- Joined
- Aug 28, 2009
- Messages
- 50,341
- Reaction score
- 4,928
I'm not dancing around it. I don't disagree this. I questioned it's relevancy to the actual discussion not the veracity.
To me...?
Sure. And its a secondary source as far as I can see. The second link, which seems to be the press release from the company, so 'll consider it a primary source, does not make any such distinction. I shouldn't have said "TS" in the quoted portion, I should have said "the authors". Because again, why would I read that article, when the press release from the actual company is right there.
The changes we are seeing in football, at least as far as I can tell, have to do more with general public as well as player knowledge about CTE putting pressures on the league. But in terms of actual new information, this test doesn't seem to do anything that would drastically alter the perception or policies surrounding CTE. This test, by the the source, can accurately diagnose people with concussions. Okay. The more interesting part is that it can tell us something interesting about severity and prognosis - but what exactly seems to be unclear.
However, in terms of actual practice with combat sports - there is no mystery here, they all have concussions or sub-concussive events all the time. Like you get hit in the head, you're experiencing brain trauma. If you get hit in the head a bunch, you're increasing your likelihood for long term issues, and if you get hit in the head for a living you're probably going to get CTE. Like you're probably more likely than not to have some degree of it.
This test has more to do with the individual, and any data from it that would have an affect on policy would be decades out after enough time with the relevant population to develop actual meaningful statistics. And at that point, we are in agreement OF COURSE there would be changes to full contact sports, because what I stated in the previous paragraph wouldn't change. What changes policy is education, which takes time - and there are already many interesting studies, meta-analyses, and other work on this topic further down the pipeline which I would expect to provide interesting data, which would lead to education, which would lead to change before this one would.
Which is my point.
Also.
If you respond, for the love of god don't do the piece by piece response where you split up the quotes, that shit is obnoxious. I'm not interested in an antagonistic debate, or an argument about semantics. If you want to argue that MTBI can be practically defined as different than a concussion in a way that is relevant to individuals based on the fact that there is not consensus on the terms, sure. Okay. I'll concede because the argument is silly in the first place and that's not what I was getting at with my original post.
And as far as the more relevant portion at the bottom of my post, I'm just sharing what my opinions are - you are more than free to disagree with them, I'm not interested in asserting that I'm 100% right.
.
