http://www.packersnews.com/story/spo...udy/507634001/
110 out of 111 donated brains of former players showed signs of CTE. Now there could be some sample bias as those who's families were concerned about CTE were probably more likely to donate brains for this study, but even so, 99+% is incredibly high.
This is not good for the future of football.
Fire Murphy, Gute, MLF, Barry, Senavich, etc!
not much can be done about cte yet. rules changes have already been made. helmet tech has plateaued. as long as there's millions to be made playing the game, great insurance and $12k a month retirement, there will be players willing to play. maybe there will be some sort of drug or procedure developed later. boxing, soccer, mma, hockey, all have head trauma too. you gonna ban all those sports? hell no. a lot of jobs in this world carry risk. football is just one of them. can't freak out about it. wonder what the instance of cte in the general population is?
There are a lot of rules changes that can be made and most of them much more effective that what PR Goodell has implemented. He has instituted rules that make it less likely for replay to show spectacular hits. There is no evidence these are the problem.
Repeated sub-concussive hits to the head are still suspected as the culprit for a lot of trauma and the LOS is the spot those most often happen. So you back defenders and O lineman off the ball to create a yard of space. Gives players time and angles to get head out of the way. Enforce it inside the box. Wide 9 DEs are already OK.
Outlaw tackles with the head. No more spearing, Kenny Easley/Atwater hear seeking missile tackles can go away. Bring some technique back. No more attempting to force a fumble with the helmet. Emphasize rugby style tackles like the Seattle secondary makes (other than Chancellor).
When helmets were worse, there were more immediate head injuries (lacerations and fractures). But there was less using your head like a hammer.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
I've seen a study (that may struggle in peer review due to bias) showing the exact opposite. It will generally show that football activity doesn't lead to an increase in long term negative brain syndromes like dementia. It's a multi year longitudinal study with huge numbers and lots of controls. I'll link it once it's published.
But you should know this: the research community has basically decided that football is dangerous and are conducting studies and making editorial decisions based on that conclusion. It's a soft Lysenkoism and it's skewing the data.
There's probably a problem but because of a global warming-like bias the field is no longer doing proper research so the real consequences from football collisions alone are being overstated.
Check the papers for properly controlled populations,i.e., apples to apples comparisons to controls.
There is a huge problem in the scientific community with research studies. Basically the conclusions end up being more important than the process in the same way internet clickbait titles are more important than the substance contained in the webpage. You end up with a bunch of idiots not vaccinating their kids because they don't understand science, but the do understand shocking 'facts'.
You won't believe what happens nextOriginally Posted by smuggler
This thread is giving me a headache.
For those wanting to look at the original journal article:
http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama...rticle/2645104
The authors weren't being sensational about this research, an were open about the limitations of the study.
Fire Murphy, Gute, MLF, Barry, Senavich, etc!
That isn't a result of problems in the studies or the meta-studies. That is alarmists and opportunists peddling bad narratives about both disproven links to adverse outcomes and inflation of side effects.
There is a reason those nuts keep attaching themselves to self segregated communities like the Amish or Somali immigrant communities.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
Football could be in trouble long term
My son is going into 4th grade and last year was his first year of tackle football.
Like most communities, this year they went to all flag football til kids his 7th grade.
NET EFFECT; they had four teams last year; this year 8 kids signed up.
LIFE IS ABOUT CHAMPIONSHIPS; I JUST REALIZED THIS. The MILWAUKEE BUCKS have won the same number of championships over the past 50 years as the Green Bay Packers. Ten years from now, who will have more championships, and who will be the fart in the wind ?
Football is in serious trouble. Who would let their kids play given the plethora of information? Surely not I. I don't know the ins and outs but it's downright logical that repetitive hits to the head result in the brain being damaged. If you were repetitively hitting your knee over and over, you wouldn't be shocked when it didn't perform as well.
Don't let them play LaCrosse or Soccer either. Those sports have head trauma as well
Sure, don't let them run either. Eventually it will cost them their knees.
Keep 'em safe!
"Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck
Busting drunk drivers in Antarctica since 2006
There was a better article in a medical journal that came out this week. The doctors say they haven't narrowed down correlation V causation yet. Just that almost all players that they've tested have CTE. Not just pro, but highschool and college as well. High school players have a lower percent than do the college players than do the pro players.
They go on to say that people donating their brains to the study are also people who are experiencing issues and are looking for answers. Some football players experience no symptoms throughout their lives. That's not to say that football isn't the cause of the CTE in the examined brain, just that there's not enough info to make an informed diagnosis. They know it's not final data just yet but as PB said, the current working theory is the sub concussive hits.
I suppose it's like people who smoke cigarettes until they are 100 and never get lung cancer. Doesn't mean that cigarettes don't cause cancer, just that it doesn't always cause cancer.
As you indicate with comparing pro college and high school players, in any case where exposure may correlate with likelihood of developing a disease/syndrome/condition, the amount of exposure/number of exposures that lead to a significant chance of developing the syndrome are what matter. That's the question. Are those getting a few concussion or those getting certain levels of sub-concussion traumas at risk like someone who smoked six cigarettes their entire life, or are they closer to the 2 pack a day smoker. The data so far suggest it's closer to the former than the latter.
What seems to be happening in the poplar media is that former football players who suffer from the worst symptoms are being highlighted. Much like the asbestos stories. No doubt that sustained exposure and/or increased susceptibility to asbestos results in mesothelioma, but when the extreme cases are presented as the norm for exposure, it leaves the appearance that any exposure is ultimately deadly. Still, I think cigarette smoking and asbestos exposure is the kind of comparison that those who want to eliminate football favor. If football can be considered a preventable disease, people will eventually stop using it.
The anti-football types (for whatever motivation) were very smart to go after the bubble-wrap moms - the contemporary helicopter mom (and many dads) is terrified of anything that might possibly hurt their children, so in 50 years we'll have a nation of soccer players, or VR sports and kids on low-impact exercise regimens. I will be happy to be dead for that.
What football advocates need to do is maybe get football participation likened to cell phone use, alcohol consumption or pot smoking...
"Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck
I think football is under fire so much because they outright lied to the medical community for quite a while. They had a rheumatologist as their concussion expert and had him publish fabrications to medical journals. In turn doctors gave mis-information to their patients about concussions. Other than a pretty small settlement (at least by NFL income standards) they've not been held accountable. Not saying it's right, just saying it's a possible explanation for the all out warfare from some corners.
The NFL buried a doctor's career because he dared to oppose their "findings". They should be held accountable.
I know it would never happen, but I've always thought if you took away face masks from the helmets there would be WAY less leading with the head. Now you would certainly be more likely to break noses and such, but I think it would go a long way to fixing these head issues.
I would think taking away the face mask would lead to more people leading with the crown of the helmet to protect their faces, and avoiding the 'heads up' tackle. They might also turn their heads to protect their faces, and getting hit in the side of the head would be worse for concussions and neck injuries.
Fire Murphy, Gute, MLF, Barry, Senavich, etc!
So keep the face mask and eliminate the rest of the helmet.
Superglue sales would go through the roof
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
