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

Donate To GopherHole
Oregon Gopher said:
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the strong majority of studies are published- and those with extramural funding provided by industry are more likely to not be published (although the majority are).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Also, the study you reference has no way of determining if the unpublished studies in its sample had ever been subjected to review by a medical journal and rejected- which I believe would account for a great many (especially the ones without industry funding ) of the unpublished studies in your article.
Click to expand...

So true, not everything is a conspiracy. If the design turns out to be flawed or is of no value, it will not be published.
 

Blackhammer said:
Fox news? Why not MSNBC?
Click to expand...

Not to get off topic or to cause a whole sh!tstorm, but neither one of those mentioned are News stations, both are for profit entertainment programming. I just used Fox because it has has a greater tendency to portray opinions as news which would be in direct contrast to a scientific journal.

"The Project on Excellence in Journalism report in 2006 showed that 68 percent of Fox cable stories contained personal opinions, as compared to MSNBC at 27 percent and CNN at 4 percent. The "content analysis" portion of their 2005 report also concluded that "Fox was measurably more one-sided than the other networks, and Fox journalists were more opinionated on the air."

http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2005/cable-tv-intro/content-analysis/
 

I don't have a big problem with the Rochester study. On the other hand I would not conclude much based on it. I believe that many of the comments about the study design, sample, sample size, length of follow-up, etc are on the money. The study has a ton of problems, most of which they acknowledge. I do not buy the argument about the poor quality helmets because people are more apt to use their head as weapon now than in the past. What I can't believe is that the NIH funded this study. I would expect a larger sample size, and some other things from an NIH study. Another minor problem is that its published in a Mayo Clinic Journal. I'm sure that the reviewers were ethical, but sending it out to people unconnected with the Mayo Clinic would perhaps reduce bias. I'm from Rochester and my dad was a technician there for 30+ years, but IMHO no one should base their opinion of the relationship of playing football and subsequent neuro problems on it.
 

Basically what she said was that there have never been any controlled blind studies done so it's not "scientifically" been proven. Which of you want to volunteer your kids/grandkids for a blind concussion study?.....I thought so.
.l
What there have been are statistical studies done of NFL players which reveals some pretty frightening suggestions. At some point you must use common sense. Common sense tells me that when 300 lb guys with almost superhuman speed and strength run into each other in a forward moving head first motion with the intent to create a collision, it ain't good for the computer behind the helmet.

There have been no double blind studies, as far as I know, to tell me that if I put a hard cover around my MacBook Pro and use it to hit baseballs, that I just might damage my computer. Never-the-less I'm not wating for the study to not do it.
 

ncgo4 said:
Basically what she said was that there have never been any controlled blind studies done so it's not "scientifically" been proven. Which of you want to volunteer your kids/grandkids for a blind concussion study?.....I thought so. Do you mean blinded or randomized? If randomized a portion of the volunteers would be intentionally concussed, and then wait years to see if dementia occurs. Like you said, not gonna happen - highly unethical.
.l
What there have been are statistical studies done of NFL players which reveals some pretty frightening suggestions. At some point you must use common sense. Common sense tells me that when 300 lb guys with almost superhuman speed and strength run into each other in a forward moving head first motion with the intent to create a collision, it ain't good for the computer behind the helmet.Agree, comparing what is happening to NFL players with high school players in the 1950's is not valid

There have been no double blind studies, as far as I know, to tell me that if I put a hard cover around my MacBook Pro and use it to hit baseballs, that I just might damage my computer. Never-the-less I'm not wating for the study to not do it.
Click to expand...
I don't see how a double blind study could be done. Wouldn't the person who examines the participants for subsequent dementia have to be unaware if the subject can been concussed? (That is possible). And wouldn't the subjects have to be unaware if they have had a concussion? That part seems impossible. Anyway, I agree that having 300 pound pound people repeatedly banging on your head will eventually produce harmful effets./B]
 



alchemy2u said:
So true, not everything is a conspiracy. If the design turns out to be flawed or is of no value, it will not be published.
Click to expand...

No conspiracies. It's all out there for anyone willing to open their eyes and look and talk to people.

