ADVERTISEMENT

CTE danger?

Some trust most CEOs and industry to do the right thing; some feel most CEOs are more concerned with profit than the public good.

That's a cultural divide, no question ...

But the "cultural attack" on football most likely has more to do with the changing nature of the society and its favorite sports than any specific target. The history of spectator sports in America is filled with rise and fall -- there was a time that horse racing and boxing were two of the top sports in the country. There was a time, not that long ago, that the NBA finals were on tape delay. There was a time that baseball really was the national pastime.

The wheel turns, and things change. Video sports may wind up in the Olympics, and young athletes are choosing lacrosse in larger and larger numbers. It may be that football is on a cyclical downward trend, or it may be that the present controversies are just a blip and the NFL, NCAA and high school football will continue to rule the roost. No question football is a great TV game, which is a major plus, but it will be interesting to see how its popularity fares in the next decade or so.

CEO's concerned with profits? Huh, who knew?
... priceless!

your opinion on the cultural attack (why the quotes? lol) is lame. There is a big difference between a sport becoming less popular and a systematic attack to eliminate a sport based on ignorance.

That would be obvious ... if you didnt have an agenda.
 
CEO's concerned with profits? Huh, who knew?
... priceless!

your opinion on the cultural attack (why the quotes? lol) is lame. There is a big difference between a sport becoming less popular and a systematic attack to eliminate a sport based on ignorance.

That would be obvious ... if you didnt have an agenda.

Come on Paul, don't you get it? Companies pay those pee-on CEO's millions to be more concerned with public good than bottom line profits......
 
  • Like
Reactions: paul_johnson884
This is the problem. Well meaning people, armed with poor information are making decision to limit the risk to their kids. There is nothing that raises more emotion than 'I have to protect my kid' and that leads to decisions that avoid all risk. [/I]

First, that study of the NFL players is completely biased. It is not a random, double-blind study that is based in scientific data. The sample was chosen from players who had exhibited the symptoms of CTE (depression, loss of focus, dementia, etc). Of course they found near 100% were affected, it was inevitable based on the way the study was setup. They did not even study NFL players who did not exhibit symptoms of CTE, let alone the public at large.

As was mentioned, any player who plays football today will experience a completely different game than adults experienced when they grew up. Coach's education, equipment, concussion protocol and practice methods are all very different than what those NFL players experienced. Many of those players grew up in an age where ignoring concussions and continuing to play while you threw up between plays was a sign of toughness.

Second, we have not seen any evidence that CTE is caused by the type of contact that we see in high school. But it is easy to extrapolate and it is faulty logic. Concussions cause CTE. High school football players get concussions. Therefore, high school football players suffer from CTE.

I think it is a very understandable that a parent trying to protect their kid will draw on this logic and reason that they are doing right by their kid to not allow them to play football.

Third, there was no concussion protocol available to these players that were studied. So there is no way to know how many concussions those players suffered, if they came off the field after receiving a concussion, and if they experienced repeated concussions (and over what time frame). We know that a concussions have an additive effect - that a concussion suffered on top of an existing concussion is much worse than a single concussion.

A parent has two ways to make the decision. An emotional based decision will be to remove all risk from their kid. Logic and science rarely overcome the emotion. But those parents may not know that the statistics show that their kid is much more likely to die is from Accidents (auto, pools, etc), Suicide and Homicide, Cancer and Heart Disease. If these well meaning parents really wanted to protect their kid, they would not let them get a driver's license as that accounts for one-third of all teen deaths.

A logic based decision is to examine statistical evidence (and examine how the data is gathered, who is gathering it, and who is paying for it). Then make an informed decision. Hopefully in consultation with the kid.


This was the best post I've seen on this thread and is right on the money from everything I've read. The studies reported have been biased in studying deceased football players brains [as like Alzheimer's the damage can only be determined during a forensic study]. So as stated by feedback1 the findings that are being published on groups of players who died at younger ages, exhibited depression, dementia or other signs prematurely for their age or like several who committed suicide. The point being if you only examine patients who passed away from Alzheimer's Disease you're going to find that 100% of the study patients contracted that disease.

For myself I believe the hype has been greatly fueled by the movie [wasn't very good] and the flawed studies following it.
The problem is they don't yet fully understand CTE and its causes. Can it be caused by one bad fall, one punch to the face, repeated diving into a pool or perhaps the sound concussion from shooting firearms [not sure, but no one can say otherwise at this point]. I do know this: my father was an All-City RB in SF 2 years running, suffered a broken shoulder and other injuries but nothing that affected him permanently.[that was in the day of leather helmets and no face guards].
Dad just turned 90 and still sharp.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
 
Dr B. Omalu, the Pathlogist who recognized Mike Webster's brain abnormalities consistent with boxers was/is a government employee. Frankly I'd rather have the brilliant minds at the NIH (or many other world reknown government entities) study brains than Riddell's or Schutt's "experts."

Omalu lives in Lodi now and on Staff at UCD Med.

http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2016/02/04/bennet-omalu-doesnt-support-ban-on-football/

https://www.google.com/amp/www.merc...ion-doctor-youth-football-is-child-abuse/amp/

With regard to pre-face mask/leather helmet days, it's pretty easy to make the connection why those guys had fewer head traumas. Lots of lost incisors though, LOL.
 
