On August 8th, Irv Muchnick posted on Concussion Inc. an exclusive story about the possible “smoking gun” that the plaintiffs (former NFL players) now have in their pocket regarding concussion information in the pending law suit. The basics of the argument the former players have is the NFL knowingly disregarded information about player safety as it pertains to long-term effects of concussions;
Now comes a new piece of the puzzle: discovery of a 1975 article in the journal The Lancet, entitled “Cumulative Effect of Concussion.” Historically, The Lancet is rivaled only by the Journal of the American Medical Association as the most widely quoted source in all of clinical literature. It does not seem credible that such findings could have escaped the close attention of the NFL’s Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Committee.
The article in the 22 November 1975 issue of The Lancet was co-authored by Drs. Dorothy Gronwall and Philip Wrightson of the neurosurgery department at Auckland Hospital in New Zealand. From a study of 20 young adults following second concussions, the doctors concluded:
“The effects of concussion seem to be cumulative, and this has important implications for sports where concussion injury is common.”
A year earlier there was an article in the Lancet regarding the same researchers wrote about the recovery period for concussions, “usually less than 35 days.” These two important information pieces have only now just become unearthed by the hard work of Muchnick and Don Brady. It will be interesting if this study gets any legs, but I am also just now finding out about this article. Since 1975 is earlier than the 80’s when most the players were playing, and 2002 when Bennet Omalu put a name to the disease CTE this would be an article that should have held some weight at the time.
Would love to hear your thoughts on this…
The Concussion Blog 
Check out work by Barry Jordan that was done in 1980s and 1990s that provides even more refined arguments. Cantu was also way ahead of the curve on subconcussion. You might also look at articles by Relkin and Erlanger.
The reason these facts were not highlighted or research supported is that it would have been a problem for the powers that be. Why do you think Elliot Pellman, Joe Maroon, Mark Lovell, Ruben Echamendea were all put forward as so-called experts is that they were all willing to sell out and did (everyone knew about these and many other articles that were only read by the scientific community). Further confusing the issue, was a bunch of non-scientists like Broligio and Guskewisz (sp?) playing way out of their depth.
If you expect a change, you need to expose the clowns who spread myths for years and demand they are replaced by honorable people.
Suggest you read some of the writings of R.W. Evans, MD, a noted neurologist who was another trailblazer in the field of concussions.
Evans, R.W. (1987). Postconcussive syndrome: An overview. Texas Medicine, 83, 49-53.
Evans, R.W. (1994). The postconcussive syndrome: 130 years of controversy. Seminars in
Neurology, 14, 32-39.
Evans, R.W. (1996). Neurology and Trauma. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company.
Evans, R.W. (2000). Postconcussion syndrome. In R.W. Evans, D.S.Baskin, & F.M. Yatsu
(Eds.), Prognosis of neurological disorders (pp. 366-380). New York: Oxford Press.
Evans, R.W., Evans, R. I., & Sharp, M. J. (1994). The physician survey on the post-concussion
and whiplash syndrome. Headache, 34, 268-274.
This could indeed be a smoking gun. Almost on the level of what tobacco companies were doing (vs. saying). It will be interesting to see how this develops.