Look, some of you seem to think the NFL is in it for money. Yes of course they're going to lobby for their business. It's what business people do.
Some of us feel these stories are driven by a different industry in it for money: the legal eagles (or vultures).
The media has a hand in stirring the pot because it drives viewers and clicks, and they wouldn't know a good study if it slapped them in the face.

The end result is a lot of people get scared for very poor reasons. The few epidemiologic studies we have show that the incidence/prevalence is VERY LOW to NONEXISTENT. Several dozen former players, out of a sample size of hundreds of thousands, doesn't stir me that much. People go nuts. People develop neuropsychiatric diseases for completely unknown reasons, and they don't play football or any other sport.

The science is VERY vague in this area. Brain plaques can be found in "normals". There is disagreement if the plaques are even the cause of the outward symptoms.

Go back to worrying about plane crashes, runaway cars, falling cranes, bird flu, and whatever else keeps you up at night. Let's try to keep some of the joy and adventure in life, because believe me we all get sick and die some day. Enjoy it while you can.
 

olddoc said:
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.
Click to expand...

The Boston Institute used contact sports as their study to determine CTE. People who are concerned with CTE and injuries should be stopping their kids from signing up for any type of contact sport, Hockey, Soccer, Football, etc.

I get it if you are a parent making that decision. I just don't understand why you are switching from football to soccer. Unless this is what Spoofin is talking about when putting his hand in the sand?
 

Are there studies showing if you have multiple knee injuries that it can have a long term affect on your knee's health or are we allowed to use common sense on that one?
 



I find this topic pretty complicated, so I'm not sure I understand your analaogy. I feel like knee injuries in your example = concussions. And CTE would be like constant contact on your knee via saying running or climbing stairs. Yes concussions are bad. But do you stop walking up stairs because it might wear your knee down?

Willing to be wrong about using your analogy since you seemed to trying to be a little sarcastic within the post.
 

monk10 said:
I find this topic pretty complicated, so I'm not sure I understand your analaogy. I feel like knee injuries in your example = concussions. And CTE would be like constant contact on your knee via saying running or climbing stairs. Yes concussions are bad. But do you stop walking up stairs because it might wear your knee down?

Willing to be wrong about using your analogy since you seemed to trying to be a little sarcastic within the post.
Click to expand...

My analogy is that it only takes common sense to come to a conclusion that repeated concussions (brain injuries) will cause long term damage to your brain. Maybe just 1 bad one too. Just like repeated injuries (or one bad one) to your knee will have long term impact on your (knee) wellness.

I have not and would not tell someone they shouldn't play or shouldn't let their kids play football, but to bury ones head in the sand and pretend there is no proof that a)concussions are most likely in football, and b)concussions can result in long-term issues is silly, IMO.
 

Oh I thought we were talking about CTE which is all the rage. I'll drink my cocktail to hide my mistake in the conversation and let people carry on.
 

One question that I have - don't know if it's been studied - is what affect technique has on the incidence of concussions. like it or not, today's players lead with the head more than they did in "the old days." how many times do you see guys diving head-first into a pile. the question - has a change in the style of play led to a increase in concussions, and could we lower the incidence of concussions if we could get players to go back to the era when players led with their shoulders to make first contact.

And FWIW, it's not just FB. Kids can get concussions in Wrestling, Basketball, baseball. etc - but FB has been the sport singled out. I knew a girl who got a concussion drawing a charge in a basketball game during her Sophomore year. She never played another game in HS. But, you don't hear hysterical cries to "don't let your kids play basketball."
 



For the nanny parents out there, there is weak correlation of leukemia to magnetic fields, and lymphoma to infection with certain viruses and bacteria.

Better get that bubble suit.

If they come for football, it follows that soccer, basketball, hockey, etc will eventually all be relegated to club sports. Millions of poor kids will lose out on opportunity, all because of an almost psychotic obsession with removing all risk from daily life.
 

Please reference the scientific papers correlating an increased incidence of leukemia from exposure to weak magnetic fields and please detail what is a weak magnetic field.Do the same for bacteria naming the bacteria.
The EB virus has been associated with lymphoma but is nigh impossible to avoid.
Life is not without risk. Some risks rational people decide are not worth taking. Your definition of rational may differ from some other people but that does not make you or them certainly wrong.
If there are club sports how will children lose the opportunity to participate?.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom