(01-22-2019 12:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (01-22-2019 12:15 PM)ruowls Wrote: Does it?
Lost earnings from a Tommy John injury could change one’s socioeconomic position which could negatively impact one’s life expectancy.
There are too many variables and cascade of events to make a blanket statement. The problem is you can’t regulate all the variables and you can’t state the future consequences of any given factor as a stand alone cause. It is why football is such a great sport. It isn’t just about running power against a 3 man front. The dynamics will change from play to play and there is no way to exactly know how that will be.
This is a multi-factorial issue that doesn’t have an easy answer. [/align]
I dont think the 'lost earnings' really compares with the image of drooling glassy eyed Jerry Quarry or Muhammad Ali for boxing.
Nor do I think the 'lost earnings' from a Tommy John surgery really compares with the images of Mike Webster as he drifted away. Not in the slightest.
I understand this is an emotionally charged topic. Ironically, I went to see patients in a nursing home today and although they weren’t Ali, Webster or Quarry, I saw the picture you portrayed. I don’t think any of them played contact sports earlier in life.
I understand what you are saying. I just see more bias in the research to justify some conclusions that are being passed off as fact.
I googled CTE and Lewy Body and interesting articles popped up. The most commonly used word in the articles was may. This may cause that. Contact sport may cause Lewy Body Disease. LBD may cause Parkinson’s. This may be the new dementia. Of course, another article flat out said football and CTE killed the WSU QB per a neuroscience researcher. A study of 600+ postmortem brains with 200+ of them being athletes showed all of “this”. That right there is a red flag. The population of the US is 323 million. So 600 brains were studied with one third athletes. It is unlikely that 108 million people played contact sports. The study isn’t a cross section of society. It is skewed towards the athletes. You don’t know if the cohorts actually are representative of anything. It is very hard to draw epidemiological data from such poorly representive cases.
There is too much unknown and cross over. Like I said earlier, some researchers have suggested the anatomy and physiology of male and female brains are different with female brains being more susceptible to concussion symptoms. CTE is a constellation of symptoms that fit the original researchers biases. What is the prevalence of depression, benign essential tremor, or suicide in the population as a whole? Why do non-athletes get Parkinson’s? Why do some get Alzheimer’s? There was a gene noted to be present in 98% of Alzheimer’s patients. Researchers felt they found a way to predict Alzheimer’s. It was found out that Alzheimer’s only manifested itself in less than 50% of people who had the gene. 98 % have it who have it but less than 50% who have it get it. Not a very good screening tool.
There are articles about the differing opinions by neuroscientists working at Boston University about cause and effect. Stunt persons in the movie industry have repetitive traumatic events. What is the outcomes here? Is there a difference between males and females? Do jet pilots have issues with excessive G forces and altered blood flow to the brain? Even roller coasters have G forces and rotational accelerations which has been shown to play a greater role in brain insult than linear forces. Some have questioned the safety of rollercoasters.
There is a bias for researchers to sensationalize their research to obtain funding. It has happened before where researchers have altered results and conclusions for profit, either monitarily or for fame. It happens.
I just think there is too much opinion and not enough fact.