Like hockey players.

images
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1315

This was the best post I've seen on this thread and is right on the money from everything I've read. The studies reported have been biased in studying deceased football players brains [as like Alzheimer's the damage can only be determined during a forensic study]. So as stated by feedback1 the findings that are being published on groups of players who died at younger ages, exhibited depression, dementia or other signs prematurely for their age or like several who committed suicide. The point being if you only examine patients who passed away from Alzheimer's Disease you're going to find that 100% of the study patients contracted that disease.

For myself I believe the hype has been greatly fueled by the movie [wasn't very good] and the flawed studies following it.
The problem is they don't yet fully understand CTE and its causes. Can it be caused by one bad fall, one punch to the face, repeated diving into a pool or perhaps the sound concussion from shooting firearms [not sure, but no one can say otherwise at this point]. I do know this: my father was an All-City RB in SF 2 years running, suffered a broken shoulder and other injuries but nothing that affected him permanently.[that was in the day of leather helmets and no face guards].
Dad just turned 90 and still sharp.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Rmbr,

I would disagree about your statement that the studies are flawed. You can say the samples and sample size is skewed, but that doesnt mean the study of those samples is flawed. I do think you nailed it with, "they don't yet fully understand CTE and its causes." There is definitely way too much hype around "playing football automaticallys gives you CTE", but even with a skewed sample 111 out of 112 NFL players is statistically significant link. I read somewhere that with all the recent publicity, there are more people donating their brains to research that have no current symptoms, so that should eliminate some of the sample bias. The NFL is just not to be trusted in getting to the bottom of this. They have proven over and over that they are not after the truth. Sad to see this happening, as I love this sport.
 
Rmbr,

I would disagree about your statement that the studies are flawed. You can say the samples and sample size is skewed, but that doesnt mean the study of those samples is flawed. I do think you nailed it with, "they don't yet fully understand CTE and its causes." There is definitely way too much hype around "playing football automaticallys gives you CTE", but even with a skewed sample 111 out of 112 NFL players is statistically significant link. I read somewhere that with all the recent publicity, there are more people donating their brains to research that have no current symptoms, so that should eliminate some of the sample bias. The NFL is just not to be trusted in getting to the bottom of this. They have proven over and over that they are not after the truth. Sad to see this happening, as I love this sport.


I would love to know more about the 112 samples, for instance were any of these brains without CTE symptoms while still living?
 
I would disagree about your statement that the studies are flawed. You can say the samples and sample size is skewed, but that doesnt mean the study of those samples is flawed.

The studies are absolutely flawed. There is no scientific method that would ever choose study subjects in this way. Double-blind studies are the accepted method for eliminating bias. These studies cited are exactly opposite of accepted scientific method. And because of the way the subjects were chosen, there is no statistical conclusion that can be drawn from the study.

What can be drawn from the investigation is that CTE is a problem for professional football players. And that actual scientific research should be conducted using accepted practices.
 
The studies are absolutely flawed. There is no scientific method that would ever choose study subjects in this way. Double-blind studies are the accepted method for eliminating bias. These studies cited are exactly opposite of accepted scientific method. And because of the way the subjects were chosen, there is no statistical conclusion that can be drawn from the study.

What can be drawn from the investigation is that CTE is a problem for professional football players. And that actual scientific research should be conducted using accepted practices.

CTE studies have been done on those that were donated or some researchers such as Dr. Omalu had access to. There has been actual scientific research done on the brains they were given. The research was done using current scientific methods and was not flawed...it showed 111 out of 112 NFL players had CTE. Based on small number and biased/skewed samples, no general conclusions can be extrapolated from this, but it would be false to say that any of the research done is flawed. Only the conclusions of some individuals who are making definitive statements about this case can be considered flawed. The researches are not "choosing study subjects" they are studying all the brains donated to them. Until CTE can be diagnosed before death, I don't see being able to get enough subjects to truly eliminate the sampling bias. (There are methods beyond double-blind that are considered scientifically acceptable to lowering bias). Bias is inherent in almost all cases (even double-blind), but the key is to try and avoid and adjust for bias if it cannot be avoided. Bottom line is that we are nowhere near at a point that we can draw conclusions beyond the fact of 111 out of 112 NFL subjects had CTE and that ratio is significant enough that further research is not optional but necessary!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1315
You are clearly not a scientist and have an inability to understand the fundamentals of how research is done in the real world. Look up the term 'double blind study' and start a journey towards actual knowledge. Or continue to post garbage that conforms to your views. In either case, blocked you shall be. Too much gibberish from your keyboard.
 
Sampling Methodology - At Disneyland they did a study on the folks that came to the 1st aid station who were sick. Of the 114 people that came to the station the last 2 weeks of July they found that 111 had just ridden the Space Mountain ride. Once the report was released the media reported that 97% of the people that ride amusement park rides get sick so therefore the attractions should be closed.
 
trust world renown government entities for research? LOL

lets see ... it appears someone has never never heard of tuskegee or the Oak Ridge Institute radiation studies ... or ..

#ignorance
 
Sounds like the folks who reject vaccinations and term herd immunity fake news. LMAO.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT