CTE in 99% of Studied NFL Player Brains

[urltargetblank]http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/25/health/cte-nfl-players-brains-study/index.html[/urltargetblank]

Chronic traumatic encephalopathy, known as CTE, was found in 99% of deceased NFL players' brains that were donated to scientific research, according to a study published Tuesday in the medical journal JAMA.

Out of 202 deceased former football players total -- a combination of high school, college and professional players -- CTE was neuropathologically diagnosed in 177, the study said. The disease was identified in 110 out of 111 former NFL players. It was also found in three of the 14 high school players and 48 of the 53 college players. The study included brains of individuals who have been publicly confirmed to have had the disease, including Ken Stabler, Kevin Turner, Bubba Smith and Dave Duerson.

Click to expand...

From this study it seems that at the high school level, the risk is much less (approximately 20%), but grows rapidly at the College level (Approximately 91%) and is almost guaranteed at the NFL level (just over 99%). The fact that it is caused by repeated head trauma, this makes a lot of sense, but it also means that playing in the NFL is nearly a guarantee of having CTE. That seems a stiff price to pay for a game. It should be interesting to see if, in future studies, they find if any of the protocols in place today can bring this number down or not. I'm skeptical.

Yeah, the effects are cumulative, and brains (and nerves in general) don't self repair like many other tissues. There is some "healing" but it appears to be much slower than muscle or bones.

I think they should mandate a 1/4" of padding on the outside of helmets. That would attenuate the shock waves transmitted into the skull significantly, I think. Part of the problem is the helmet to helmet contact. It creates sharp, high frequency shock waves into the head. Pad that hard shell and you reduce the impacts.

Go back to leather and you won't have people using their heads as a weapon. or just a soft foam if you want to keep a look, won't need a facemask either if people are not using their heads.

I strongly detest the title of this thread, and of the article itself. All the brains they studied were purposely donated for research; i.e., they were given by players who already knew they had mental problems from playing. It's like going into a cancer ward at a hospital and basing your incidence rate on that.

I'm not downplaying CTE in any way, but damn, this is presented like 99% of NFL players get CTE and that's not even close to true...But people will pick up on it and ignorantly trumpet those numbers, contributing to the ever-growing dilemma of fake news and just inaccurate news in general.

RolandDeschain":xb59kcud said:

I strongly detest the title of this thread, and of the article itself. All the brains they studied were purposely donated for research; i.e., they were given by players who already knew they had mental problems from playing. It's like going into a cancer ward at a hospital and basing your incidence rate on that.

I'm not downplaying CTE in any way, but damn, this is presented like 99% of NFL players get CTE and that's not even close to true...But people will pick up on it and ignorantly trumpet those numbers, contributing to the ever-growing dilemma of fake news and just inaccurate news in general.

Click to expand...

So you have actual positive proof that 99 percent of Pro Football players do not have CTE in anyway shape or form and degree to argue your open ended disclaimer statement.

RolandDeschain":3nv3e7xq said:

I strongly detest the title of this thread, and of the article itself. All the brains they studied were purposely donated for research; i.e., they were given by players who already knew they had mental problems from playing. It's like going into a cancer ward at a hospital and basing your incidence rate on that.

I'm not downplaying CTE in any way, but damn, this is presented like 99% of NFL players get CTE and that's not even close to true...But people will pick up on it and ignorantly trumpet those numbers, contributing to the ever-growing dilemma of fake news and just inaccurate news in general.

Click to expand...

The title of the thread states quite clearly that it's 99% of STUDIED brains. Also, those were just the NFL players. They also studied players who only played in HS or only through College. The HS players were significantly less. Actually 80% didn't have it, so those studied brains didn't have it so it's very likely they didn't show signs of it.

Also, let's just say that the majority of players do get CTE after years of playing football (just assume) wouldn't it therefor be difficult to get examples of non-affected brains for testing?

The number of NFL players with CTE may not be at 99%, but the study clearly shows that the more you play football, the higher the odds are of having it.

These are troubling numbers. But for it to be conclusive science we need to have a control group of similar brains.

kidhawk":yac80nqw said:

That seems a stiff price to pay for a game.

Click to expand...

Except that (for the NFL players at least) it isn't a stiff price to pay for a game. It's the price they pay for the money they earn. Just like old broken-down laborers, concrete finishers, and such. Physically demanding jobs all extract their price, and the pay is a LOT lower for the regular ones.

GeekHawk":1helewfs said:

kidhawk":1helewfs said:

That seems a stiff price to pay for a game.

Click to expand...

Except that (for the NFL players at least) it isn't a stiff price to pay for a game. It's the price they pay for the money they earn. Just like old broken-down laborers, concrete finishers, and such. Physically demanding jobs all extract their price, and the pay is a LOT lower for the regular ones.

