Tracy Claeys and U of M Samadani said science lacks on Concussions

[Iceland12]

Some interesting stuff.

“Our game is under attack with the concussions and all that type of stuff,” Claeys told a full room of the state’s high school football coaches gathered in St. Louis Park. “There is risk involved in everything — no matter what you do. It isn’t any good for kids to sit at home and play video games all day, either. I guarantee you playing football is a hell of a lot safer than jumping in a car and driving around.”..

Samadani didn’t mind Claeys stealing some of her thunder. The chair of the Rockswold-Kaplan Traumatic Brain Injury Research Endowment at the Hennepin County Medical Center appears to be in the minority group on the level of which concussions are believed to affect players’ health.

Four minutes into Samadani’s half-hour presentation, the faculty member at the University of Minnesota neurosurgery department referenced some stats. She said riding in a car causes 144 deaths per million participants in the U.S., while this year’s reported football deaths across the country were about 10.

But coverage on the perceived and real dangers of brain injuries from playing football has increased...

Samadani said science lacks controlled longitudinal studies on major mental-related problems being any more common in football players.

“When you look at the media and what the media is doing right now, it’s unbelievable to think that this is the case, but this is indeed the case,” said Samadani, author of “The Football Decision: An Exploration Into Every Parent’s Decision Whether or Not To Let a Child Play Contact Sports.”

Samadani pointed to a 2012 Mayo Clinic study of 438 high school football players who were followed for 50 years. Those players had the same risk for dementia as band members, Samadani said.

“The reality is that if playing the clarinet is the same as playing linebacker than you really got to worry about what we’re telling kids when (we say) they can’t play football,” Samadani said...

http://www.twincities.com/2016/04/03/gophers-coach-tracy-claeys-talks-football-concussions/

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Wow, some common sense.

 

[Unregistered User]

Wow, some common sense.

Science, actually.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Don't bring "science" into this discussion

/s

 

[Ole]

Amen.
The science on this is severely lacking.
There are loud voices in the media and even in the scientific community that see dollars right now, even being dishonest and making conclusions that lack the proper controls and peer reviewed data.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

It's hard for lawyers (or news outlets) to make money off stuff like this:

"Samadani pointed to a 2012 Mayo Clinic study of 438 high school football players who were followed for 50 years. Those players had the same risk for dementia as band members, Samadani said."

 

[Pompous Elitist]

The Mayo study. As with all unsettled science we will see researchers approaching the topic from different angles.

Apparently it is dangerous to live in Rochester. Increased risk of Parkinson's disease across the populations...hmmmmmm. Shut 'er down!

RESULTS:
We found no increased risk of dementia, PD, or ALS among the 438 football players compared with the 140 non-football-playing male classmates. Parkinson disease and ALS were slightly less frequent in the football group, whereas dementia was slightly more frequent, but not significantly so. When we compared these results with the expected incidence rates in the general population, only PD was significantly increased; however, this was true for both groups, with a larger risk ratio in the non-football group.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22469346




.

 

[Spoofin]

People in denial love others that bury their head in the sand.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Laymen have no idea that many studies never see the light of day in journals because they don't show the desired result. Researchers, depending on how they are funded will bury studies.

Spoofin, give it up. You truly have no idea what you're talking about here. You are admirably stubborn and refuse to give up your positions, but this isn't one of those times.

 

[Oregon Gopher]

Laymen have no idea that many studies never see the light of day in journals because they don't show the desired result. Researchers, depending on how they are funded will bury studies.

Spoofin, give it up. You truly have no idea what you're talking about here. You are admirably stubborn and refuse to give up your positions, but this isn't one of those times.

Not sure what you're trying to say PE but if you're saying a lot of studies at major medical universities are buried because of an associated extramural funding source I'll say complete BS. The great majority of medical university research funding is from unbiased sources (NIH, Etc) or from industry and is overseen with great scrutiny by the FDA or other governing bodies.

 

[Iceland12]

People in denial love others that bury their head in the sand.

Not necessarily. It's possible that the dangerous effects of concussions are cumulative and, if you add in size and impact speed of concussions, the problem is exacerbated at the professional level.

Just a thought Spoofin.

 

[alchemy2u]

Laymen have no idea that many studies never see the light of day in journals because they don't show the desired result. Researchers, depending on how they are funded will bury studies.

Spoofin, give it up. You truly have no idea what you're talking about here. You are admirably stubborn and refuse to give up your positions, but this isn't one of those times.

You are making some serious allegations that scientific journals don't publish papers because they don't like the results! We're not talking Foxnews here. Scientific journals use peer reviews to filter out articles that may not be based upon sound science, but they would never screen out articles to hide the science! So where is your prove that this takes place?

On the other hand, if a company paid 100% for the study, the results are their own confidential information and they can determine if it is shared with the public or not. Is that what you are confusing with real scientific research?

 

[highwayman]

Not necessarily. It's possible that the dangerous effects of concussions are cumulative and, if you add in size and impact speed of concussions, the problem is exacerbated at the professional level.

Just a thought Spoofin.

And, it is individually structural and genetically based. Some people are going to be more prone, some less. It's about fluid levels surrounding the brain. We will likely never have a solution that works for all players.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Well, we have some young or oblivious scientists here. You tell me the reasons.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131029220751.htm

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Here ya go docs.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24169943

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Here ya go docs.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24169943

There can be many reasons for discontinued trials or unreported trial results, many completely above board, but it's an area that deserves scrutiny, from firsthand experience.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

You are making some serious allegations that scientific journals don't publish papers because they don't like the results! We're not talking Foxnews here. Scientific journals use peer reviews to filter out articles that may not be based upon sound science, but they would never screen out articles to hide the science! So where is your prove that this takes place?

On the other hand, if a company paid 100% for the study, the results are their own confidential information and they can determine if it is shared with the public or not. Is that what you are confusing with real scientific research?

I'm not talking about journals screening articles. Humans are biased by many things, and can be influenced. It's science.

Some of you probably believe man-made climate change is a hoax.

 

[Mulligan]

Laymen have no idea that many studies never see the light of day in journals because they don't show the desired result. Researchers, depending on how they are funded will bury studies.

Spoofin, give it up. You truly have no idea what you're talking about here. You are admirably stubborn and refuse to give up your positions, but this isn't one of those times.

The irony is truly amazing. Have little idea of what is the truth here but I would guess it's in a gray area and not as black and white as you think.

*Samadani is in the minority citing one study.
*Tracy Claeys has a vested interest in denying the effects.
*I'd rather see a study following football players for the next 50 years--you know, guys who are way bigger and stronger. Hell, a 190 pound running back was a monster 50 years ago.
*What do studies following D1/Pro players say?
*As for your sources on medical studies, it's very clear these are mainly drug studies. You know, 250,000 people faced possible harm in these studies. How in the hell does a concussion study cause possible harm to a person? Talk about throwing in an irrelevancy and basing an argument on it.
But, carry on. You are pompous.

 

[Blackhammer]

You are making some serious allegations that scientific journals don't publish papers because they don't like the results! We're not talking Foxnews here. Scientific journals use peer reviews to filter out articles that may not be based upon sound science, but they would never screen out articles to hide the science! So where is your prove that this takes place?

On the other hand, if a company paid 100% for the study, the results are their own confidential information and they can determine if it is shared with the public or not. Is that what you are confusing with real scientific research?

Fox news? Why not MSNBC?

 

[olddoc]

Follow the money. Claeys has a vested interest in denying the connection between repeated concussions and LONG TERM brain function decrease.
Who knows who is sponsoring Samadini.
The work looking at post mortem brains at the Boston institute has stood the test of time and has not been refuted..
Football will still exist but parents who can read and write will find other less long term risky sports for their children to participate in.

 

[Spoofin]

Follow the money. Claeys has a vested interest in denying the connection between repeated concussions and LONG TERM brain function decrease.
Who knows who is sponsoring Samadini.
The work looking at post mortem brains at the Boston institute has stood the test of time and has not been refuted..
Football will still exist but <b>parents who can read and write will find other less long term risky sports for their children to participate in.</b>

or ignore all common sense and logic and pretend that brain injuries don't cause long term issues.

 

[EE_Gopher]

True scientific knowledge is never as simple as a single study. If it was, one only has to do studies till the right answer comes up. Causation or more correctly efficient causation is very difficult to diagnose and it so easily swayed by prejudice. I can say that whether or not one study or another has someone's money behind it is not a scientific argument and immediately makes me quit reading what you write. I am glad to hear a study disagrees with the previous study because I have never believed the correct answer would be that simple.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Required reading

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Pharma

 

[Pompous Elitist]

The irony is truly amazing. Have little idea of what is the truth here but I would guess it's in a gray area and not as black and white as you think.

*Samadani is in the minority citing one study.
*Tracy Claeys has a vested interest in denying the effects.
*I'd rather see a study following football players for the next 50 years--you know, guys who are way bigger and stronger. Hell, a 190 pound running back was a monster 50 years ago.
*What do studies following D1/Pro players say?
*As for your sources on medical studies, it's very clear these are mainly drug studies. You know, 250,000 people faced possible harm in these studies. How in the hell does a concussion study cause possible harm to a person? Talk about throwing in an irrelevancy and basing an argument on it.
But, carry on. You are pompous.

I've posted other studies showing there is no increased risk of depression/suicide in former NFL players. We have a longitudinal study showing no increased risk of ALS, Parkinson's, or dementia.

What do you guys have? A small group of suicidal NFL players (and a few collegiate) out of how many tens or hundreds of thousands or millions if we include prep, that have brain plaques. We have zero, zip, nada, epidemiological data on CTE and its correlation with the aforementioned issues. What is the level of risk and the size of the effect??

It is your side that has to bring evidence. Maybe it is will come, and there are efforts underway to do just that.

The hysteria displayed here doesn't do anyone any good.

 

[hungan1]

Sports Medicine is big business.

Do they ever complain to the public too loudly about the dangers of repeated collisions in football and other sports?

CTE is not a problem in Football unless you are one of the people that have it or loved ones who have someone afflicted. It is real as it has been well documented (Junior Seau and others). But, what percentage of people who've played football come down with CTE? And how does it compare to the general population? I think they have only scratched the surface in understanding fully the extend of CTE and the propensities.

Whether or not to allow your kids to play football is a personal choice. One has to wait the benefits vs. the risks.

IMHO, I'd say if one closely looks at playing positions and the type of injury incurred long term that the people with the most spinal problems, knee problems, CTE, etc... may show some interesting trends.

 

[Oregon Gopher]

Here ya go docs.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24169943

So the strong majority of studies are published- and those with extramural funding provided by industry are more likely to not be published (although the majority are). My direct experience with studies that don't get published is they usually fall into one (or more) of a few categories:

1) the study added nothing to the known literature and/or was redundant

2) the study was full of design flaws negating any ability to derive conclusions from it

3) the study was a negative study and failed to expand the approved uses of a drug or medical device beyond their current approval

Also, the study you reference has no way of determining if the unpublished studies in its sample had ever been subjected to review by a medical journal and rejected- which I believe would account for a great many (especially the ones without industry funding ) of the unpublished studies in your article.

 

[Oregon Gopher]

Required reading

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Pharma

I can't speak to how pharmaceutical industry sponsored studies are done in the UK- but having participated in a few drug and medical device trials here I can tell you the FDA has earned its reputation as being the most critical oversight and review board in the world. Again, if a phased trial is negative and fails to result in positive results for larger studies, or fails to result in approval then the studies may not be published for the reasons in my last post.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

All I ask is an open mind. If you are as involved in research as you say then on some level you must understand the influences in the industry, not to mention the vultures circling overhead looking for opportunity.

So, getting back to the topic, let us pretend suicide, ALS, Parkinson's, or dementia are the desired endpoints of a 30-50 year experiment and football is the treatment. The studies we have thus far essentially show NO significant effect in the intent to treat vs the general population.

So, maybe we need a larger dose of football, a longer treatment time, or a higher concentration (larger and faster players). Will that get us to the desired endpoint? Maybe? Jury's out.

I'm actually very reassured by the data to date, as I had numerous sub-concussive, borderline mTBIs years ago. I'm not very worried.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

I can't speak to how pharmaceutical industry sponsored studies are done in the UK- but having participated in a few drug and medical device trials here I can tell you the FDA has earned its reputation as being the most critical oversight and review board in the world. Again, if a phased trial is negative and fails to result in positive results for larger studies, or fails to result in approval then the studies may not be published for the reasons in my last post.

Yes, those are some of the reasons.

 

[upnorthkid]

The number of confounders in any and all of these studies makes them near impossible to draw any direct conclusion. If you think it causes cte (playing football that is) hold your kid out. If you don't out think the risks are worth it, let the kid play or decide to play. Everyone yelling about how they know more is full of **** because the studies out right now show nothing remotely close to definitive proof one way or the other. Yes it should be studied more and it will b . But nothing it close to having statistical power at the long term level looking at higher tier players and cannot be for another 10 to 20 years. One really sad anecdote dose not definitive causation make.