Brain disease CTE found in 2 former pro RL players

[RP London]

On 14/07/2019 at 17:11, Denton Rovers RLFC said:

Before we do anything, we need to check the level of CTE to that of others from a non contact sporting background. We need to also look at overall health benefits from participating in sport/active lifestyles to that of not at all.

Whilst CTE/concussions etc is an issue that we can do better on particularly in the tackle, when you compare to such sports as gridiron and even Ice Hockey were they both went down the route of using helmets for protection, RL is nowhere near in terms of brain/head injury problems.

Gridiron particularly has had a huge shift in head injuries and all body injuries post helmet wearing, their decision to wear was based on small numbers of serious head injuries, the deaths mentioned at the time actually were in the vast majority NOT from head injuries. Post helmet/headgear wearing head injuries went up and the repercussions of massively worse brain injuries both short and long term.  this is replicated in every sport/activity that copies such,  cricket, Ice Hockey, Boxing, cycling, skiing, lacrosse. We already know that casual cycling has a significant increase in head injuries and all injury types with those that wear helmets to those that don't as well as the competitive environ.

I just hope that the reaction to CTE is not trying to introduce head-gear because that has proven to be utterly disastrous, reducing the contact around the head in the first instance must be the way to go and to do that we must adapt the rules and the officials MUST penalise AND their be more serious repercussions to make it absolutely clear that contact around the head/neck is not tolerated, currently that is not the case and we wonder why there are significant increases in injuries particularly around the head in the last couple of decades.

Of course there are instances were accidents do happen, I had one in a game of masters two weeks ago, opposing players moves his head lower and sideways at last split second to avoid contact from one of my team mates coming to tackle and I was lowering my head to make a classic round the midriff tackle. His cheekbone and my upper jaw collided with a decent amount of force, luckily it was just a lump under his eye and a couple of broken sockets of my teeth and a slight buzz and claret. My first ever head clash.

However we cannot remove these incidents completely, it would be silly to presume we could, in the general England and Wales population there are a reported 1.3Million head injuries to a medical person annually(which in itself is a massive under-reporting of head injuries), from that we have circa 160,000 hospital stays. Far and away the vast majority of these are from pedestrians, motorists and those doing normal/ordinary things in and around the home/work.

got to ask... are you seriously suggesting that cyclists are better off NOT wearing a helmet?? is there some evidence you want to point at for this?

My understanding, from talking to healthcare professionals and a pro cycling team we supply with Energy Products, is that helmets stop very serious head damage and death from crashes at all levels (especially casual road and mountain biking) I know a few people who have had their lives saved from wearing a helmet, and looking at their helmet afterwards I would hate to see the state of their head if they had not been!

as this is all anecdotal if this is incorrect I would love to see the evidence against wearing one.

[Copa]

1 hour ago, RP London said:

got to ask... are you seriously suggesting that cyclists are better off NOT wearing a helmet?? is there some evidence you want to point at for this?

My understanding, from talking to healthcare professionals and a pro cycling team we supply with Energy Products, is that helmets stop very serious head damage and death from crashes at all levels (especially casual road and mountain biking) I know a few people who have had their lives saved from wearing a helmet, and looking at their helmet afterwards I would hate to see the state of their head if they had not been!

as this is all anecdotal if this is incorrect I would love to see the evidence against wearing one.

I’ve seen this claimed elsewhere too. You’ve opened the most amazing can of confirmation bias you’ve ever seen by taking on the anti bike helmet lobby.

It’s truly a sight to behold.

[Copa]

On 15/07/2019 at 02:11, Denton Rovers RLFC said:

Gridiron particularly has had a huge shift in head injuries and all body injuries post helmet wearing, their decision to wear was based on small numbers of serious head injuries, the deaths mentioned at the time actually were in the vast majority NOT from head injuries. Post helmet/headgear wearing head injuries went up and the repercussions of massively worse brain injuries both short and long term.

I’ve played American football in the US and I can tell you from experience they use the helmet like it is the tip of a human missile which undermines the entire point of wearing the helmet.

[RP London]

8 minutes ago, Copa said:

I’ve seen this claimed elsewhere too. You’ve opened the most amazing can of confirmation bias you’ve ever seen by taking on the anti bike helmet lobby.

It’s truly a sight to behold.

i did wonder if i had done that to be honest.. as someone who rides a bike a lot and grew up without helmets there is no way i would want to be riding without a helmet today and especially after some of the sights i have seen! wont get into an argument about it though as dont want to derail the thread which could be very interesting... but happy to be pointed to some peer reviewed and well researched research though and will have a read (if its not either of those then it can do one)

[RP London]

8 minutes ago, Copa said:

I’ve played American football in the US and I can tell you from experience they use the helmet like it is the tip of a human missile which undermines the entire point of wearing the helmet.

yes the helmet has caused them to be too confident and their tackle technique is woeful, which is the bigger cause than the helmet itself (if that makes sense)

on the concussion part of the RU Coaching course on line the one thing it says about scrum caps etc is that it is to stop abrasions not to stop concussion and something we reiterate to the parents. good tackle technique is essential to that not clothing.

[Copa]

2 minutes ago, RP London said:

i did wonder if i had done that to be honest.. as someone who rides a bike a lot and grew up without helmets there is no way i would want to be riding without a helmet today and especially after some of the sights i have seen! wont get into an argument about it though as dont want to derail the thread which could be very interesting... but happy to be pointed to some peer reviewed and well researched research though and will have a read (if its not either of those then it can do one)

They access the same database of research articles that the antivaxxers use to find their own research articles..

If a newspaper wants “hits” it has a bike helmet article and then opens it for comments.

[Copa]

17 minutes ago, Copa said:

I’ve played American football in the US and I can tell you from experience they use the helmet like it is the tip of a human missile which undermines the entire point of wearing the helmet.

Yes, it’s crazy and it hurts. I found the hits to be bigger in American football compared to rugby league but the impact from the hit felt different. In US football I’d have less bruises etc but if you had the ball the stops were sudden, violent and generally more jarring.

Sometimes I didn’t know what was happening especially if being hit from multiple people at the same time. It was a blur.

[RP London]

16 minutes ago, Copa said:

They access the same database of research articles that the antivaxxers use to find their own research articles..

If a newspaper wants “hits” it has a bike helmet article and then opens it for comments.

in that case i'll pay them the same amount of respect as said antivaxxers deserve.

[Denton Rovers RLFC]

5 hours ago, Copa said:

I’ve played American football in the US and I can tell you from experience they use the helmet like it is the tip of a human missile which undermines the entire point of wearing the helmet.

Yup, classic risk compensation, it's displayed in all aspects of life but in competitive sport and youngsters it's at its most extreme, gridiron has been the most 'protected' sport and the resultant has been utterly disastrous. Studies in Ice Hockey in the US found even from the 60s and 70s that head/neck injuries went up post helmet/mask wearing though it reduced the number of cuts to the head, this is replicated in amateur boxing, concussions went up massively though there were more cuts. I'd sooner suffer lacerations than continually having my head battered and the resultant from that!

That's the sick thing, they've known for decades that wearing headgear does not ultimately work and that players take greater risk/do more harm in contact sports or activities were there is a higher chance of being struck/hitting ones own head (walking as a pedestrian for example which has a higher rate of head injury than cycling). And yet there's a continuance of the ignoring of the facts over decades, over many differing activities all leading to the same conclusion. In fact it's got worse, were blame to the victims of the crime/physical attack is being seen as the norm, absolving criminals and those that have done wrong. So instead of changing the behaviour of those doing the damage it's change the behaviour and the type of attire the victims/potential have to wear.

As I've said before it's like asking women to wear an anti-rape device to stop them from being raped but knowing that it doesn't work to protect women from being raped but the women still being blamed for being raped if they don't wear one. An extreme analogy but nonetheless it is correct.

I would also like to see how the concussion protocols are used in the other sports in that link upthread regarding suspending rugby due to head injuries. It's easy to simply look at numbers and state right, there's a problem, ban it. The rate of participation has a huge influence and how protocols with respect to concussions are implemented can make a significant difference in the stats.

With respect to those compiling the numbers, it doesn't actually make clear as to the actual numbers of concussions that have occurred and those that were suspected concussions as it lumps them altogether. What can be a neck injury, even heat exhaustion/dehydration could easily be listed as a concussion when it was actually something else that made a player go down and show symptoms (grabbing/putting their hands up to their head) particularly at a lower level when the accuracy may be slanted due to interpretation.

[RP London]

lets also remember that over the last decade or so the reporting mechanisms have got a lot better with the advent of t'interweb etc so all these cool stats about increases even though we have done xyz have to also be countered with the fact that the reporting and preparedness for people to admit they are hurt has also risen, which is a good thing.. 

stats on this from the anywhere before rule out many instances of players/people "just getting on with it".. its a major issue with these studies.. 

[Denton Rovers RLFC]

6 hours ago, RP London said:

got to ask... are you seriously suggesting that cyclists are better off NOT wearing a helmet?? is there some evidence you want to point at for this?

My understanding, from talking to healthcare professionals and a pro cycling team we supply with Energy Products, is that helmets stop very serious head damage and death from crashes at all levels (especially casual road and mountain biking) I know a few people who have had their lives saved from wearing a helmet, and looking at their helmet afterwards I would hate to see the state of their head if they had not been!

as this is all anecdotal if this is incorrect I would love to see the evidence against wearing one.

As a keen cyclist for over 35 years I will never ever wear a plastic hat, I am absolutely saying that you are better off without a helmet. ALL the global evidence proves this despite some very dodgy attempts by individuals organisations and even governments to force helmet wearing and stating they are essential for cycling. It couldn't be further from the truth!, The lies/distorting of the truth go so far as to changing the way the measures and what actually constitutes a head injury to get the result the 'researcher' wanted to achieve - given the one big name in so called cycle helmet meta-analysis is sponsored by a state gov that make millions of dollars from fining people not wearing helmets and using police to chase people on bikes not wearing a lid as opposed to the criminals in motors doing the harm.

it's hardly a surprise he will stop at nothing to slant the facts, he even makes up 'head injuries' by using cut lips/mouth injuries and injuries to ears in his counts at hospitals, despite the fact these could not be prevented by a helmet in most cases. This particular individual ignores sound/peer reviewed research and overstates/misinterprets research that was debunked - such as Thompson, Rivera and Thompson which is one of the better known helmet research papers which was proven to be a load of bulldust, yet this individual ignored his own professional protocols on meta-analysis at all avenues so that he could produce his resultant, he even came up with a differing format to prove his case using 'odds ratios'. It's perverse, yet he is allowed to continue with his lies and twisting of the facts, all to the detriment of those in his country which has an all age helmet law and is one of those countries that proves to us that helmets simply do not work due to the blanket use and that we had data pre helmet 'laws'

In professional and amateur racing and also non competition in all formats helmet wearing not only puts people off from cycling but there are increases in rates of injuries and incident numbers. Those who compete and children are at worse risk of harm when wearing helmets, they take far greater risk wearing than when they don't and from that are involved in more incidents. Due to the fact helmets are feeble and have a very, very low tested threshold as to the forces they can absorb and only in limited areas this is not enough to offset the increased risk of incident/injury through wearing.

Pro road cycling has shown a significant increase in deaths post compulsory helmet wearing and the crashes and traumatic injuries (to all body areas incl head). The old chestnut of 'a helmet saved my life' is simply not true, the forces involved that would kill you due to traumatic brain injury and even the forces on the skull massively exceed the tested limits in the lab in best case scenario.

That pedestrians show higher rates of head injury than unhelmeted cyclists shows us what a nonsense the whole cycle helmet thing is, on top of that the number of serious head injuries from the wider population dwarf serious head injuries from cycling, the vast majority of which are cased by criminal motorists. 1.3million reported head injuries in E&W, 160,000 hospitalisations. According to STATS19 there are just over 3100 serious cycling injuries in the UK, depending on which org you put weight to, serious head injuries from that are between  800-1200. Now compare that to those numbers I gave earlier. it would seem that all walks of life including motorists need helmets before people on bikes do.

That's just the start of it, it causes victim blaming, it diverts focus away from those that do the vast majority of the harm on our roads, police and CPS would never dream of blaming a parent of a child killed by a motorist either on a pavement or in a car when crashed into by a criminal motorist for not wearing a helmet, yet that's precisely what happens if it's a child on a bike. We know that children die of head injuries in cars more often than children on cycles of all injury types, something they don't like to talk about when it comes to motoring helmets!

Women is crushed by a lorry when the driver ignores her/doesn't look in his mirror and crosses a cycle lane, one of the first things mentioned is she wasn't wearing a helmet, now transpose that to a disabled person in a wheelchair on a footway (or pavement if you like), it would be heinous/disgusting to suggest that they might have survived if they'd have been wearing a helmet. Helmets twist the laws, the way the justice system is implemented and also compensation claims that are not applied in any other walk of life.

Cycle helmets to me are disgusting and the worse thing to happen in cycling since motors were allowed to go above 10mph

[RP London]

19 hours ago, Denton Rovers RLFC said:

As a keen cyclist for over 35 years I will never ever wear a plastic hat, I am absolutely saying that you are better off without a helmet. ALL the global evidence proves this despite some very dodgy attempts by individuals organisations and even governments to force helmet wearing and stating they are essential for cycling. It couldn't be further from the truth!, The lies/distorting of the truth go so far as to changing the way the measures and what actually constitutes a head injury to get the result the 'researcher' wanted to achieve - given the one big name in so called cycle helmet meta-analysis is sponsored by a state gov that make millions of dollars from fining people not wearing helmets and using police to chase people on bikes not wearing a lid as opposed to the criminals in motors doing the harm.

it's hardly a surprise he will stop at nothing to slant the facts, he even makes up 'head injuries' by using cut lips/mouth injuries and injuries to ears in his counts at hospitals, despite the fact these could not be prevented by a helmet in most cases. This particular individual ignores sound/peer reviewed research and overstates/misinterprets research that was debunked - such as Thompson, Rivera and Thompson which is one of the better known helmet research papers which was proven to be a load of bulldust, yet this individual ignored his own professional protocols on meta-analysis at all avenues so that he could produce his resultant, he even came up with a differing format to prove his case using 'odds ratios'. It's perverse, yet he is allowed to continue with his lies and twisting of the facts, all to the detriment of those in his country which has an all age helmet law and is one of those countries that proves to us that helmets simply do not work due to the blanket use and that we had data pre helmet 'laws'

In professional and amateur racing and also non competition in all formats helmet wearing not only puts people off from cycling but there are increases in rates of injuries and incident numbers. Those who compete and children are at worse risk of harm when wearing helmets, they take far greater risk wearing than when they don't and from that are involved in more incidents. Due to the fact helmets are feeble and have a very, very low tested threshold as to the forces they can absorb and only in limited areas this is not enough to offset the increased risk of incident/injury through wearing.

Pro road cycling has shown a significant increase in deaths post compulsory helmet wearing and the crashes and traumatic injuries (to all body areas incl head). The old chestnut of 'a helmet saved my life' is simply not true, the forces involved that would kill you due to traumatic brain injury and even the forces on the skull massively exceed the tested limits in the lab in best case scenario.

That pedestrians show higher rates of head injury than unhelmeted cyclists shows us what a nonsense the whole cycle helmet thing is, on top of that the number of serious head injuries from the wider population dwarf serious head injuries from cycling, the vast majority of which are cased by criminal motorists. 1.3million reported head injuries in E&W, 160,000 hospitalisations. According to STATS19 there are just over 3100 serious cycling injuries in the UK, depending on which org you put weight to, serious head injuries from that are between  800-1200. Now compare that to those numbers I gave earlier. it would seem that all walks of life including motorists need helmets before people on bikes do.

That's just the start of it, it causes victim blaming, it diverts focus away from those that do the vast majority of the harm on our roads, police and CPS would never dream of blaming a parent of a child killed by a motorist either on a pavement or in a car when crashed into by a criminal motorist for not wearing a helmet, yet that's precisely what happens if it's a child on a bike. We know that children die of head injuries in cars more often than children on cycles of all injury types, something they don't like to talk about when it comes to motoring helmets!

Women is crushed by a lorry when the driver ignores her/doesn't look in his mirror and crosses a cycle lane, one of the first things mentioned is she wasn't wearing a helmet, now transpose that to a disabled person in a wheelchair on a footway (or pavement if you like), it would be heinous/disgusting to suggest that they might have survived if they'd have been wearing a helmet. Helmets twist the laws, the way the justice system is implemented and also compensation claims that are not applied in any other walk of life.

Cycle helmets to me are disgusting and the worse thing to happen in cycling since motors were allowed to go above 10mph

oh... my.. word!

On 16/07/2019 at 10:41, Copa said:

They access the same database of research articles that the antivaxxers use to find their own research articles..

If a newspaper wants “hits” it has a bike helmet article and then opens it for comments.

you weren't wrong! 

[Denton Rovers RLFC]

1 hour ago, RP London said:

oh... my.. word!

you weren't wrong! 

