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

[incognito_man]

2 hours ago, WheatieMan said:

That’s all cool, but the business is not going to be validated on statistics like these when the anecdotal evidence is such as I’ve mentioned.

The bottom line is we are going to need predictive medicine that can diagnose “at risk” brains and genes at a very early age. If that technology doesn’t come through fast, we are going to flag football and that’s not necessarily a 50% business killer.

Agreed.

I think it's a bad business decision for the league to "ignore" this or just give it lip service. I know they're contributing $millions to research, and I hope they continue. Still feels like we're just in the very beginning of this.

As @scar988 indicated, if the research/preventative engineering outpaces the horrifying results (as they continue to be released), there's a chance that football could survive in its current form. Long-term, the NFL should be sticking a LOT of money into CTE-preventative equipment and rules-changes.

[scar988]

5 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

Agreed.

I think it's a bad business decision for the league to "ignore" this or just give it lip service. I know they're contributing $millions to research, and I hope they continue. Still feels like we're just in the very beginning of this.

As @scar988 indicated, if the research/preventative engineering outpaces the horrifying results (as they continue to be released), there's a chance that football could survive in its current form. Long-term, the NFL should be sticking a LOT of money into CTE-preventative equipment and rules-changes.

Exactly.

[Matts4313]

8 hours ago, incognito_man said:

Please find this. All my googling has indicated 90-99% in former football players and the only "non-athlete" study I found shows 6% among them.

My google-foo isnt finding it either. Must have been a comment on reddit or something and I am just misremembering. That said:

The problem is, every site has different numbers. Example:

"Six percent of the brains showed some or all signs of CTE, Bieniek and his colleagues report in Brain Pathology. "

"Nine percent of athletes had evidence of CTE, compared with just over 3% of nonathletes."

https://www.science.org/content/article/even-if-you-don-t-play-contact-sports-you-could-develop-signs-traumatic-brain-injury

So its it 99% like the one article, or 9%? Or 6%? 

------------------------

"Their research found that 99 percent of former National Football League players studied had CTE. Of the brains of 111 players studied, 110 showed brain damage postmortem."

------------------

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/bpa.12757 <=== this article says CTE is in 1.3% of non athletes and 5% of athletes.

-------------------------------

"Forty-two cases had CTE pathology (5.6 per cent of the total), while CTE was found in 27 athletes and 15 non-athletes; and in 41 men and one woman.

American football had the highest frequency of CTE (15 per cent) of the contact sports studied, with participation beyond high school resulting in the highest risk of developing CTE."

Or are the numbers 15% for NFL and 5.6% for non football?

----------------------

The one common theme though in my googling though - that 99% is complete and total horsesheet and should never ever be used. Literally every other medical research team calls it out as unrealistic. Typical hyperbole for clicks. 

It makes me think that the 90% number (that I cant find) and the 99% were both referring to any brain bruising whatsoever. But its not CTE, according to like 15 colleges and 5 medical research facilities I just read.

 

 

[incognito_man]

34 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

The problem is, every site has different numbers. Example:

"Six percent of the brains showed some or all signs of CTE, Bieniek and his colleagues report in Brain Pathology. "

"Nine percent of athletes had evidence of CTE, compared with just over 3% of nonathletes."

https://www.science.org/content/article/even-if-you-don-t-play-contact-sports-you-could-develop-signs-traumatic-brain-injury

So its it 99% like the one article, or 9%? Or 6%? 

In this link, it is 10/15 (67%) of football players who had CTE

The highest rate of CTE was in football players who participated beyond high school: Ten of 15 collegiate and professional players showed either some features of CTE or definitive diagnoses. The likelihood of developing CTE was 2.6 times as high for football players as for nonathletes, the researchers found, but more than 13 times as high for football players who continued beyond the high school level, compared with nonathletes.

36 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/bpa.12757 <=== this article says CTE is in 1.3% of non athletes and 5% of athletes.

This is the same study as above, just the actual study in pdf form. It contains the same values 10/15 (67%).

37 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

American football had the highest frequency of CTE (15 per cent) of the contact sports studied, with participation beyond high school resulting in the highest risk of developing CTE."

Or are the numbers 15% for NFL and 5.6% for non football?

The "15%" here refers to the percent of total "contact sport" cases that were "American football player", not the prevalence among football players. i.e. of all the contact sport subjects in the study, 15% of them play American football.

From all appearances, the high prevalence is real. The small numbers you found are just you misunderstanding what they mean

[Matts4313]

7 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

his is the same study as above, just the actual study in pdf form. It contains the same values 10/15 (67%).

CTE CTE-negative 273 (91.0%) 435 (96.7%) 272 (99.6%) 436 (91.4%)

Features of CTE 12 (4.0%) 9 (2.0%) 1 (0.4%) 20 (4.2%)

CTE-positive 15 (5.0%) 6 (1.3%) 0 (0.0%) 21 (4.4%)

 

Bruh, they tested like 1000 total people and you are trying to pull 10 of 15 from somewhere? You are worse than the people who made the 99% claim. Its literally right there - 15 of 300. Not 10. 300. 

A 15 person sample size wouldnt matter anyways - and I think you are smart enough to know that. 

