CTE in 99% of Studied NFL Player Brains

chris98251":1t6lvaa0 said:

RolandDeschain":1t6lvaa0 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

That isn't what he was saying. He was saying that the article was reckless in the way it presented the results of the study. People misusing information to create the narrative they want only serves to water down the actual issues. This has always been a problem, but recently it is rapidly becoming worse.

I personally believe that it is likely that the data from study probably comes close to approximating what the article eludes to and the article does provide a single paragraph disclaimer as to what the study actually represents. The rest of the article is written with the feel that the data accurately represents football related CTE occurrence rate.

For those arguing semantics of the article, I suppose it was too much work to click the links in the article which were provided to take you to the study. If you REALLY want to base your argument on the study, feel free to have a read....

[urltargetblank]http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2645104[/urltargetblank]


It's pretty simple really, this was a study of brains donated by players from varying levels of football. It wasn't meant to be a study on how many average citizens have CTE, it was meant as a study of the effects of CTE from playing American Football.

It's not 100% conclusive of anything, but it does bring some facts to light that were previously not known.

JustTheTip":jn1bmupx said:

That isn't what he was saying. He was saying that the article was reckless in the way it presented the results of the study. People misusing information to create the narrative they want only serves to water down the actual issues. This has always been a problem, but recently it is rapidly becoming worse.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but that's simply not true though. The thing he claims the article doesn't do the article actually does in its very first sentence:

Chronic traumatic encephalopathy, known as CTE, was found in 99% of deceased NFL players' brains that were donated to scientific research,

Click to expand...

The only more clear you could be would be would be to also include the researchers own summaries of the potential limitations of the generalizability of their finding. But, hey, the article does precisely that too:

The study points out potential bias because relatives of these players may have submitted their brains due to clinical symptoms they noticed while they were living. It also acknowledges the lack of a comparison group that represents all individuals exposed to college-level or professional football. Without that, the study lacks an overall estimate on the risk of participation in football and its effects on the brain.

Click to expand...

The critiques over the legitimacy of the reporting in this article is a complete and total nothingburger, and the fecklessness of those critiques are easily seen by actually, like, reading the article.

Again, the researchers are either complete and total liars, or they're not. These are descriptive statistics presented in an article which notes the population under study in the first sentence, and discusses limitations from that study as specified by the researchers in the article too.

Likewise, while we're on the topic the key claim made by Roland is false: " 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."

This is complete and total conjecture on his part. The researchers, responsible as they are (and as reported in the article), forward the hypothesis that this may bias the material they've been given access to for study, but it should not be treated as a statement of fact. If someone has surveyed the descendants of all those who donated on the motivations and causal factors in those donations, by all means, they should show themselves, but if they haven't they should engage in definitive claims making on motivations.

kidhawk":3ssa9in1 said:

It's pretty simple really, this was a study of brains donated by players from varying levels of football.

Click to expand...

Yep, or you could just work your way through the first 20 words of the CNN article before criticizing it, and come to the same conclusion. :2thumbs:

Popeyejones":20vs1g3g said:

uote]

Yeah, but that's simply not true though. The thing he claims the article doesn't do the article actually does in its very first sentence:

Click to expand...

And, as I pointed out, provides an entire paragraph disclaimer stating the same. That doesn't excuse the rest of the article presenting opinion like it is fact. The study is good. The data from the study is good. My personal opinion is probably close to that of the person who wrote the article. The article is still, in my opinion, bad.

JustTheTip":yi70mmz1 said:

Popeyejones":yi70mmz1 said:

uote]

Yeah, but that's simply not true though. The thing he claims the article doesn't do the article actually does in its very first sentence:

Click to expand...

And, as I pointed out, provides an entire paragraph disclaimer stating the same. That doesn't excuse the rest of the article presenting opinion like it is fact. The study is good. The data from the study is good. My personal opinion is probably close to that of the person who wrote the article. The article is still, in my opinion, bad.

Click to expand...

The article is merely writing about the study, but it includes a link to the full study results and conclusions. If you don't want to be bothered reading what the writer at CNN has to say, then don't. The link was in the very top of the article. Go read the study conclusions yourself.