So you have zero proof of what you you clearly think is correct, just make a silly comment and talk about something utterly different? Would you like me to present all of mine to show that you're 100% wrong with regards to cycle helmets, no, because people like you don't want to get into a proper discussion about a serious matter that effects everyone, even if you drive.

Your type would rather stick their heads in the sand like anti vaccine people, ignore all incontrovertible evidence not just from one country but EVERY country, ignore the findings of Ben Goldacre Wellcome research fellow in epidemiology and David Spiegelhalter -Winton professor for the public understanding of risk who both state that in best case scenario cycle helmets have precisely ZERO effect on cycle safety. People like you will ignore the evidence shown not just in cycling but in other sports with regards to head protection garments that they increase the dangers to wearers.

Yup, I know your type, plenty on waffle and zero on evidence except from those that have a vested interest to 'prove' what they wanted to find from the outset, give weight to peer reviewed research that was shown to be massively flawed (and did not, nor could not stand up to scrutiny when the actual stats themselves show us otherwise) and using methodology that has been slated at every avenue and the about turn in terms of the researchers own professional protocols for meta-analysis..

Go do some actual research on the subject matter, you can start at cyclehelmets.org if you like or here is a blog post that links a few other bits and bobs and talks about the reasons why the much used Thompson et al 'research' was a load of bunk 9and indeed why Jake Olivier should not be referencing this and using it in his meta-analysis amongst many other bogus bits of research https://theskepticalcardiologist.com/category/bike-ridinghelmets/

[Denton Rovers RLFC]

On 16/07/2019 at 10:25, Copa said:

I’ve seen this claimed elsewhere too. You’ve opened the most amazing can of confirmation bias you’ve ever seen by taking on the anti bike helmet lobby.

It’s truly a sight to behold.

"confirmation bias", hahahaha, that'd be the people wanting to force you to wear a cycle helmet right, the people that want to penalise you and remove your innate human rights? The anti bike helmet lobby as you so gracelessly call it is in fact doing precisely the opposite than the zealots who insidiously push cycle helmets but ignore all world data and HAVE massively increase danger for human beings.

Why don't you allay yourself of the actual facts instead of attacking people who have everyone's best interests at heart, particularly those who are subjected to attack whether on a sports field or on the highway or elsewhere?

I presume you made your kids wear helmets whenever the got in a car or walk to school, to the shops given the actual risks involved, you wouldn't want to be a hypocrite eh!

[RP London]

9 minutes ago, Denton Rovers RLFC said:

So you have zero proof of what you you clearly think is correct, just make a silly comment and talk about something utterly different? Would you like me to present all of mine to show that you're 100% wrong with regards to cycle helmets, no, because people like you don't want to get into a proper discussion about a serious matter that effects everyone, even if you drive.

Your type would rather stick their heads in the sand like anti vaccine people, ignore all incontrovertible evidence not just from one country but EVERY country, ignore the findings of Ben Goldacre Wellcome research fellow in epidemiology and David Spiegelhalter -Winton professor for the public understanding of risk who both state that in best case scenario cycle helmets have precisely ZERO effect on cycle safety. People like you will ignore the evidence shown not just in cycling but in other sports with regards to head protection garments that they increase the dangers to wearers.

Yup, I know your type, plenty on waffle and zero on evidence except from those that have a vested interest to 'prove' what they wanted to find from the outset, give weight to peer reviewed research that was shown to be massively flawed (and did not, nor could not stand up to scrutiny when the actual stats themselves show us otherwise) and using methodology that has been slated at every avenue and the about turn in terms of the researchers own professional protocols for meta-analysis..

Go do some actual research on the subject matter, you can start at cyclehelmets.org if you like or here is a blog post that links a few other bits and bobs and talks about the reasons why the much used Thompson et al 'research' was a load of bunk 9and indeed why Jake Olivier should not be referencing this and using it in his meta-analysis amongst many other bogus bits of research https://theskepticalcardiologist.com/category/bike-ridinghelmets/

I'll go with the doctors, nurses, consultants, neuro specialists and pro riders I have talked to over that bunch of twaddle you have spouted thanks. 

You havent given me anything else.. apart from disproving 1-2 articles or data points which happens with all types of science.. 

I actually asked you to send me some evidence..  "my type" is someone who would like to see said evidence rather than listening to what can only be described as rantings.

but hey ho.. you've had a good go with you "expert opinion"