Former NFL player Phillip Adams found to have severe CTE / Discussion on CTE and the future of the NFL

[Matts4313]

That would be like a heart doctor stating "bruh all your arteries are clogged, youve had 6 prior heart attacks, your going to die of heart failure if you dont cut out redmeat"

Dude dies of heart failure. Doctor confirms it is. And then someone claiming everyone whose ever eaten a burger will die from heart failure. 

 

Its a silly ruse. Now obviously I am using hyperbole to make a point, but its just so silly to me that anyone would use that article as fact when the doctor herself said there was no real information gained outside of the fact that CTE exists and you can get it in football.  

[MWil23]

Just now, incognito_man said:

Yes, of course. I think everyone understands that distinction.

Right, and that's what I am saying. Apply it to football for a wide receiver or a defensive back who will very likely receive substantially less subconcussive blows than OL/DL or RB/LB. That's my point here. Blanket percentages not taking into account the levels you played at, positions you played, the size differential, etc. are impossible to calculate. They are probably good at giving a general "football makes this more dangerous" (should be a surprise to no one tbh), but that type of blanket statement is not accurate to me.

[sammymvpknight]

Just now, Matts4313 said:

Again, it was 99% of people that clearly had CTE while they were living. The brains were donated by families and doctors who had already "diagnosed" them with CTE.

To which the doctor who did the study said 'we still know nothing, Jon Snow'. I dont the the doctor in question is trying to hide the fact that the study has turned into a sham for people/media to misuse. 

I’m very aware of the study. It’s still incredibly suspect because CTE as a clinical entity is challenging. It has the same exactly symptoms as much much common medical problems like postconcussive syndrome, and a plethora of other medical/psychiatric problems. For all of that other stuff to account for 1% of cases…sorry it’s just a little suspect. Maybe it was 100% ethical and maybe their study was airtight (that doesn’t exist in science…but ok)…but I do think that another center and a better variety of pathologists with less of a stake in the situation would be wonderful. 

[incognito_man]

Just now, MWil23 said:

Right, and that's what I am saying. Apply it to football for a wide receiver or a defensive back who will very likely receive substantially less subconcussive blows than OL/DL or RB/LB. That's my point here. Blanket percentages not taking into account the levels you played at, positions you played, the size differential, etc. are impossible to calculate. They are probably good at giving a general "football makes this more dangerous" (should be a surprise to no one tbh), but that type of blanket statement is not accurate to me.

they are not impossible to provide a risk assessment on.

It's just that the money (and test subjects) haven't been available to do it to that level of detail yet.

[Matts4313]

4 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

We do have another studied performed by scientists at the University of Texas Health Science Center.

In fact, it's such a good study that @Matts4313 has (attempted to) cite it numerous times!

I also cited it above.

The results indicated that 67% of people who played football beyond HS (10/15) had evidence of CTE. These brains were among 3,000 test specimens and certainly not "cherry-picked."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190620153548.htm

That study is a lot more solid. But the 67% thing is a very small sample size. Again, a big flaw. But at least they tested like ~750-800 people instead of 111 people they already knew had CTE. 

 

This at least has *some* credibility. Which makes it 100% better.

[MWil23]

Just now, incognito_man said:

they are not impossible to provide a risk assessment on.

At this point, to the degree that those conclusions would state on a blanket level, yes they are

Just now, incognito_man said:

It's just that the money (and test subjects) haven't been available to do it to that level of detail yet.

CORRECT, that's my point. We aren't there yet. Hopefully we will be someday.

I don't have sons, so it's irrelevant, but if I did, I'd like to know if there's an inherent danger with age or what % for a HS athlete that would be, as opposed to beyond HS. The same with position played, genetics, etc.

[incognito_man]

1 minute ago, sammymvpknight said:

I’m very aware of the study. It’s still incredibly suspect because CTE as a clinical entity is challenging. It has the same exactly symptoms as much much common medical problems like postconcussive syndrome, and a plethora of other medical/psychiatric problems. For all of that other stuff to account for 1% of cases…sorry it’s just a little suspect. Maybe it was 100% ethical and maybe their study was airtight (that doesn’t exist in science…but ok)…but I do think that another center and a better variety of pathologists with less of a stake in the situation would be wonderful. 

The study was 100% ethical and airtight. Some people just like to pontificate and create strawmen around it.

Literally nobody is going around saying 99% of football players have CTE. Literally nobody.

So everyone you hear someone try to argue that, they are arguing a strawman (and probably don't understand science).

The study's authors themselves make that claim. The purpose of the study was not to define prevalence, and nobody is trying to use it that way.

[Matts4313]

3 minutes ago, sammymvpknight said:

I’m very aware of the study. It’s still incredibly suspect because CTE as a clinical entity is challenging. It has the same exactly symptoms as much much common medical problems like postconcussive syndrome, and a plethora of other medical/psychiatric problems. For all of that other stuff to account for 1% of cases…sorry it’s just a little suspect. Maybe it was 100% ethical and maybe their study was airtight (that doesn’t exist in science…but ok)…but I do think that another center and a better variety of pathologists with less of a stake in the situation would be wonderful. 

Check the UT one out. Its much better. Has a much better breakdown on "stats" and sample size (about 7x's as much)

[sammymvpknight]

5 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

We do have another studied performed by scientists at the University of Texas Health Science Center.

In fact, it's such a good study that @Matts4313 has (attempted to) cite it numerous times!

I also cited it above.

The results indicated that 67% of people who played football beyond HS (10/15) had evidence of CTE. These brains were among 3,000 test specimens and certainly not "cherry-picked."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190620153548.htm

There was another study at Mayo Clinic that looked at high school football players and relationship to neurological disease. They found that the high school football players had a longer life expectancy and lower rate of neurological disease. 
 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22469346/

[incognito_man]

Just now, MWil23 said:

At this point, to the degree that those conclusions would state on a blanket level, yes they are

CORRECT, that's my point. We aren't there yet. Hopefully we will be someday.

I don't have sons, so it's irrelevant, but if I did, I'd like to know if there's an inherent danger with age or what % for a HS athlete that would be, as opposed to beyond HS. The same with position played, genetics, etc.

I think you are misunderstanding my first point. I agree that the data does not yet exist to parse out the detail you are seeking. But it IS possible (given enough money and test specimens w/ known backgrounds).

[Matts4313]

1 minute ago, MWil23 said:

At this point, to the degree that those conclusions would state on a blanket level, yes they are

CORRECT, that's my point. We aren't there yet. Hopefully we will be someday.

I don't have sons, so it's irrelevant, but if I did, I'd like to know if there's an inherent danger with age or what % for a HS athlete that would be, as opposed to beyond HS. The same with position played, genetics, etc.

General consensus is Flag football until 14. But that has more to do with concussions and brain development. 

[MWil23]

Just now, incognito_man said:

I think you are misunderstanding my first point. I agree that the data does not yet exist to parse out the detail you are seeking. But it IS possible (given enough money and test specimens w/ known backgrounds).

I think we agree here. 

I'm simply stating that walking away now and coming to the conclusion that football is going away by _____ is likely very oversimplistic and that there is a LOT of research and decades of studies that need to be done in an all encomassing CTE manner, not just cherry picking football as the baseline "only risk" study as some have unfortunately done.

[MWil23]

1 minute ago, Matts4313 said:

General consensus is Flag football until 14. But that has more to do with concussions and brain development. 

Junior high is weird because of puberty. My first year of middle school I was 5 feet and 96 pounds, whereas 2 years later I was 5'10 and 165 (defensive back)...and I'm now 5'10.5 and 170, so I'm sure looking back my freshman coaches were extremely disappointed that I had maxed out at 15.

On the flip side, a buddy of mine was about 220 in the 7th grade and 235 as a senior. He should probably have been playing contact football, whereas I could have gotten crushed in middle school.

[Matts4313]

2 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

I'm now 5'10.5

I love how you threw that last .5 in there lol

[sammymvpknight]

Just now, Matts4313 said:

Check the UT one out. Its much better. Has a much better breakdown on "stats" and sample size (about 7x's as much)

Thanks…I’m aware of that study. We are still running into the problem of correlation equaling causation. Clearly, getting hit in the head isn’t good for your health. But boy…99%? The Texas study is much more realistic, but even so…do mild CTE finding correlate to symptoms? It’s really difficult to say. I can say that the significant majority of post concussive syndrome patients that I see with debilitating symptoms are those with mild TBI. No radio graphic evidence of anything…and I’d highly doubt there’d be anything on pathology. Meanwhile…tons of severe TBI patients living life without complaints. It’s just so difficult to correlate clinical correlate with anything.