04/25/24
January 28, 2008
CFL'ers prompt study on ALS link: Through the CFL Player's Association, Proudfoot discovered that at least eight out of about 15,000 all time CFL players have been diagnosed with ALS. In the general population, it affects 2 of about 100,000 people at any given time. Most die from two to five years after diagnosis and its causes are unknown.
posted by tommytrump to general at 11:05 PM - 10 comments
Rumple, why criticize any angle they want to work? Thats like saying people who got their water from a certain source who had a high cancer rate, didnt warrent testing of the water because some of them smoke. When we are talking about life threatening (or in this case life-taking) disease, you cant just half-ass it and pick the cause you think is most likely without studying. They need to explore all options. I say good for that doctor. i hope they find a cause and cure in time to help some of the people who have it now.
posted by elijahin24 at 12:15 AM on January 29, 2008
No, I really did think it was interesting they suggest pesticides and not just head trauma. I like they aren't just blaming it on 20 years of banging your head. Seriously. I am criticising the paper for not presenting the facts very well. What is the rate for middle age to retired men - this matters because the disease disproportionately affects men vs women, and it seldom affects people under the age of 30. So: retired football players are the main demographic for ALS, and if you were to factor out women and people under 30, the apparent CFL discrepancy may be statisticallly insignificant, or less so. Interestingly, there were/are at least three former San Francisco 49ers with the disease
posted by rumple at 12:31 AM on January 29, 2008
I agree with rumple. The numbers presented here are just not statistically significant. Yes, there does appear to have been a higher rate among CFL, but clusters like this often appear entirely by chance. There may be a link, and further study might find something, but from this information alone, it is irresponsible to claim a causation. Back when I was in high school, the school newspaper reported a story of a cancer cluster among teachers who had regularly taught in the temporary classrooms (which had been there for 25 years). An air quality testing in the rooms found that there were slightly increased levels of a compund which some some studies found to be a carcinogen. It turned out that three recently retired teachers had been diagnosed with completely different types of cancer. Further assessment showed that the levels of the possible carcinogen were far below what studies had shown was enough to be dangerous. Nevertheless, the fear that was spread by the "journalism" of proclaiming a cancer cluster caused its own damage.
posted by Chargdres at 09:49 AM on January 29, 2008
Unlike cancer, we dont have much to go on as to what causes ALS. If there are a higher percentage of retired players from the CFL, as opposed to people of the same age group who sell insurance, or work in a factory, then yes, that is significant. If for no other reason than it gives doctors a new place to look for clues. it could be nothing, but it could be huge. I cant believe you guys are shrugging of a possible clue to unlocking one of the most tragic diseases on earth. is it because such a small percentage of the population has it compared to AIDS or cancer? Im not saying this is where the answer will be found but it could be.
posted by elijahin24 at 10:02 AM on January 29, 2008
then yes, that is significant No. It can be a number of things and it may be a clue, but it is not statistically significant because you say it is. No one is shrugging off anything; that's nonsense. What people are saying is that journalism, especially layman medical journalism, is often loaded with crap statistical analysis. For an example, take a look at the problems in this explanation of Bayesian Reasoning:
1% of women at age forty who participate in routine screening have breast cancer. 80% of women with breast cancer will get positive mammographies. 9.6% of women without breast cancer will also get positive mammographies. A woman in this age group had a positive mammography in a routine screening. What is the probability that she actually has breast cancer?
posted by yerfatma at 10:15 AM on January 29, 2008
I should point out I'm not trying to turn this into yet another discussion of statistics. Just that I hate to see Rumple & Chargdres' point dismissed with a simplistic "Why do you hate these poor sufferers" argument.
posted by yerfatma at 11:02 AM on January 29, 2008
Elijahin, like yerfatma said, I am not just dismissing something that may be a clue. What I am saying is that journalism is often sensationalist, and reporting about a possible new cure which has shaky evidence is common. Think about the lead ins for TV news, where they say "could chocolate cure diabetes? Stay tuned for a report on this and more." The reason I have dismissed this is that it appears to me that there is a misuse of statistics backing the article. If down the road, studies in peer review publications point towards this as being potentially valid, then I could accept the importance of these figures. However, I remain very sceptical of that right now.
posted by Chargdres at 11:40 AM on January 29, 2008
I think the journalism is irrelivant to the situation. Actually, no i dont. i think sensational journalism is usually negative, but in this case somone with ALS can read this and gain some level of hope from it. Thats a good thing. And in this case what is the real harm?
posted by elijahin24 at 08:02 PM on January 29, 2008
If it's false hope.
posted by yerfatma at 06:29 AM on January 30, 2008
But, what is the rate for middle age men in the general population? That 8/15,000 (say, 45/100,000) sounds significant compared to 2/100,000 in the "general population". But the general population includes a lot of baby girls, etc. I am sure the doctors know about this confound, but the reporters could do a better job with this obvious point. In any case, interesting article, especially since the doctor suggests it may have something to do with pesticides, when the more obvious working hypothesis is head trauma. And, really sad about Proudfoot.