Click to expand...

Can't debate unsafe work practices, and I won't debate NFL player salaries being quite handsome, but there comes a point where the money doesn't make up for the quality of life and everyone has to set that bar for themselves. Personally, I feel that it's a positive thing to bring awareness to how much of an impact this issue can have on one's life so parents and youth can make the informed decision as to whether or not this is for them. I suspect some will choose against the sport for this very reason, while many others will continue to join.

GeekHawk":1lk12ued said:

kidhawk":1lk12ued said:

That seems a stiff price to pay for a game.

Click to expand...

Except that (for the NFL players at least) it isn't a stiff price to pay for a game. It's the price they pay for the money they earn. Just like old broken-down laborers, concrete finishers, and such. Physically demanding jobs all extract their price, and the pay is a LOT lower for the regular ones.

Click to expand...

This is where I'm at. Some of it was my own fault, wrecking snowmachines, falling asleep at the wheel and hitting a telephone pole, etc. But most of it comes from hard work. Starting out on a farm when I was 12, 4 years there, some of it bent over a row of lettuce with a 12" handled hoe, hoeing weeds from around the base of the lettuce. Then being laborer, lifting heavy shit when no one else was around, loading 55 gallon drums of fuel.

I get angry sometimes when I think back on it, how it has crippled me now, and how much it costs me financially. But all in all I've had a pretty good life. So when I hear football players complain about it, I don't have any sympathy. If only I could get the kind of medical attention they do. There have been times when I was in so much pain, I started thinking about "Quality of Life." I had a friend that got hit by a drunk driver. He got off light, while she ended up in a wheel chair, on opioids, battling constipation, chronic pain, the fog caused by painkillers and struggling to pay for it all. She committed suicide. And there are likely tens of thousands of victims like her.

I think the best way to address this, is to educate players early on, then let them make the decision. After that, it's on them.

I sometimes wonder, where is the NFLPA when it comes to finding solutions? I've heard them complain a lot, they've filed lawsuits, are they also commissioning studies on prevention? I think that's what they should be doing. Raise the issue, file lawsuits where it will benefit treatment and prevention, and look in to it themselves. Don't expect the NFL to do it because they are looking out for themselves, and any solution they provide, might look good, but might also fall short in the long term.

And to piggy back on what Roland said, numbers can be made to say anything. I have a degree in Mathemathics, including statistics with calculus. When I first started, I thought statistics was just a minor part of math, but it's a huge field with endless applications. Granted, most Phds are smart enough not to make the mistake of fudging the words to make the numbers look better, but some are dependent on grants and provide whatever is needed to renew or expand them.

sdog1981":2880a86l said:

These are troubling numbers. But for it to be conclusive science we need to have a control group of similar brains.

Click to expand...

We do have a sense of which populations it is prevalent in, in relation to the general population.

"the disease is found in a more diverse group of individuals with a history of repetitive head impacts including a variety of contact sport athletes, military veterans, domestic abuse victims, and individuals with self-inflicted head banging behavior [7]."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4255271/

Agreed that more work is needed, but we are FAR FAR beyond having to question if 99% of the general population shows signs of CTE.

ivotuk":1mnnljeo said:

And to piggy back on what Roland said, numbers can be made to say anything. I have a degree in Mathemathics, including statistics with calculus. When I first started, I thought statistics was just a minor part of math, but it's a huge field with endless applications. Granted, most Phds are smart enough not to make the mistake of fudging the words to make the numbers look better, but some are dependent on grants and provide whatever is needed to renew or expand them.

Click to expand...

As you probably know I agree with the sentiment, but we're talking about descriptive statistics here, not the type of hyper-complex recoding, data censoring, and alternative strategies at modeling in which you can bury a whole slew of bodies down the garden of forking paths to eek out statistical significance.

It's just descriptive statistics. These researchers are either out-and-out complete and total liars or they're not.

ivotuk":2wy5f7z4 said:

I think the best way to address this, is to educate players early on, then let them make the decision. After that, it's on them.

Click to expand...

I understand this is the perspective of some, and not everyone agrees with the following, but it's not really how we operate as a society.

I seriously can't think of a single activity that leads to traumatic and life altering injury in nearly 100% of cases which isn't outlawed.

Heck, we abide by traffic laws, seatbealt laws, construction code laws, food regulation laws, and so on to prevent the comparatively small CHANCE of traumatic and life altering injury.

I mean, the closest thing I can come up with is that smoking is legal, and IIRC that only eventually leads to death from smoking-related cancer in about 50% of smokers.

Think about it this way: you're more likely to get CTE from playing football than you are to get HIV from having unprotected sex with someone with HIV; you're much more likely to live through an attempt to kill yourself than you are to play professional football and not get CTE.

