CTE in 99% of Studied NFL Player Brains

[Popeyejones]

As a business entity, I can completely understand that, but if they want to continue to be a successful business model 50 years from now, they need to be proactive about this issue.

100% agreed except for this sentence.

I'll give them the "business entity" pass the day they stop pretending that they're a tax-free non-profit organization. You can either acknowledge yourself as a business entity and get a pass for only caring about the bottom line, or be a tax-free non-profit organization and get your feet held to the fire for repeatedly only acting in the interest of your bottom line.

 

[kidhawk]

The NFL wants to appear as if they were doing something to show they care about player health, but in reality, all they really care about is their appearance. The problem with this issue, is that there is just no way to appear to care about the players' well being without actually caring about the players' well being. So far all the NFL has shown is it cares about it's bottom line. As a business entity, I can completely understand that, but if they want to continue to be a successful business model 50 years from now, they need to be proactive about this issue.

To defend the league, it's a razor's edge their walking on here with CTE.

If they're REALLY concerned about the long term health of their players, they'd dissolve the NFL today because there's no scientific doubt that playing NFL football will shorten your lifespan. That's a fact.

But they can't, because it's a multi billion dollar cash cow.

So they have to continue to do things that APPEAR like they care. Less contact in pre-season, rule changes, safer equipment, stricter concussion rules, this monetary commitment to studying CTE, etc.

So what are they REALLY suppose to do about CTE? Honestly, the only way to show their true concern is to dissolve the league or turn it into flag football.

What they can do, is things such as follow through on promises to donate towards researching the subject. Saying they will, then putting off fulfilling their stated obligation isn't helping anyone except themselves.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

What they can do, is things such as follow through on promises to donate towards researching the subject. Saying they will, then putting off fulfilling their stated obligation isn't helping anyone except themselves.

But they don't want to donate, because it means even more empirical evidence creating a slippery slope towards the demise of their golden goose.

If we're talking even a decade ago, I'm totally with you guys. The NFL hid information, and even used deceptive practices withholding critical medical information on players because they knew about concussions.

But IMO in the year 2017, it's 100% on the players and their families now. There's more than enough information about the effects of concussions and CTE. So they all know the risks, and can decide whether to play or not.

 

[kidhawk]

What they can do, is things such as follow through on promises to donate towards researching the subject. Saying they will, then putting off fulfilling their stated obligation isn't helping anyone except themselves.

But they don't want to donate, because it means even more empirical evidence creating a slippery slope towards the demise of their golden goose.

If we're talking even a decade ago, I'm totally with you guys. The NFL hid information, and even used deceptive practices withholding critical medical information on players because they knew about concussions.

But IMO in the year 2017, it's 100% on the players and their families now. There's more than enough information about the effects of concussions and CTE. So they all know the risks, and can decide whether to play or not.

If they don't want to donate then they probably shouldn't be making announcements promising millions in research dollars without strings.

 

[RolandDeschain]

I like Popeye's "all or nothing" mentality. They're either completely corrupt and nefarious, or they're not. Very appropriate for today's political mindset and climate.

YOU'RE EITHER OUR BFF OR THE ENEMY, MAKE YOUR CHOICE! WE DON'T STAND FOR ANY MIDDLE GROUND UP IN THESE PARTS!

Also, from the study itself: "Inclusion criteria were based entirely on exposure to repetitive head trauma (eg, contact sports, military service, or domestic violence), regardless of whether symptoms manifested during life."

I mean, I guess we could also go grab a bunch of carpenters to see if they've had increased lung exposure to sawdust, too.

 

[kidhawk]

I like Popeye's "all or nothing" mentality. They're either completely corrupt and nefarious, or they're not. Very appropriate for today's political mindset and climate.

YOU'RE EITHER OUR BFF OR THE ENEMY, MAKE YOUR CHOICE! WE DON'T STAND FOR ANY MIDDLE GROUND UP IN THESE PARTS!

Also, from the study itself: "Inclusion criteria were based entirely on exposure to repetitive head trauma (eg, contact sports, military service, or domestic violence), regardless of whether symptoms manifested during life."

I mean, I guess we could also go grab a bunch of carpenters to see if they've had increased lung exposure to sawdust, too.

The study was meant to be specifically about those who are exposed to head trauma.....that was the point. It's kind of ridiculous to pick on the reason for the study to claim it's not accurate or has some sort of bias. There are other studies out there that cover CTE generally. This study is case specific to study one possible cause/effect. This study isn't in a vacuum. You are free to go find other studies to research if you are actually interested, but this study directly relates to the NFL and that is what we are here to discuss.

The question is, do you believe that there is a higher likelihood that NFL players will get CTE than other occupations? If so, I'd like to hear the reasons. If not, then you agree that the study has merit.

