Thread by @WillStewNeuro

This is thoughtful thread from @SteveFainaru and underscores many of the issues raised in our @TheLancetNeuro Correspondence

1/

thelancet.com/journals/laneu…

https://twitter.com/SteveFainaru/status/1096525112872816640

In essence, the discussion on #CTE has been polarised as:
Either
- #CTE is fully defined disease, its recognition at autopsy is a simple 'yes' or 'no' decision and prevalence is know to be high
Or
- any other view = #CTE denier = in league with sport

No middle ground
2/

So, when >60 international experts note that the answer to many of the most important questions in #CTE is 'we don't know', and that this uncertainty should be acknowledged in reporting, the assumption is the authors must represent Option 2 and this is #CTE denial

3/

This (false) assumption creates confusion- have I not reported that #TBI and #CTE are linked? But now, on the back of the letter, I'm (wrongly) viewed as denier.
Does this mean I've changed my opinion?
A brief glance at my research outputs clears that up
gbirg.inp.gla.ac.uk/publications/

Again, in the 401 word Correspondence, there is NO denial of #CTE from the over 60 authors. Quite the opposite

5/

And a glance at the authorship, and CoI statements, should reassure this is a broad, international representation of specialities and interests in #TBI and #CTE asking for balance in reporting on theses issues, not lone voices with some agenda and in league with sport

6/

And, finally, apologies to @KevinGuskiewicz who is not an author on the letter, but that hasn't stopped him being dragged into the debate. Not sure why