I find it kind of mind-boggling (no pun), and I reall don't see a scenario in which the game exists in its current form 20 years from now.

Popeyejones":2s13pdyt said:

Think about it this way: you're more likely to get CTE from playing football than you are to get HIV from having unprotected sex with someone with HIV; you're much more likely to live through an attempt to kill yourself than you are to play professional football and not get CTE.

Click to expand...

I totally get what you're saying here, but the analogy doesn't quite work. The problem with this analogy is that you are comparing a career of football (thousands of hits), to a one off night of sex. Maybe the analogy would work better if you were to say that the odds of getting CTE are like having daily sex with someone with HIV. Eventually it's going to happen.

The one thing I'm interested in seeing is some of the outcomes of some of the brains to be studied that have been donated by more recent players who currently may not be showing symptoms. If the numbers hold up, I can see the NFL having a serious problem going forward as it is today. If the numbers see a serious decline, then that's a different story. Either way, playing football means almost certainly lowering your quality of life later for a higher quality of life today. A trade some will gladly make, others maybe not.

kidhawk":w74vwlj6 said:

Popeyejones":w74vwlj6 said:

Think about it this way: you're more likely to get CTE from playing football than you are to get HIV from having unprotected sex with someone with HIV; you're much more likely to live through an attempt to kill yourself than you are to play professional football and not get CTE.

Click to expand...

I totally get what you're saying here, but the analogy doesn't quite work. The problem with this analogy is that you are comparing a career of football (thousands of hits), to a one off night of sex. Maybe the analogy would work better if you were to say that the odds of getting CTE are like having daily sex with someone with HIV. Eventually it's going to happen.

The one thing I'm interested in seeing is some of the outcomes of some of the brains to be studied that have been donated by more recent players who currently may not be showing symptoms. If the numbers hold up, I can see the NFL having a serious problem going forward as it is today. If the numbers see a serious decline, then that's a different story. Either way, playing football means almost certainly lowering your quality of life later for a higher quality of life today. A trade some will gladly make, others maybe not.

Click to expand...

I can remember hearing, years ago, that many NFL players suffer physical problems due to playing, knees, back etc. Much like what Ivotuk speaks about. I was OK with that as everyone that takes part in a strenuous physical job will pay a price. And they generally understand the trade off. It's good that this info is coming out. The NFL should have been much more forthcoming so players, parents and all involved can make an informed decision, to play or to watch. Has there been any interviews with current players asking them if they've reconciled the downside of playing with the rewards? I will likely watch this coming year and would be able to rationalize it a bit better if the players are doing this with full knowledge, but even with that I know I'm heading to the door when it comes to football at some point.

kidhawk":elcc9htf said:

Popeyejones":elcc9htf said:

Think about it this way: you're more likely to get CTE from playing football than you are to get HIV from having unprotected sex with someone with HIV; you're much more likely to live through an attempt to kill yourself than you are to play professional football and not get CTE.

Click to expand...

I totally get what you're saying here, but the analogy doesn't quite work. The problem with this analogy is that you are comparing a career of football (thousands of hits), to a one off night of sex. Maybe the analogy would work better if you were to say that the odds of getting CTE are like having daily sex with someone with HIV. Eventually it's going to happen.

The one thing I'm interested in seeing is some of the outcomes of some of the brains to be studied that have been donated by more recent players who currently may not be showing symptoms. If the numbers hold up, I can see the NFL having a serious problem going forward as it is today. If the numbers see a serious decline, then that's a different story. Either way, playing football means almost certainly lowering your quality of life later for a higher quality of life today. A trade some will gladly make, others maybe not.

Click to expand...

Yeah, you're absolutely right that for unprotected sex with an HIV positive person or a suicide attempt I'm comparing a single event to playing a sport over a period of time.

Guilty as charged on that one. :2thumbs:

Rhetorically, at least, I think the point still works though, as I'd think you'd be incredibly hard pressed to find someone who would have unprotected sex with an HIV positive person, while at the same time we have several million children playing football.

Just for background, for a man having unprotected vaginal sex with an HIV+ women results in a 1 in 1,250 chance of contracting HIV. Even the most dangerous form of unprotected anal sex with an HIV+ results in a 1 in 70 chance of contracting HIV.

99% of NFL players showing evidence if CTE is an insane number. Cut it in half just for fun and it is still totally and wildly untenable.

These numbers don't mean much. It's too early and there isn't enough comparative data. What would a group of non-athletes brains look like by comparison? Soccer players? Boxers? Etc. And to what degree is the CTE? Not enough info but it's good they are studying this.