 

[chris98251]

I like Popeye's "all or nothing" mentality. They're either completely corrupt and nefarious, or they're not. Very appropriate for today's political mindset and climate.

YOU'RE EITHER OUR BFF OR THE ENEMY, MAKE YOUR CHOICE! WE DON'T STAND FOR ANY MIDDLE GROUND UP IN THESE PARTS!

Also, from the study itself: "Inclusion criteria were based entirely on exposure to repetitive head trauma (eg, contact sports, military service, or domestic violence), regardless of whether symptoms manifested during life."

I mean, I guess we could also go grab a bunch of carpenters to see if they've had increased lung exposure to sawdust, too.

Stupid analogy, now if you said hearing loss that would be different.

Also Kickers and Punters not having head trauma, guess you missed the hit on our Ginger a few years back, also most have not always been kickers and or punters, if they played from Jr football on they probably played other positions as well, you would have to have played the sport to understand it though, I can only imagine how many of the Gulf and Southern states drill their kids as well. I know you rarely punt in Jr High School and Pee Wee leagues also.

Also talking Politics I thought was not allowed, that Grey Matter between your ears must have forgotten that.

 

[RolandDeschain]

The study was meant to be specifically about those who are exposed to head trauma.....that was the point. It's kind of ridiculous to pick on the reason for the study to claim it's not accurate or has some sort of bias. There are other studies out there that cover CTE generally. This study is case specific to study one possible cause/effect. This study isn't in a vacuum. You are free to go find other studies to research if you are actually interested, but this study directly relates to the NFL and that is what we are here to discuss.

The question is, do you believe that there is a higher likelihood that NFL players will get CTE than other occupations? If so, I'd like to hear the reasons. If not, then you agree that the study has merit.

I was bitching about the news site's portrayal of it and yours via the thread topic.

"I strongly detest the title of this thread, and of the article itself."

 

[Sgt. Largent]

The question is, do you believe that there is a higher likelihood that NFL players will get CTE than other occupations? If so, I'd like to hear the reasons. If not, then you agree that the study has merit.

I'd imagine the reason is because these are men that have been smashing their skulls into each other from age 8-35.

I have no doubt CTE and concussions are a very serious issue in the NFL, I just think it's naive to think the owners and league who make billions off their sport are going to do the right thing when it comes to hard research and more importantly solutions.

Cause like I said, the only real remedy for this is to stop playing entirely.

 

[kidhawk]

The question is, do you believe that there is a higher likelihood that NFL players will get CTE than other occupations? If so, I'd like to hear the reasons. If not, then you agree that the study has merit.

I'd imagine the reason is because these are men that have been smashing their skulls into each other from age 8-35.

I have no doubt CTE and concussions are a very serious issue in the NFL, I just think it's naive to think the owners and league who make billions off their sport are going to do the right thing when it comes to hard research and more importantly solutions.

Cause like I said, the only real remedy for this is to stop playing entirely.

Which, with these types of studies, people can make more informed decisions on whether or not they actually want to play. 20 years ago, when guys in the league now were starting as kids, the vast majority of the people had no clue about CTE and it's high risk from playing football. Today, we have a much better idea of what it is and are learning more all the time about how playing football can cause the risk factors to jump dramatically.

You are correct, there is likely no way to completely eradicate CTE from being caused by hits in football without ending the game as we know it. That doesn't mean we shouldn't study it and see if there's not any way to lessen the risk, even if it's still leaving the risk extremely elevated for those who choose to play the game.

The NFL is definitely between a rock and a hard place with this issue. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Of course they'll continue to get richer in the meantime.

 

[Popeyejones]

I like Popeye's "all or nothing" mentality. They're either completely corrupt and nefarious, or they're not. Very appropriate for today's political mindset and climate.

YOU'RE EITHER OUR BFF OR THE ENEMY, MAKE YOUR CHOICE! WE DON'T STAND FOR ANY MIDDLE GROUND UP IN THESE PARTS!

Stop trying to extrapolate out into the problems of society.

We're talking a VERY SPECIFIC thing.

With no evidence you raised the specter of malfeasance or trickery by the researchers.

I responded that they are reporting simple desriptive statistics, which doesn't leave room for chicanery.

As such, they're either out-and-out liars (e.g. they're censoring negative cases; they haven't actually studied any brains and are just making up numbers; etc., etc.) or they're not.

Why don't you give me an example of the type of middle-ground chicanery you're thinking of when reporting simple descriptive statistics and then we can go from there. I can't think of any that wouldn't be out-and-out fraud.

Also, from the study itself: "Inclusion criteria were based entirely on exposure to repetitive head trauma (eg, contact sports, military service, or domestic violence), regardless of whether symptoms manifested during life."

It is worth noting that you have now quoted a feature of the study that directly contradicts a fake claim you made about it up thread in order to dismiss it (that it is ONLY of people who showed signs of CTE while alive).

