opinion on scientific matter. To put it in terms you might understand. You are not smart enough to talk science. Have a good life
Obviously to get a scientific sample they'd have to test a random sample of brains which is not possible. Nevertheless, let's assume you're right, therefore we can posit a theory based on the data available that football is conducive to CTE. Don't you think that's cause for concern?
Of course it's a cause for concern. But there is a mountain of difference between being concerned and stating 99% blah blah blah
@GordonGecko might not be "smart" enough to talk science, but I am. Unless you do grad-level statistics for a living, I can all but guarantee I know more about it than you do. Now that that's out of the way, of course the sample is biased. Nobody denies it. But in players with severe symptoms, of which there are many more than the 111 studied, we can see there is a very high probability of CTE. So it's very concerning, merits further research, and the NFL should definitely pay attention. The discussion should end here, but who knows whether you'll let it.
I actually agree with you, especially bolded. And yes, grad level stats is a part of what I do for living
And now the NIH is walking away from the remaining $16 mil of the $30 mil gift that the NFL gave them to study CTE, which of course was just a ploy that the NFL gave a crap. Who's zooming who? The NIH is just another highly mismanaged tentacle of the gov't, but this just reeks.
You would not be so quick to disparage the NIH if you ever participated in a clinical trial that saved your life.
Technology and Medicine will reduce the risk hopefully Till then it's the Headbangers Ball All of today's Gladiators and their mothers know the risks..they play for glory and riches..nothing has ever changed and they all say: "We who are about to get our brains scrambled salute you!" (To roar of the populace...)
