Washington Post article: scientific consensus is mainstream CTE facts are exaggerated, misleading

[FirstAndGoal]

Actually, I find the title of this thread to be a bit misleading from my interpretation of the article. If you actually examine the article, the criticism is focused on Omalu's claims and counters to his claims and zealotism but not on the actual research. The largest dispute seems to be the diagnosis of the disease by Omalu and his profiteering of it which may be true but needs to be separate from the actual research being conducted on the condition. I'm not disputing the fact Omalu might be overstating his role.

I believe the thread title was taken from the following quote since it's the only mention similar to the title. Notice that they don't say mainstream facts and the key word being "known" in the quote. I don't know the true risks but nowhere did I interpret the research concluding the disease's risks and only found the criticism of Omalu's research and claims in question. If you read the quote closely, you'll also see that the 50 experts and 100 paper criticism is about Omalu's claims and not about the actual research. I don't think Omalu's claims are the mainstream conclusions so we should be careful about dismissing what might be valid information based on criticism of a him and his personal claims.

Omalu, the man considered by many the public face of CTE research, routinely exaggerates his accomplishments and dramatically overstates the known risks of CTE and contact sports, fueling misconceptions about the disease, according to interviews with more than 50 experts in neurodegenerative disease and brain injuries, and a review of more than 100 papers from peer-reviewed medical journals.

 

[moosekill]

Yeah I got that, but I couldn't resist the knee-jerk reaction given the idiotic climate position this administration has fostered on us

Coming from the guy who just admitted to multiple head traumas. ;-)

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Actually, I find the title of this thread to be a bit misleading from my interpretation of the article. If you actually examine the article, the criticism is focused on Omalu's claims and counters to his claims and zealotism but not on the actual research. The largest dispute seems to be the diagnosis of the disease by Omalu and his profiteering of it which may be true but needs to be separate from the actual research being conducted on the condition. I'm not disputing the fact Omalu might be overstating his role.

I believe the thread title was taken from the following quote since it's the only mention similar to the title. Notice that they don't say mainstream facts and the key word being "known" in the quote. I don't know the true risks but nowhere did I interpret the research concluding the disease's risks and only found the criticism of Omalu's research and claims in question. If you read the quote closely, you'll also see that the 50 experts and 100 paper criticism is about Omalu's claims and not about the actual research. I don't think Omalu's claims are the mainstream conclusions so we should be careful about dismissing what might be valid information based on criticism of a him and his personal claims.

Fair enough..what do you think thread title should be? I will gladly change it. I struggled to come up with one.

 

[Bobsyouruncle]

Fair enough..what do you think thread title should be? I will gladly change it. I struggled to come up with one.

The title is fine.