Seahawks.NET AMAZON STOREFRONT

CTE in 99% of Studied NFL Player Brains

Discuss any and all NFL-related topics and matters of interest here. LANGUAGE RATING: PG-13
  • RolandDeschain wrote: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.

    RolandDeschain wrote: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).
    User avatar
    Popeyejones
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4325
    Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:58 am


  • chris98251 wrote:
    RolandDeschain wrote: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?
    User avatar
    thebanjodude
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 653
    Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 9:18 am


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

    Image
    Image

    To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!!
    Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. :les:
    Member of the 38 club.
    User avatar
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 21682
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


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


    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.”
    Image

    “You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”

    :les: Check your PM's....We miss you :les:
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 21583
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • Popeyejones wrote: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.

    Popeyejones wrote: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

    Popeyejones wrote:
    RolandDeschain wrote: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:

    RolandDeschain wrote: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.
    Image
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    *NET FCC Liaison*
     
    Posts: 30803
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Bothell, WA


  • 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.
    hawk45
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7907
    Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 1:08 pm


Previous


It is currently Sun Oct 22, 2017 11:22 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ NFL NATION ]




Information
  • Who is online