Karius' concussion

[Imploding Turtle]

26 out of 30 tests for concussion were positive.

https://www.bild.de/wa/ll/bild-de/unang ... .bild.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This might have been the incident that caused it, 2 minutes before the Benzema mistake - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9aEIHbKXbI" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here's the reddit thread about the Bild article.
https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comment ... _30_tests/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Wile E Coyote]

hopefully no recurring damage from that collision, and if its the case he was concussed, it should stop some of the criticism and allow him to regain his shattered confidence.

[Stalbansclaret]

And enable Liverpool to regain their shattered player valuation !

[Imploding Turtle]

And enable Liverpool to regain their shattered player valuation !

When cynicism trumps science.

[aggi]

It does seem a little strange that it was only picked up 5 days afterwards at a hospital in the US.

[Imploding Turtle]

It does seem a little strange that it was only picked up 5 days afterwards at a hospital in the US.

Well it's not the most immediately obvious of injuries. It's pretty easy to imagine symptoms existing for a number of days afterwards before medical advice was sought.

[Bin Ont Turf]

It reminds me of parents saying 'but he's got ADHD' for their sons being absolute little sh1ts.

[Wile E Coyote]

like most drama in football, its quickly forgotten about fortunately, hes a young bloke, I hope it just becomes seen as a bad day at the office and he moves on.

[claptrappers_union]

Makes you wonder, how many footballers complete a match with concussion?

Theres normally at least 1 player who takes a bang to the noggin every 3 games or so, and usually appear much worse than what Karius had.

[bobinho]

Utter, utter ********.

He’s ****. He had another **** game when it REALLY mattered. Liverpool dropped a bollock by not dropping Karius when they (and everyone else on the planet, except Karius’ mum) realised he was ****.

Talk about clutching at straws... (or clutching at thin air)

[tim_noone]

Utter, utter ********.

He’s ****. He had another **** game when it REALLY mattered. Liverpool dropped a bollock by not dropping Karius when they (and everyone else on the planet, except Karius’ mum) realised he was ****.

Talk about clutching at straws... (or clutching at thin air)

I take it your not convinced...

[Claretuk]

Utter, utter ********.

He’s ****. He had another **** game when it REALLY mattered. Liverpool dropped a bollock by not dropping Karius when they (and everyone else on the planet, except Karius’ mum) realised he was ****.

Talk about clutching at straws... (or clutching at thin air)

How much has karius paid the doctor for this bull story! He's finished @ Liverpool now, awful keeper end of..

[starting_11]

The funny thing is... the scousers went into this game thinking they could ACTUALLY win it... and even worse, seem SUPRISED that they didn't!

[Shore claret]

Can concussion only be found American doctors? do Liverpool not have a Doctor on staff that can diagnose concussion.

[Imploding Turtle]

Some people are weird. Why would your own opinion be more important to you than a scientific finding?

[mdd2]

Some people are weird. Why would your own opinion be more important to you than a scientific finding?

Triple vaccine linked to autism, Ernest Saunders of Guinness fame (look him up if you don't remember) has dementia and there will be many others

[Falcon]

Triple vaccine linked to autism, Ernest Saunders of Guinness fame (look him up if you don't remember) has dementia and there will be many others

Given 99% of scientists rightly call the 'vaccine linked to autism' a load of cow dung I hardly think that's a fair example to bash scientific process with

[Imploding Turtle]

I thought mdd2 was joking.

[Right_winger]

For me Karius actually is a good keeper 90% of the time and can pull of some athletic shot stopping. It’s just that other 10% where he loses concentration and drops a bollock that costs him. He does also seem to have a bit of Lee Grant about him whilst parrying shots straight back to where they’ve came from.

As for the concussion surely Liverpool have a highly qualified medical team dynamically assessing their players as the match progresses, seems a bit of a planted story to protect the players value to me.

[NottsClaret]

I read this morning that Liverpool owner John Henry is a former trustee and a current investor in a big hospital in the US. Fans of conspiracies will note this is the same hospital which picked up on this previously undiagnosed concussion.

[UpTheBeehole]

Triple vaccine linked to autism

Wow, you really believed that?

You haven't seen the reams of work debunking the one fraudulent doctor who invented that myth?

Wow.

[Imploding Turtle]

For me Karius actually is a good keeper 90% of the time and can pull of some athletic shot stopping. It’s just that other 10% where he loses concentration and drops a bollock that costs him. He does also seem to have a bit of Lee Grant about him whilst parrying shots straight back to where they’ve came from.