 

[thebanjodude]

I strongly detest the title of this thread, and of the article itself. All the brains they studied were purposely donated for research; i.e., they were given by players who already knew they had mental problems from playing. It's like going into a cancer ward at a hospital and basing your incidence rate on that.

I'm not downplaying CTE in any way, but damn, this is presented like 99% of NFL players get CTE and that's not even close to true...But people will pick up on it and ignorantly trumpet those numbers, contributing to the ever-growing dilemma of fake news and just inaccurate news in general.

So you have actual positive proof that 99 percent of Pro Football players do not have CTE in anyway shape or form and degree to argue your open ended disclaimer statement.

Do you have actual proof that unicorns don't exist?

 

[chris98251]

They do and did, but not in the traditional image.

 

[kidhawk]

[urltargetblank]http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-nih-nfldonation-20170728-story.html[/urltargetblank]

That donation is set to expire in August, and according to a report by ESPN’s “Outside the Lines,” the NIH will leave more than half of it on the table. The report said the government agency is willing to walk away from $16 million in the wake of a congressional study last year that accused the NFL of trying to steer money away from Dr. Robert Stern, a Boston University neuroscientist who had been staunchly critical of the league’s handling of head injuries.

Whereas the NIH said in a statement Thursday that there are “no current research plans” for the remaining funds, the NFL said league officials are “engaged in constructive discussions” with the FNIH – the fundraising arm of the NIH – “regarding potential new research projects and the remaining funds of our $30 million commitment.”

 

[RolandDeschain]

With no evidence you raised the specter of malfeasance or trickery by the researchers.

I responded that they are reporting simple desriptive statistics, which doesn't leave room for chicanery.

Naivete is only cute in children. There is no such thing as not having room for chicanery.

Why don't you give me an example of the type of middle-ground chicanery you're thinking of when reporting simple descriptive statistics and then we can go from there. I can't think of any that wouldn't be out-and-out fraud.

Wait, so why are you excluding out-and-out fraud from the list? Ok...If you want to look ONLY at examples mild enough that they wouldn't be considered complete fraud by most people, but which are still misleading in their accuracy, there are still tons to choose from. Look at how the hockey stick graph was used in the 90s/early 2000s in the global warming debate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
This one in particular was one of the big ones: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/4032 ... bombshell/

Also, look at how the predictions of every IPCC report turn out to either not happen at all, or happen with considerably less severity than predicted.

I'll throw in some good examples with a comedic slant from the beloved Cracked.com, too; don't misinterpret their satire-like writing style, most of their articles have a lot of solid and well-sourced information: http://www.cracked.com/article_20318_th ... o-you.html

Also, from the study itself: "Inclusion criteria were based entirely on exposure to repetitive head trauma (eg, contact sports, military service, or domestic violence), regardless of whether symptoms manifested during life."

It is worth noting that you have now quoted a feature of the study that directly contradicts a fake claim you made about it up thread in order to dismiss it (that it is ONLY of people who showed signs of CTE while alive).

Actually, I hate to burst your bubble; but if you scroll up and look at what I said, it's this:

All the brains they studied were purposely donated for research; i.e., they were given by players who already knew they had mental problems from playing.

Do you know what i.e. means? I stated that the brains were purposely donated for research, and they were. They flat-out say, as per the quote just above from the study itself, that inclusion criteria is based ENTIRELY on exposure to repetitive head trauma. So, while the study also said it wasn't a requirement that CTE symptoms be present while they were still alive, they aren't excluding it obviously, either. I'll grant you one thing - I could have phrased the i.e. part better.

 

[hawk45]

Roland's dislike for the thread and article title seem justified to me.

The publishers were quite aware that given the topic, their title would immediately result in the mistaken impression that it was representative of all NFL players, as was CNN.

And indeed, the article is being used now in a widespread fashion to promote the idea that 99% of all NFL players will develop CTE. Kidhawk himself makes no note in his initial posting of the gross flaw of the study only looking at players already suspected of having the very condition being tested for, and concludes that NFL players are nearly guaranteed to have CTE. I wonder that there is any debate as to the study and article title being misleading and deceitful when the very first post in this thread has been misled and deceived in the exact manner Roland has described!!!

This is predictable and I would argue deliberate by the publishers of the study and CNN. The title/headline get repeated and only the vigilant like Roland look deep enough to find the caveats.

If you have a study so terribly conducted and so likely to be misinterpret then if you are at all interested in honesty you include the major game changing fact of the skewed pool in the title, in bold letters, highlighted in yellow.

Conducting such a study is questionable as to motive in the first place. Of course you will find a high incidence of CTE!!! What exactly is the scientific goal being served? What valuable knowledge was unearthed?

Shame on anyone presenting the presentation of this study and article as intellectually honest and shouting down Roland who was diligent enough and concerned enough about the truth to read beyond the title and point out how misleading it is.