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

[MWil23]

6 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

Bullsandbroncos => this was 111 players that were projected to have CTE by family and medical professionals. So this was just confirmation on the known. The person who did the study said that nobody should imply what this means in terms of other players having it or the actual amount of people who its affected. They literally said that they cant even understand the risk that football had for CTE. Basically said there was basically nothing to take away from the study.

 

If Incognito is going to keep pulling up this study, I am going to keep reminding that the doctor who did the study basically shrugged and said "we learned nothing about how the relationship between CTE/NFL"

Correct. The issue is a lack of a true "control" group. It was confirmation bias to get those who you suspect were at risk.

Is there a correlation? ABSOLUTELY

Is there causation? We won't know until more seemingly "healthy" players donate their brains. I'd love to see guys who played who seem to be/are very "stable" donate their brains to science as well, because then we will have more data points and control groups, assuming other "normal" people who never played who are/are not diagnosed/suspected of having CTE in other professions do the same.

[incognito_man]

1 minute ago, MWil23 said:

Is there causation?

Yes. Absolutely. Unquestionably.

For every year of absorbing the pounding and repeated head collisions that come with playing American tackle football, a person’s risk of developing chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), a devastating neurodegenerative disease, increases by 30 percent. And for every 2.6 years of play, the risk of developing CTE doubles. These new findings from an analysis of the brains of 266 deceased former amateur and professional football players—reported in Annals of Neurology by a team of researchers from the Boston University CTE Center—are the first to quantify the strength of the link between playing tackle football and developing CTE. 

https://www.bu.edu/articles/2019/cte-football/

Edited December 16, 2021 by incognito_man

[Matts4313]

1 minute ago, MWil23 said:

Correct. The issue is a lack of a true "control" group. It was confirmation bias to get those who you suspect were at risk.

Is there a correlation? ABSOLUTELY

Is there causation? We won't know until more seemingly "healthy" players donate their brains. I'd love to see guys who played who seem to be/are very "stable" donate their brains to science as well, because then we will have more data points and control groups, assuming other "normal" people who never played who are/are not diagnosed/suspected of having CTE in other professions do the same.

Im just going to point it out again. Weve had 23k NFL players. Weve had ~200-300 confirmed with CTE. Of those ~300 we dont know how severe it is nor the impact on life outside of a handful that it was painfully obvious. Theres really probably closer to ~30-50 that it was famously well known that the dudes brain is mush.

I guarantee Aikman has a stronger version of CTE and his life isnt impacted at all. Which I bet is the case for thousands and thousands of players. 

[Matts4313]

3 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

Yes. Absolutely. Unquestionably.

For every year of absorbing the pounding and repeated head collisions that come with playing American tackle football, a person’s risk of developing chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), a devastating neurodegenerative disease, increases by 30 percent. And for every 2.6 years of play, the risk of developing CTE doubles. These new findings from an analysis of the brains of 266 deceased former amateur and professional football players—reported in Annals of Neurology by a team of researchers from the Boston University CTE Center—are the first to quantify the strength of the link between playing tackle football and developing CTE. 

https://www.bu.edu/articles/2019/cte-football/

That 30% is a big flashy number. Its cute. 30% of a hypothetical baseline of 1% is 1.3%. Doubling 1% is 2%. 

So whats the baseline? Because this is fear mongering without that knowledge. 

[MWil23]

2 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

Yes. Absolutely. Unquestionably.

For every year of absorbing the pounding and repeated head collisions that come with playing American tackle football, a person’s risk of developing chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), a devastating neurodegenerative disease, increases by 30 percent. And for every 2.6 years of play, the risk of developing CTE doubles. These new findings from an analysis of the brains of 266 deceased former amateur and professional football players—reported in Annals of Neurology by a team of researchers from the Boston University CTE Center—are the first to quantify the strength of the link between playing tackle football and developing CTE. 

https://www.bu.edu/articles/2019/cte-football/

And my point is, which I tried to state and apparently failed to do so, is tackle football inherently MORE likely to cause CTE than other sports or professions, such as wrestling, MMA/boxing, etc.

Furthermore, that study cannot and does not take into account, and is rather oversimplistic to be honest, things like:

*How much full contact do these individuals engage in?

*What position(s) are they playing?

*What is the size discrepancy?

*What other activities do they engage in besides football that may put them into contact with these same types of trauma(s)?

That's my point. There are a lot of outliers impossible to calculate at this time.

For example, they have talked about banning the practice of "headers" in soccer here in Ohio, or at least limiting that, and we are limited and thus only engage in 30 minutes of contact each week (2 days, 15 minutes each day) of live contact outside of game day.

[Matts4313]

10 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

ok?

Nobody is claiming otherwise. You're like a broken record on a terrible song that nobody likes.

The point is you are fearmongering with a stupid study and not fully making the facts aware.

In other words, you are lying to people. 

[incognito_man]

Most humans are AWFUL at digesting risk profiles. CTE is going to be another example. Already we have posters demanding (currently) impossible black and white, binary answers.

CTE and risk is a spectrum. Playing football is KNOWINGLY increasing one's risk for CTE. We now have some ability to quantify it specifically for football. I encourage both of you to reach out to the study's author with your criticisms. I did not author the paper, nor am I an expert. However, I'm smart enough to defer to the experts and their conclusions.