As for the concussion surely Liverpool have a highly qualified medical team dynamically assessing their players as the match progresses, seems a bit of a planted story to protect the players value to me.

But that requires that the Sports Concussion Clinic as MassGeneral Hospital has doctors who would publicly lie. Why would they do that?

And are you suggesting that if a Liverpool FC doctor had said this that you'd believe them more, and trust their mid-match findings more than brain scans and medical tests conducted by doctors not on the LFC staff?

It's a bit weird to claim that doctors in America are protecting Karius' value, but that you'd instead trust a doctor who is on the LFC payroll.

[mdd2]

Given 99% of scientists rightly call the 'vaccine linked to autism' a load of cow dung I hardly think that's a fair example to bash scientific process with

Falcon the damage done by that research took ages to reverse because once in the public domain many people believed it just as many will believe rightly or wrongly that this keeper was genuinely concussed-and it will never be possible to know if his inability to deliver a ball to his team mate or catch a ball was due to him being "concussed" or being a poor keeper.

[Imploding Turtle]

Falcon the damage done by that research took ages to reverse because once in the public domain many people believed it just as many will believe rightly or wrongly that this keeper was genuinely concussed-and it will never be possible to know if his inability to deliver a ball to his team mate or catch a ball was due to him being "concussed" or being a poor keeper.

That's not a failure of the science. That's a failure of the idiots who refuse to accept the science.

[andyh]

Concussed or not it doesn’t matter. If concussed he should have told someone he was having problems. If not he is just a bad keeper. I will be delighted if he is in goal when we play them next season.

[utc1882]

hes **** anyway doesn't make a difference

[Imploding Turtle]

Concussed or not it doesn’t matter. If concussed he should have told someone he was having problems.

Can you imagine a reason a person with concussion would make such a poor decision? I'll wait.

[NottsClaret]

He let one slip through his hands, almost identically against Roma. He got lucky that time and it pinged back off the bar instead. If it's not too late, can we get John Henry's medical guys to have a look at some brain scans from that game too, just to make doubly sure he's not just a bit s***e.

[AlargeClaret]

This stinks of a PR agent led exercise ,combined with him being left out of German squad and it’s also idea to help his valuation from plummeting after the blunders.

He waits 5 days after the event while on hol in the US.I don’t wish the guy Ill being a keeper Is a rollercoaster ride but this stinks the place out.Not a mention after the game from the club or club doctors

“Dr Ross Zafonte said it was "possible" the injury "would affect performance".

He came to his conclusion after reviewing "game film", a "physical examination" and "objective metrics".

[AlargeClaret]

I’ve every respect for the American specialists but at the very least this looks like a damage limitation /mitigation job,conveniently released to the world press.
Karius is a very athletic keeper indeed just has that “ switch off” thing that catches ( pun intended ) him out

[UpTheBeehole]

This stinks of a PR agent led exercise ,combined with him being left out of German squad and it’s also idea to help his valuation from plummeting after the blunders.

He's never been in a Germany squad, so not exactly a case of him being 'left out'

[mdd2]

That's not a failure of the science. That's a failure of the idiots who refuse to accept the science.

Of course it was a failure of science in so far the results were published in a peer reviewed journal and the research took an age to be effectively rubbished and in the mean time many parents stopped vaccinating their children and as a result some of those children died-so I would not callparents idiots for not being able to decide. It was a full 12 years before the Lancet published a retraction of the 1998 paper.

[andyh]

Can you imagine a reason a person with concussion would make such a poor decision? I'll wait.

I been concussed. I knew I wasn’t in a fit state to get back on my bike. You on the other hand seem to always have muddled thinking so perhaps you would not be able to tell.

[Imploding Turtle]

Of course it was a failure of science in so far the results were published in a peer reviewed journal and the research took an age to be effectively rubbished and in the mean time many parents stopped vaccinating their children and as a result some of those children died-so I would not callparents idiots for not being able to decide. It was a full 12 years before the Lancet published a retraction of the 1998 paper.

It was a failure of the peer-review process at the Lancet, not of science or the scientific method over all. Wakefield didn't do science and he didn't follow the scientific method. He falsified scientific data and the peer-review process didn't pick up on it. It was the scientific method that proved his findings were fraudulent, and that method took time.

[Imploding Turtle]

I been concussed. I knew I wasn’t in a fit state to get back on my bike. You on the other hand seem to always have muddled thinking so perhaps you would not be able to tell.

Thankfully all concussions are the same.

[Wokingclaret]

More like he was suffering from Stress

[KeighleyClaret]

Explains everything. I got a bang on the head aged 9 and was rubbish at football thereafter. Could have played for England otherwise.

[mdd2]

It was a failure of the peer-review process at the Lancet, not of science or the scientific method over all. Wakefield didn't do science and he didn't follow the scientific method. He falsified scientific data and the peer-review process didn't pick up on it. It was the scientific method that proved his findings were fraudulent, and that method took time.

And the people who peer review scientific research are respected workers in the field they are asked to review and in this case were hoodwinked and it took about 12 years to debunk the original research.
IT we will have to agree to differ

[UpTheBeehole]

Authored by Andrew Wakefield and 12 others, the paper’s scientific limitations were clear when it appeared in 1998.2 3 As the ensuing vaccine scare took off, critics quickly pointed out that the paper was a small case series with no controls, linked three common conditions, and relied on parental recall and beliefs.4 Over the following decade, epidemiological studies consistently found no evidence of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism.5 6 7 8 By the time the paper was finally retracted 12 years later,9 after forensic dissection at the General Medical Council’s (GMC) longest ever fitness to practise hearing,10 few people could deny that it was fatally flawed both scientifically and ethically. But it has taken the diligent scepticism of one man, standing outside medicine and science, to show that the paper was in fact an elaborate fraud.

In a series of articles starting this week, and seven years after first looking into the MMR scare, journalist Brian Deer now shows the extent of Wakefield’s fraud and how it was perpetrated (doi:10.1136/bmj.c5347). Drawing on interviews, documents, and data made public at the GMC hearings, Deer shows how Wakefield altered numerous facts about the patients’ medical histories in order to support his claim to have identified a new syndrome; how his institution, the Royal Free Hospital and Medical School in London, supported him as he sought to exploit the ensuing MMR scare for financial gain; and how key players failed to investigate thoroughly in the public interest when Deer first raised his concerns.11

Deer published his first investigation into Wakefield’s paper in 2004.12 This uncovered the possibility of research fraud, unethical treatment of children, and Wakefield’s conflict of interest through his involvement with a lawsuit against manufacturers of the MMR vaccine. Building on these findings, the GMC launched its own proceedings that focused on whether the research was ethical. But while the disciplinary panel was examining the children’s medical records in public, Deer compared them with what was published in the Lancet. His focus was now on whether the research was true.

The Office of Research Integrity in the United States defines fraud as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism.13 Deer unearthed clear evidence of falsification. He found that not one of the 12 cases reported in the 1998 Lancet paper was free of misrepresentation or undisclosed alteration, and that in no single case could the medical records be fully reconciled with the descriptions, diagnoses, or histories published in the journal.

Who perpetrated this fraud? There is no doubt that it was Wakefield. Is it possible that he was wrong, but not dishonest: that he was so incompetent that he was unable to fairly describe the project, or to report even one of the 12 children’s cases accurately? No. A great deal of thought and effort must have gone into drafting the paper to achieve the results he wanted: the discrepancies all led in one direction; misreporting was gross. Moreover, although the scale of the GMC’s 217 day hearing precluded additional charges focused directly on the fraud, the panel found him guilty of dishonesty concerning the study’s admissions criteria, its funding by the Legal Aid Board, and his statements about it afterwards.14

Furthermore, Wakefield has been given ample opportunity either to replicate the paper’s findings, or to say he was mistaken. He has declined to do either. He refused to join 10 of his coauthors in retracting the paper’s interpretation in 2004,15 and has repeatedly denied doing anything wrong at all. Instead, although now disgraced and stripped of his clinical and academic credentials, he continues to push his views.16

Meanwhile the damage to public health continues, fuelled by unbalanced media reporting and an ineffective response from government, researchers, journals, and the medical profession.17 18 Although vaccination rates in the United Kingdom have recovered slightly from their 80% low in 2003-4,19 they are still below the 95% level recommended by the World Health Organization to ensure herd immunity. In 2008, for the first time in 14 years, measles was declared endemic in England and Wales.20 Hundreds of thousands of children in the UK are currently unprotected as a result of the scare, and the battle to restore parents’ trust in the vaccine is ongoing.