And some people still don't understand that it's not the helmet. Concussions are caused by the brain hitting the inside of the skull. That happens with simple whip lash. Remember Vernon Davis' concussion? His head did not hit the ground or Kam's body. It was total whip lash. You really can't make a safer helmet for concussions. Safer for skull fractures, yes.

It's going to be a long and difficult evaluation period. How many NFL vets who've never had a concussion are donating their brains for study? It's going to take a long time.

chris98251":n89sunav said:

So you have actual positive proof that 99 percent of Pro Football players do not have CTE in anyway shape or form and degree to argue your open ended disclaimer statement.

Click to expand...

I never even remotely came close to saying or implying that 99% do not have it. The misleading headline and articles imply that 99% do, which is clearly NOT the case. Use the gray matter between your ears. It's like going to a McDonald's and saying 99% of people studied there received fries with their order. Well, no shit - look at the the flaw in basing such a universal fact in what you chose to get your numbers from in the first place. Next week on Lifetime's "Totally true, unbiased, and certainly not misleading statistics" show we bring you a Lifetime exclusive first look at a new study that shows 99% of people at Dairy Queen buy some sort of ice cream product - UNBELIEVABLE!

kidhawk":n89sunav said:

The title of the thread states quite clearly that it's 99% of STUDIED brains.

Click to expand...

Yeah, and they don't elaborate. Most likely, the vast majority of those brains were donated by people who agreed to it while alive or even pursued it like Junior Seau did because they KNEW they had mental problems likely due to CTE. Ever hear of the concept of a control group? How about comparing the results against brains of football players who, while alive, were surveyed and said they didn't think they had CTE or any adverse mental problems due to football. Also, what about old people in general who played sports but not football?

kidhawk":n89sunav said:

Also, those were just the NFL players. They also studied players who only played in HS or only through College. The HS players were significantly less. Actually 80% didn't have it, so those studied brains didn't have it so it's very likely they didn't show signs of it.

Also, let's just say that the majority of players do get CTE after years of playing football (just assume) wouldn't it therefor be difficult to get examples of non-affected brains for testing?

The number of NFL players with CTE may not be at 99%, but the study clearly shows that the more you play football, the higher the odds are of having it.

Click to expand...

Difficult to get non-affected brains for studying? I doubt it. How many kickers, punters, etc. have had concussions in their football careers? Probably very few have ever had more than one, if any. Also, like I said, find players who say (or think) they've never had a concussion that have played at the NFL level to compare against. By the way, I'm not arguing that the more you play football, the more likely you are to have CTE. That's just common sense. The fact that the article's phrased the way it is, which leads people to believe that virtually all NFL players suffer from some CTE, is where my problem is; and there is nothing in there that demonstrates that whatsoever, click-bait title and summary be damned.

sdog1981":n89sunav said:

These are troubling numbers. But for it to be conclusive science we need to have a control group of similar brains.

Click to expand...

Jesus Christ, someone with some common sense and a basic understanding of how to form conclusions based on data. What a miracle.

ivotuk":n89sunav said:

And to piggy back on what Roland said, numbers can be made to say anything. I have a degree in Mathemathics, including statistics with calculus. When I first started, I thought statistics was just a minor part of math, but it's a huge field with endless applications. Granted, most Phds are smart enough not to make the mistake of fudging the words to make the numbers look better, but some are dependent on grants and provide whatever is needed to renew or expand them.

Click to expand...

Not to mention, those that actually PERFORM studies are rarely the ones that are allowed to put out the actual press release about it. Any book on the peer review process will demonstrate that, it's more like a CNN news room. Data gets "massaged" every step of the way, which is why it's critically important to actually read the original SOURCE study, in full, to really get an idea of how good it might be and what the real conclusions are. It's amazing what gets stripped out of studies in their official "summaries" and even official "conclusions" that then get spread across the media.

Again though:

The report is that 110 out of 111 brains that have been dissected shows signs of CTE.

This is a simple descriptive statistic. There's no room for misreporting, accidental misinterpretation by journalists, or the other types of things that can happen when complex models are made legible for mainstream audiences.

You either think the researchers are absolutely nefarious and devious liars or you do not. Full stop.

Seafan":10hcn0g2 said:

These numbers don't mean much. It's too early and there isn't enough comparative data. What would a group of non-athletes brains look like by comparison? Soccer players? Boxers? Etc. And to what degree is the CTE? Not enough info but it's good they are studying this.

Click to expand...

Again though, on what evidence do you base the claim that there's not enough comparative data?

Is that just something you're saying or is it actually based on anything?

How much comparative data are you aware of and what would you conclude would be "enough" to make these data concerning?

There have been tons, and tons of studies on CTE. I mean heck, the first article on what is now called CTE was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in friggin 1928, and people have been continually studying it since then. :lol: