The year is 1994,
The National Football League is in a state of panic. An avalanche of serious concussions has knocked several profit-generating players into early retirement – and they are not happy about it.
As a result of the growing epidemic, a scientific committee created by the NFL set out to investigate the impact of concussions on the players' health. From 1996 to 2001, a league-wide investigation covering 887 shocks; analyzed under various parameters serves as the solid foundation supporting the League's downplay of the condition's magnitude.
The players, outraged, proceeded to sue the League accusing them of covering up what they knew about the dangers of repeated hits to the head. The case settled in 2013 when the NFL agreed to pay $765 million to 4,500 players and their families.
''The settlement, announced Thursday, will be seen as a victory for the league, which has nearly $10 billion in annual revenue and faced the possibility of billions of dollars in liability payments and a discovery phase that could have proved damaging if the case had moved forward. ''
For 13 years now, the NFL has stood by its research, which has been praised by the committee for the completeness of the data. The findings, published in 13 peer-reviewed articles, which in academic publishing grants you scientific immunity, served as legal evidence to prove that brain injuries did not cause long-term harm to its players.
Today, however, the New-York times revealed after further investigation of the data that the studies omitted more than 100 concussions from their calculations – including some severe injuries to stars like Steve Young and Troy Aikman.
For anyone suffering from severe post-concussion symptoms and has not benefited any of the multi-million dollar settlement, this new data could serve as substantial evidence against the NFL and its scientific committee.
“Settlement on concussions not gonna make up for early death, forgetting kids name and rest of stuff that come w/ brain trauma,” Aaron Curry, a former NFL player who was not part of the lawsuit said on Twitter. ''
How much money is your brain worth to you?
Follow the saga @ http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/25/sports/football/nfl-concussion-research-tobacco.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur
The War on Fat
It wouldn't be the first time Scientific authorities omit crucial data from important reports. In the 1950's, as soldiers returned home from a gruesome war, a new villain emerged - heart disease.
In a desperate attempt to identify a culprit, the American government turned to Ancel Keys, a charismatic scientist who had studied the influence of diet on cardiovascular health in 22 countries around the world.
In his study, Keys found a correlation between saturated fat and the incidence of heart disease in 7 of the 22 countries. Such findings seemed compelling enough for him to publish The Seven Countries Study in 1958, where he coined saturated as the culprit behind the epidemic, completely ignoring countries where fat consumption was high with low rates of heart disease, such as Norway and Holland, and those with higher rates albeit lower fat consumption.
Although the scientific community and the American Medical Association criticised the flawed study, Keys found political support from Senator George McGovern, a presidential candidate, who in 1977 published the first Dietary Guidelines for Americans advising the population against the consumption of saturated fat.
The rest is history.
Similar to the War on Drugs, the War on Fat been nothing short of a failure. Additionally, saturated has been exonerated by science. What a world we live in.
Lacking evidence, political & corporate corruption, and questionable Science – is this Making a Murderer?