I merely posted the CNN article as a quick reference to it as it's more mainstream. Too many people are focusing on the semantics of the article and not the study itself. Why? I have no idea.

kidhawk":3og839kw said:

JustTheTip":3og839kw said:

Popeyejones":3og839kw said:

uote]

Yeah, but that's simply not true though. The thing he claims the article doesn't do the article actually does in its very first sentence:

Click to expand...

And, as I pointed out, provides an entire paragraph disclaimer stating the same. That doesn't excuse the rest of the article presenting opinion like it is fact. The study is good. The data from the study is good. My personal opinion is probably close to that of the person who wrote the article. The article is still, in my opinion, bad.

Click to expand...

The article is merely writing about the study, but it includes a link to the full study results and conclusions. If you don't want to be bothered reading what the writer at CNN has to say, then don't. The link was in the very top of the article. Go read the study conclusions yourself.

I merely posted the CNN article as a quick reference to it as it's more mainstream. Too many people are focusing on the semantics of the article and not the study itself. Why? I have no idea.

Click to expand...

Why? Simple. It's an age old strategy. It worked for tobacco, it is working (more or less) for climate change. It's being applied here. When you don't have the facts to make the case you want, argue the 'controversy' whether it is real or not. Dispute the methods, attack the credibility of the presenters, on and on. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

kidhawk":2zw5rh5x said:

JustTheTip":2zw5rh5x said:

Popeyejones":2zw5rh5x said:

uote]

Yeah, but that's simply not true though. The thing he claims the article doesn't do the article actually does in its very first sentence:

Click to expand...

And, as I pointed out, provides an entire paragraph disclaimer stating the same. That doesn't excuse the rest of the article presenting opinion like it is fact. The study is good. The data from the study is good. My personal opinion is probably close to that of the person who wrote the article. The article is still, in my opinion, bad.

Click to expand...

The article is merely writing about the study, but it includes a link to the full study results and conclusions. If you don't want to be bothered reading what the writer at CNN has to say, then don't. The link was in the very top of the article. Go read the study conclusions yourself.

I merely posted the CNN article as a quick reference to it as it's more mainstream. Too many people are focusing on the semantics of the article and not the study itself. Why? I have no idea.

Click to expand...

I read all of it. The point Roland initially made (I believe this is the point he was trying to make), which I agree with, is that improper use of data to present opinion as fact (and not just by the media) is a problem that is rapidly becoming worse and shouldn't be accepted or ignored.

sutz":3ud3eprz said:

Why? Simple. It's an age old strategy. It worked for tobacco, it is working (more or less) for climate change. It's being applied here. When you don't have the facts to make the case you want, argue the 'controversy' whether it is real or not. Dispute the methods, attack the credibility of the presenters, on and on. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

Click to expand...

I agree, but in this case the author of the article is doing what you are talking about. As I said, my opinion is probably pretty close to that of the author, so what exactly is it that you think I am denying by trying to make the point I am trying to make?

I don't have a problem with people writing about their opinions. I wouldn't even have a problem with that article (using the data from the study to help solidify that opinion) if it was more carefully written. I am tired of watching people intentionally use data improperly. I am also tired of watching people be hypocritical about it.

JustTheTip":2pme655a said:

I read all of it. The point Roland initially made (I believe this is the point he was trying to make), which I agree with, is that improper use of data to present opinion as fact (and not just by the media) is a problem that is rapidly becoming worse and shouldn't be accepted or ignored.

Click to expand...

Which has really, nothing to do with the data presented in the study. Different people will read things and come up with varying opinions. That is what humans do. Copying the actual study word for word wouldn't get read by hardly anyone. News organizations are for profit. Readers want things like this simplified. The article does this and is written in such a manner as to draw in readers.

Honestly, I think it's difficult for some to accept the possibility that something like this could eventually lead to the downfall of the NFL. I know I certainly don't want to see that conclusion, even if it is way off in the distant future. It's definitely easier to nit-pick how an article about it was written, but as I started the thread, I can say with full confidence that this thread was intended to discuss the actual study itself and what it may or may not mean for the future of the NFL and it's players.

JustTheTip":14za2kia said:

I don't have a problem with people writing about their opinions. I wouldn't even have a problem with that article (using the data from the study to help solidify that opinion) if it was more carefully written. I am tired of watching people intentionally use data improperly. I am also tired of watching people be hypocritical about it.

Click to expand...

The problem is, we aren't here to discuss how journalism may be flailing in the country. All this does is push us off the NFL aspect of this topic. This isn't the lounge, nor is it the shack or a PWR forum. This is the NFL forum. This thread should be about the study and it's effects on Football and those who play it. The stuff about journalists may have merit, but it has nothing to do with the NFL or how it relates to CTE.

JustTheTip":hpgj8j2z said:

That doesn't excuse the rest of the article presenting opinion like it is fact.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but I'm just not seeing what you're seeing. Can you give me a few example sentences from the article in which the reporter is treating her opinion as fact?

I'm not trolling, I'm just really curious and really don't see it.

And sorry Kidhawk -- you're absolutely right that this discussion doesn't belong in this forum, but I really am curious. I'll delete this post on your request, if you don't want it in here. :2thumbs:

kidhawk":3ietcdi6 said:

JustTheTip":3ietcdi6 said:

I don't have a problem with people writing about their opinions. I wouldn't even have a problem with that article (using the data from the study to help solidify that opinion) if it was more carefully written. I am tired of watching people intentionally use data improperly. I am also tired of watching people be hypocritical about it.

Click to expand...

The problem is, we aren't here to discuss how journalism may be flailing in the country. All this does is push us off the NFL aspect of this topic. This isn't the lounge, nor is it the shack or a PWR forum. This is the NFL forum. This thread should be about the study and it's effects on Football and those who play it. The stuff about journalists may have merit, but it has nothing to do with the NFL or how it relates to CTE.

Click to expand...

You say that, but you didn't link directly to the study results. You linked to the article, which (I would hope) opens up the validity of the presentation of data in the article to the discussion in this thread (which is what Roland did.) The follow on conversation about the misrepresentation of data in general is a byproduct of the discounting of Roland's initial assertion, which had nothing to do with the general problem outside of being a subset of it.

JustTheTip":2woeg6ch said:

kidhawk":2woeg6ch said:

JustTheTip":2woeg6ch said:

I don't have a problem with people writing about their opinions. I wouldn't even have a problem with that article (using the data from the study to help solidify that opinion) if it was more carefully written. I am tired of watching people intentionally use data improperly. I am also tired of watching people be hypocritical about it.

Click to expand...

The problem is, we aren't here to discuss how journalism may be flailing in the country. All this does is push us off the NFL aspect of this topic. This isn't the lounge, nor is it the shack or a PWR forum. This is the NFL forum. This thread should be about the study and it's effects on Football and those who play it. The stuff about journalists may have merit, but it has nothing to do with the NFL or how it relates to CTE.

Click to expand...

You say that, but you didn't link directly to the study results. You linked to the article, which (I would hope) opens up the validity of the presentation of data in the article to the discussion in this thread (which is what Roland did.) The follow on conversation about the misrepresentation of data in general is a byproduct of the discounting of Roland's initial assertion, which had nothing to do with the general problem outside of being a subset of it.

Click to expand...

It's simple really, by linking to the article, it gives people the ability to both read what the article says (which is much easier for a lay person to understand) while also allowing people to have access to the link within that article to get the actual study for themselves if that is something they wish to read. The majority of people on an NFL forum aren't here to read the dry read of a study, They want things in a format with which they are more comfortable. Linking the article gives both.

Popeyejones":owip4xdq said:

JustTheTip":owip4xdq said:

That doesn't excuse the rest of the article presenting opinion like it is fact.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but I'm just not seeing what you're seeing. Can you give me a few example sentences from the article in which the reporter is treating her opinion as fact?

I'm not trolling, I'm just really curious and really don't see it.

And sorry Kidhawk -- you're absolutely right that this discussion doesn't belong in this forum, but I really am curious. I'll delete this post on your request, if you don't want it in here. :2thumbs:

Click to expand...