Right now the absolutely best science we have on CTE and its impact on NFL players is that it is:

• Prevalent (exact percentage unknown, but indications are the prevalence is quite high)
• Cumulative. A football players odds of developing CTE double for every 2.6 years playing football

I am glad curiosity exists to extend our knowledge and gain more specific understanding. The data suggests it is absolutely PARAMOUNT to do so. But asking those questions of anyone now is extremely premature. The world's foremost experts on CTE and football do not have the funding, studies or data to answer those questions. I certainly do not either.

[incognito_man]

2 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

The point is you are fearmongering with a stupid study and not fully making the facts aware.

In other words, you are lying to people. 

nah. You're just a troll who can't read/understand scientific literature.

[Matts4313]

Just now, incognito_man said:

nah. You're just a troll who can't read/understand scientific literature.

Nah, youre just a fearmonger who doesnt have any real evidence, because not even the doctors do. They are literally saying "we dont know" - - but Incognito apparently does. 

You must be a genius. Or a fearmonger. 

[incognito_man]

1 minute ago, Matts4313 said:

Nah, youre just a fearmonger who doesnt have any real evidence, because not even the doctors do. They are literally saying "we dont know" - - but Incognito apparently does. 

You must be a genius. Or a fearmonger. 

I'm literally posting their links and their words. I am not "fearmongering". Nobody here plays professional football, it's absolutely senseless to suggest I'm mongering fear.

Remember when you tried and failed 3 times in a single post to try and make sense of numbers and percentages of the study you keep quoting?

We all do.

You have zero credibility here, for your own reputation I'd suggest moving on.

[Matts4313]

3 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

Most humans are AWFUL at digesting risk profiles. CTE is going to be another example. Already we have posters demanding (currently) impossible black and white, binary answers.

CTE and risk is a spectrum. Playing football is KNOWINGLY increasing one's risk for CTE. We now have some ability to quantify it specifically for football. I encourage both of you to reach out to the study's author with your criticisms. I did not author the paper, nor am I an expert. However, I'm smart enough to defer to the experts and their conclusions.

Right now the absolutely best science we have on CTE and its impact on NFL players is that it is:

• Prevalent (exact percentage unknown, but indications are the prevalence is quite high)
• Cumulative. A football players odds of developing CTE double for every 2.6 years playing football

I am glad curiosity exists to extend our knowledge and gain more specific understanding. The data suggests it is absolutely PARAMOUNT to do so. But asking those questions of anyone now is extremely premature. The world's foremost experts on CTE and football do not have the funding, studies or data to answer those questions. I certainly do not either.

Bruh. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO POINTED OUT 30%!!!!

All I am asking is "30% of what"? - - - thats a very reasonable question. Back up your "facts" with a full explanation. 

 

 

"My IRA had 2,000,000% growth this year"

"OMG you must be so rich!"

"Sucker, I dont have an IRA. 2,000,000% of 0% is 0%"

 

^^^^^ Hyperbole to show how stupid your argument is 

[ET80]

@incognito_man and @Matts4313

Cut it out with the personal attacks. 

[Matts4313]

Just now, incognito_man said:

You have zero credibility here, for your own reputation I'd suggest moving on.

Like I would ever give a flying F about the opinions of a failed post on a messageboard when I was not sober. lol. You gotta try harder to insult me. 

[incognito_man]

1 minute ago, Matts4313 said:

Bruh. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO POINTED OUT 30%!!!!

All I am asking is "30% of what"? - - - thats a very reasonable question. Back up your "facts" with a full explanation. 

 

 

"My IRA had 2,000,000% growth this year"

"OMG you must be so rich!"

"Sucker, I dont have an IRA. 2,000,000% of 0% is 0%"

 

^^^^^ Hyperbole to show how stupid your argument is 

[MWil23]

6 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

Most humans are AWFUL at digesting risk profiles. CTE is going to be another example. Already we have posters demanding (currently) impossible black and white, binary answers.

CTE and risk is a spectrum. Playing football is KNOWINGLY increasing one's risk for CTE. We now have some ability to quantify it specifically for football. I encourage both of you to reach out to the study's author with your criticisms. I did not author the paper, nor am I an expert. However, I'm smart enough to defer to the experts and their conclusions.

Right now the absolutely best science we have on CTE and its impact on NFL players is that it is:

• Prevalent (exact percentage unknown, but indications are the prevalence is quite high)
• Cumulative. A football players odds of developing CTE double for every 2.6 years playing football

I am glad curiosity exists to extend our knowledge and gain more specific understanding. The data suggests it is absolutely PARAMOUNT to do so. But asking those questions of anyone now is extremely premature. The world's foremost experts on CTE and football do not have the funding, studies or data to answer those questions. I certainly do not either.

In no way was my intent to criticize you, and I apologize if it came off that way. What I'm saying is, per the bolded/underlined, compared to WHAT? A life without any sports? A life without contact sports? A profession that doesn't involve potential risk factors? What does doubling it every year mean? When does this start? Why aren't we looking at other sports with trauma? Are there genetic factors? Etc.

As for the "not having the funding" questions, when you wantonly only use damaged/perceived to be damaged brains in the study, that's confirmation bias. I'd legitimately love to see a wider range, more who never played football, more damaged brains/suspected CTE from those that never played football, more healthy brains from football, etc. and evaluate all of that to come up with viable and legitimate data.