Any effect of the scare on the incidence of mumps remains in question. In epidemics in the UK, the US, and the Netherlands, peak prevalence was in 18-24 year olds, of whom 70-88% had been immunised with at least one dose of the MMR vaccine.21 22 Any consequence of a fall in uptake after 1998 may not become apparent until the cohorts of children affected reach adolescence. One clue comes from an outbreak in a school in Essen, Germany, attended by children whose parents were opposed to vaccinations. Of the 71 children infected with mumps, 68 had not been immunised.23

But perhaps as important as the scare’s effect on infectious disease is the energy, emotion, and money that have been diverted away from efforts to understand the real causes of autism and how to help children and families who live with it.24

There are hard lessons for many in this highly damaging saga. Firstly, for the coauthors. The GMC panel was clear that it was Wakefield alone who wrote the final version of the paper. His coauthors seem to have been unaware of what he was doing under the cover of their names and reputations. As the GMC panel heard, they did not even know which child was which in the paper’s patient anonymised text and tables. However, this does not absolve them. Although only two (John Walker-Smith and Simon Murch) were charged by the GMC, and only one, the paper’s senior author Walker-Smith, was found guilty of misconduct, they all failed in their duties as authors. The satisfaction of adding to one’s CV must never detract from the responsibility to ensure that one has been neither party to nor duped by a fraud. This means that coauthors will have to check the source data of studies more thoroughly than many do at present—or alternatively describe in a contributor’s statement precisely which bits of the source data they take responsibility for.

Secondly, research ethics committees should not only scrutinise proposals but have systems to check that what is done is what was permitted (with an audit trail for any changes) and work to a governance procedure that can impose sanctions where an eventual publication proves this was not the case. Finally, there are lessons for the Royal Free Hospital, the Lancet, and the wider scientific community. These will be considered in forthcoming articles.

What of Wakefield’s other publications? In light of this new information their veracity must be questioned. Past experience tells us that research misconduct is rarely isolated behaviour.25 Over the years, the BMJ and its sister journals Gut and Archives of Disease in Childhood have published a number of articles, including letters and abstracts, by Wakefield and colleagues. We have written to the vice provost of UCL, John Tooke, who now has responsibility for Wakefield’s former institution, to ask for an investigation into all of his work to decide whether any more papers should be retracted.

The Lancet paper has of course been retracted, but for far narrower misconduct than is now apparent. The retraction statement cites the GMC’s findings that the patients were not consecutively referred and the study did not have ethical approval, leaving the door open for those who want to continue to believe that the science, flawed though it always was, still stands. We hope that declaring the paper a fraud will close that door for good.

https://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452

[Wokingclaret]

New Keeper please

[mdd2]

Science is at once the most questioning and . . . sceptical of activities and also the most trusting,” said Arnold Relman, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, in 1989. “It is intensely sceptical about the possibility of error, but totally trusting about the possibility of fraud.”

[keith1879]

That's not a failure of the science. That's a failure of the idiots who refuse to accept the science.

100% agree. I have a deeply autistic son and so took a lot of interest in this case. Right from the start it was apparent that the overwhelming view from scientists and anyone who took a properly challenging approach was that Wakefield had got it wrong. It was journalists (including the appalling Melanie Philips) and politicians seeking publicity who supported him. Unfortunately these days you have to consider whether supposed science is the real thing .....but public opinion won't help you.

[JohnMac]

Don't worry, dropping some hefty clangers didn't stop Joe Hart over the following 9 years.

[dsr]

Triple vaccine linked to autism, Ernest Saunders of Guinness fame (look him up if you don't remember) has dementia and there will be many others

Thalidomide and vCJD from mad cows would be better examples of how scientific theories can be properly tested and peer reviewed and still be wrong. The autism one was never mainstream, and Ernest Saunders' doctor or doctors, while presumably crooked, incompetent, or just plain wrong, weren't peer reviewed.

[South West Claret.]

Well it's not the most immediately obvious of injuries. It's pretty easy to imagine symptoms existing for a number of days afterwards before medical advice was sought.

This is true.

[NRC]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=af6nDyA2uAs As howlers go it's not even up there. Here for context. I personally think #10 should be higher. Not so much stupid, but arrogance

[RocketLawnChair]

Unfortunately for the scousers the Highly Skilled, Highly Trained ,Highly paid, Liverpool FC medical staff didn't pick up on this concussion imminently. They could have told him he was Dino Zoff and fired him back out there.

[Imploding Turtle]

Unfortunately for the scousers the Highly Skilled, Highly Trained ,Highly paid, Liverpool FC medical staff didn't pick up on this concussion imminently. They could have told him he was Dino Zoff and fired him back out there.

No one saw the incident with Ramos that probably caused it. When do you think they'd have had time to examine him if play wasn't stopped?

[Wokingclaret]

Nothing wrong with him after that incident, got up immediately and he was complaining to the ref.

[Wokingclaret]

Due to all the STRESS of his mistakes, its no wonder he was feeling so unwell afterwards, definitely enough to go to hospital! That's what stress does.