Football 142 (47.3%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (0.7%) 140 (29.4%)

Youth or high school 126 (42.1%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (0.7%) 124 (26.1%)

Beyond high school 15 (5.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 15 (3.2%)

 

cmon man

Edited December 16, 2021 by Matts4313

[incognito_man]

2 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

CTE CTE-negative 273 (91.0%) 435 (96.7%) 272 (99.6%) 436 (91.4%)

Features of CTE 12 (4.0%) 9 (2.0%) 1 (0.4%) 20 (4.2%)

CTE-positive 15 (5.0%) 6 (1.3%) 0 (0.0%) 21 (4.4%)

 

Bruh, they tested like 1000 total people and you are trying to pull 10 of 15 from somewhere? You are worse than the people who made the 99% claim. Its literally right there - 15 of 300. Not 10. 300. 

A 15 person sample size wouldnt matter anyways - and I think you are smart enough to know that. 

Football 142 (47.3%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (0.7%) 140 (29.4%)

Youth or high school 126 (42.1%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (0.7%) 124 (26.1%) Beyond high school 15 (5.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 15 (3.2%)

 

cmon man

Yikes dude.

You are making it very apparent you cannot read technical articles. Try again.

Very literally in the article you gave: Ten of 15 collegiate and professional players showed either some features of CTE or definitive diagnoses. 

(quoted again, and made larger to hopefully help)

15/300 athletes in the study played football beyond HS. 10 of those 15 (67%) had CTE.

 

Edited December 16, 2021 by incognito_man

[Matts4313]

8 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

From all appearances, the high prevalence is real. The small numbers you found are just you misunderstanding what they mean

Its cute that you say this while I showed multiple articles you missed that were all under 10%. 

[incognito_man]

1 minute ago, Matts4313 said:

Its cute that you say this while I showed multiple articles you missed that were all under 10%. 

I eagerly await you tucking your tail between your legs when you realize you're wrong lol

[Matts4313]

Just now, incognito_man said:

Yikes dude.

You are making it very apparent you cannot read technical articles. Try again.

Very literally in the article you gave: Ten of 15 collegiate and professional players showed either some features of CTE or definitive diagnoses. 

(quoted again, and made larger to hopefully help)

 

Im looking at the graph. The graph literally says football past youth/highschool is 5% - which perhaps is just the sample size. But even if I am reading it wrong - why would a 15 person sample size mean anything in your opinion? That such a BS way to read into what you want.

 

Now explain all the sub 10% articles...

[incognito_man]

Just now, Matts4313 said:

Im looking at the graph. The graph literally says football past youth/highschool is 5% - which perhaps is just the sample size. But even if I am reading it wrong - why would a 15 person sample size mean anything in your opinion? That such a BS way to read into what you want.

 

Now explain all the sub 10% articles...

you provided the article you dunce. I'm not reading "what I want". I'm reading the REALITY of the article you thought was a counter-example. Jesus.

You literally quoted the same study in EVERY SINGLE ONE of your counter-examples. And picked bad percentages in 3 different ways.

[Matts4313]

Just now, incognito_man said:

you provided the article you dunce. I'm not reading "what I want". I'm reading the REALITY of the article you thought was a counter-example. Jesus.

You literally quoted the same study in EVERY SINGLE ONE of your counter-examples. And picked bad percentages in 3 different ways.

WTF - there are multiple other articles I quoted.... 

[incognito_man]

Just now, Matts4313 said:

WTF - there are multiple other articles I quoted.... 

no. There's not lol

you literally provided a link to an article about the study: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/bpa.12757

Then a different link about the SAME study: https://www.science.org/content/article/even-if-you-don-t-play-contact-sports-you-could-develop-signs-traumatic-brain-injury

Then you provided a link to the pdf of the study itself: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/bpa.12757

You gave 3 links, all of which discuss the same study (summarized below):

They rec'd 3000 brain samples. Of those 3000 they were able to (using research) determine that 300 were athletes and 450 were nonathletes (meaning the remaining samples they could not determine whether they were or were not athletes).

Of the 300 determinable athletes, 15 (or 5%) played football beyond HS.

Of those 15, ten had signs of CTE (67%).

This was a study YOU chose to reference (three times!) in a single post.

The only other study you referenced indicates a 99% prevalence (110/111 brains).

[Matts4313]

Just now, incognito_man said:

no. There's not lol

you literally provided a link to an article about the study: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/bpa.12757

Then a different link about the SAME study: https://www.science.org/content/article/even-if-you-don-t-play-contact-sports-you-could-develop-signs-traumatic-brain-injury

Then you provided a link to the pdf of the study itself: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/bpa.12757

You gave 3 links, all of which discuss the same study (summarized below):

They rec'd 3000 brain samples. Of those 3000 they were able to (using research) determine that 300 were athletes and 450 were nonathletes (meaning the remaining samples they could not determine whether they were or were not athletes).

Of the 300 determinable athletes, 15 (or 5%) played football beyond HS.

Of those 15, ten had signs of CTE (67%).

This was a study YOU chose to reference (three times!) in a single post.

The only other study you referenced indicates a 99% prevalence (110/111 brains).

I gave 3 links. I gave quotes to a bunch of other studies. 

[incognito_man]

1 minute ago, Matts4313 said:

I gave 3 links. I gave quotes to a bunch of other studies. 

you must be trolling now lol

you can't be this dumb

[DontTazeMeBro]

Do they examine former players brains when they die of natural causes in their 80s?