Bennett hit on Stolarz (no supplemental discipline) MOD WARNING IN POST #621

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, it is. I read the study in its entirety. Do you have any way to refute this other than just repeatedly stating the same thing over and over?

Multiple people in this thread being blatantly unable to understand a scientific study isn't evidence that you're all right.

Since you are so sure you understand the study, can you explain to me what the 72% statistic in the study does represent? Since you keep claiming the dude on Twitter was manipulating it. OK, in that case, what is the true meaning of the statistic?
If you believe 72% of incidents where people shake their head like that after head contact or movement is indicative of a concussion, I can't help you. Best of luck. Still isn't what that study proves at all either.

As I said earlier, quick alert the media! Run the story right after the red wine makes you live longer segment. Then again 2 weeks later after the red wine kills you sooner segment to be safe. Gotta make the public aware! Get it? Fun with numbers and appeal to authority fallacy. Maybe look that up. Decades upon decades of actual research across civilizations.
 
If you believe 72% of incidents where people shake their head like that after head contact or movement is indicative of a concussion, I can't help you. Best of luck. Still isn't what that study proves at all either.

As I said earlier, quick alert the media! Run the story right after the red wine makes you live longer segment. Then again 2 weeks later after the red wine kills you sooner segment to be safe. Gotta make the public aware! Get it?
Right, so you have zero clue what the study is saying, and once again your only argument is just stating you are right. This is kind of embarrassing, I'm sorry I had to put you in the spotlight like this.

I didn't say that I believe 72% of all incidents where people shake their heads means they have a concussion, because I'm not going to make conclusions off a single small sample-size retrospective survey based study. At the same time, I recognize that the study did exactly prove that 72% statistic in their own cohort, and I can recognize that the study serves as a good basis for future work evaluating this SHAAKE phenomenon and that this might end up being an important symptom of concussion in the future.

Currently on your 10th iteration of blindly stating that's not what the study proves, without at all engaging with why that's the case. Are you capable whatsoever of engaging with the content and refuting anything using reasoning, instead of just repeating you are correct over and over?

The media sensationalizing research has nothing to do with the points we are discussing here. Why are you discussing irrelevant topics? Could it be because you actually have zero ability to read and understand a scientific study?
 
Thanks, I hadn't seen that. Even still, I would like to hear it from from an MD first before taking it as fact, but I'm much more open to it.
As an MD I can tell you we are no more qualified to make any statement on whether this is predictive of concussion than this guy is, given he is the one that has identified this as a potential marker of concussion. Future work could show that it's not predictive at all, but his is the only study that's even looked at it, so it's hard to say either way. It certainly is a promising thing to look at.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Ad

Ad