I went back and read the article again. I will admit there aren't specific sentences I can point to as examples, so it is just my interpretation of the "feel" of the article. When I read the article the first time after the sentence you pointed out and the paragraph I referred to near the top I was thinking "finally, a properly written article on a polarizing subject." When I got to the end, I was disappointed. My opinion on the article itself did not change with the second read it (outside of there being no specific examples.) But without examples, that is just my (strong) opinion (of the article itself, again my opinion on CTE in football probably comes pretty close to the author's opinion.)

kidhawk":owip4xdq said:

It's simple really, by linking to the article, it gives people the ability to both read what the article says (which is much easier for a lay person to understand) while also allowing people to have access to the link within that article to get the actual study for themselves if that is something they wish to read. The majority of people on an NFL forum aren't here to read the dry read of a study, They want things in a format with which they are more comfortable. Linking the article gives both.

Click to expand...

That is why I have a problem. Too many people will just read the article and not attempt to understand the data. And not just here, in general (cnn readers.)

JustTheTip":75qhrn6s said:

That is why I have a problem. Too many people will just read the article and not attempt to understand the data. And not just here, in general (cnn readers.)

Click to expand...

That is perfectly fine, but discussing that, takes the subject off the topic. Those who come here and read this thread would benefit more by a discussion about the topic at hand then the merits of how journalism tilts science (or however you wish to phrase this). My point here is that I'm not arguing the merits of what you are saying, only that this isn't the place for it. We are in an NFL Forum, so let's get back to talking about the topic at hand: THE EFFECTS OF CTE ON AMERICAN FOOTBALL PLAYERS

JustTheTip":29xymggc said:

I went back and read the article again. I will admit there aren't specific sentences I can point to as examples, so it is just my interpretation of the "feel" of the article. When I read the article the first time after the sentence you pointed out and the paragraph I referred to near the top I was thinking "finally, a properly written article on a polarizing subject." When I got to the end, I was disappointed. My opinion on the article itself did not change with the second read it (outside of there being no specific examples.) But without examples, that is just my (strong) opinion (of the article itself, again my opinion on CTE in football probably comes pretty close to the author's opinion.)

Click to expand...

Ok. I'm admittedly being a jerk and putting too fine a point on it, but it really is to get us back on track.

Think about it for a second:

You argue for rejecting the article due to the claim that rather than relying on evidence the reporter is inserting her own feelings.

When asked for evidence of her doing this, your response is you can't find any actual instances of her doing this and you're instead relying on your own feelings.

Literally by the evidentiary standards which you have created in order to criticize the article (i.e. feelings in place of evidence), we should therefore reject your claims about it.

So, as it now stands, we have had three claims made about the ethicality and veracity of the article.

Two of them have been proven to be objectively false.

The third has been reduced to just a feeling that even the claimant acknowledges is not supported by any presentable evidence.

I think we can now safely get back to discussing the findings of the actual paper which is being reported on, which is squarely about CTE. :2thumbs:

In other news related to this story, in a PR move in 2012 the NFL announced that over the next five years it would donate 30 million dollars to federal research on CTE with absolutely zero strings attached.

Four years and 11 months later, the money they've donated has come with strings attached that would make any professional research shudder (they get to kill any research they don't like, which is INSANE).

To be fair this would be a bigger deal if they had actually donated even half of the money for research they claimed they would:

http://deadspin.com/congress-calls-out- ... 1797283631

Long story short: if you don't want to be compared to the tobacco industry, the best thing to do is to try to act a little bit less like the tobacco industry.

Popeyejones":12pkswam said:

In other news related to this story, in a PR move in 2012 the NFL announced that over the next five years it would donate 30 million dollars to federal research on CTE with absolutely zero strings attached.

Four years and 11 months later, the money they've donated has come with strings attached that would make any professional research shudder (they get to kill any research they don't like, which is INSANE).

To be fair this would be a bigger deal if they had actually donated even half of the money for research they claimed they would:

http://deadspin.com/congress-calls-out- ... 1797283631

Long story short: if you don't want to be compared to the tobacco industry, the best thing to do is to try to act a little bit less like the tobacco industry.

Click to expand...

I've been meaning to post that as well. Glad you did.

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.

kidhawk":3ly02egt said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.