We discussed this in the game thread last night, but the more I think about it, the more incredibly irresponsible this story seems. The "paper" in question did not study Gehrig's medical records, nor do any research specific to him, but somehow he has become the face of the report. Why? Because it would gain attention. Mission accomplished for the researchers I guess.

When Lou Gehrig was diagnoses with ALS, he was in the hands of the country's best specialists, both at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota and in New York. With the advances of medicine, it is very possible that the diagnosis was wrong, but the the implication in this paper is pure conjecture. There is no compelling reason to suggest the Lou Gehrig did not die of ALS.

[1] I think it's noteworthy to mention that it's possible that Lou Gehrig did not die of the disease that is named for him.

And all they are saying is that any ALS diagnosis from before these findings is up in the air if the patient also had some head trauma. Including Lou's. That's fine with me.

[2] Anything is possible, so shouldn't there be some evidence to back up the claim? The paper did look at specific cases, but Gehrig's was not one of them. So, why has he become exhibit A. Again, this is a scientific paper, so basing a conclusion on conjecture seems incredibly irresponsible.

[3] What do you mean -- who is supposed to give the specific evidence to back up their claim? The paper doesn't make any claim or draw any conclusion about Lou Gehrig. And who do you think made Gehrig exihibit A? Maybe a NYT sports writer.

4) I'd have to see the interviews, mentioned in the last paragraph in the blockquoted text from the Times. My suspicion is that the authors of the paper were all too quick to associate Gehrig with their study to drum up buzz about the study, even if he is not mentioned specifically in the paper itself (presumably for lack of evidence).

On the other hand, perhaps the researchers were more guarded and responsible, perhaps responding to questions like "so, does this mean it's possible Lou Gehrig did not die from Lou Gehrig's disease?!?" with answers like "our conclusion is that all previously diagnosed case of ALS are theoretically suspect, but we obviously cannot comment on specific cases not included in our study" or the like. Then columnists ran with it.

Whatever the case, the story as presented sure strikes me as sensationalized

The Schwartz article did not strike me as sensationalized.

And the fact that Schwartz says the authors "acknowledged" the implication suggests to me that they were asked, and answered that yes, he might not have had his eponymous disease.

I see nothing to suggest that the authors of the paper have done anything inappropriate.

[4] The article says "its authors in interviews", leading me to believe they are collectively and repeatedly making the claim. If that's not the case, then it is the NYT that is irresponisble.

[7] But 'acknowledged'. You don't use that word to report a 'claim' that people make, but rather that they agreed that the thing was possible when asked about it. I assume that there was more than one interview, and that they were asked about Gehrig in more than one interview.

The goal of the study was not to dismiss Lou Gehrig as not having "Lou Gehrig's disease" but to shed light on the fact that concussions and other head and spinal trauma can lead to symptoms similiar to the disease, and that proper diagnosis and treatment need to be discerned between the trauma and disease.

Head trauma is no joke, and even the slightest concussion can lead to life-long issues. Toughing it out for the athlete or being amused when someone "sees stars" is no longer appropriate. Times have changed, "smoke, yeah I enjoy smoking and my brand is Camel" to paraphrase Lou.

And Lou, has to be my favorite player and Yankee of all time. One can visit his grave in Valhalla, and see his old house in Riverdale in an afternoon outing.

6) I don't know...the Scwartz article (not necessarily the researchers or their study/paper) do strike me as sensationalized. This is what we get from Schwartz:

==
-- For the online version, two images of Lou Gehrig and an imbedded video, including a picture of Gehrig being helped off the field after being struck in the head by a pitch in 1934.

-- paragraph 1: "In the 71 years since the Yankees slugger Lou Gehrig declared himself “the luckiest man on the face of the earth,” despite dying from a disease that would soon bear his name, he has stood as America’s leading icon of athletic valor struck down by random, inexplicable fate.

-- paragraph 2: A peer-reviewed paper to be published Wednesday in a leading journal of neuropathology, however, suggests that the demise of athletes like Gehrig and soldiers given a diagnosis of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, commonly known as Lou Gehrig’s disease, might have been catalyzed by injuries only now becoming understood: concussions and other brain trauma.

--Paragraph 3: Although the paper does not discuss Gehrig specifically, its authors in interviews acknowledged the clear implication: Lou Gehrig might not have had Lou Gehrig’s disease.

-- Paragraph 7: The finding’s relevance to Gehrig is less clear. But the Yankees legend had a well-documented history of significant concussions on the baseball field, and perhaps others sustained as a battering-ram football halfback in high school and at Columbia University. Given that, it’s possible that Gehrig’s renowned commitment to playing through injuries like concussions, which resulted in his legendary streak of playing in 2,130 consecutive games over 14 years, could have led to his condition.

--Paragraph 8: “Here he is, the face of his disease, and he may have had a different disease as a result of his athletic experience,” said Dr. Ann McKee, the director of the neuropathology laboratory...

-- Paragraph 9: Gehrig’s name does not appear in the paper; his case was discussed in interviews merely as an illustration of the new uncertainty surrounding cases resembling his...

-- Paragraph 12: ...Gehrig was its first prominent victim, dying two years after his 1939 diagnosis..

--Paragraph 13: The new finding could be double-edged for organizations fighting A.L.S.: it sheds some light on possible causes and research avenues, but also suggests that Gehrig might not have had it.
==

And it goes on like this, including one researcher speaking for Gehrig, saying that good old Lou would back this research! ("Lou Gehrig wanted to know everything possible about his own illness — he got to know his doctors, talked with scientists with obscure approaches, and volunteered himself as a guinea pig to find any way to combat the disease,” Mr. Eig said. “He wouldn’t stick his head in the sand and not want to hear about this. If he were around today, he would continue to have that same curiosity, and that burning desire, to help his situation, or to help others.”)

So what impression is the reader supposed to get from Schwartz's article, beside LOUGEHRIGLOUGEHRIGLOUGEHRIGLOUGEHRIGLOUGEHRIGmightNOTHAVEDIEDFROMALSBUTFROM BEANBALLSLOUGEHRIGLOUGEHRIGLOUGEHRIGLOUGEHRIG. Obviously Schwartz and his editors felt that the story was more interesting by making it about how Lou Gehrig didn't really die from Lou Gehrig's disease (maybe), so they played up that angle...a lot...and that seems to me sensationalistic.

[10] Run me over with a streamroller. This story needs to be told. Yes, it is possible that Lou Gehrig did not succumb to the disease baring his name. So What? If using his name 53 times gets the coach, jock, trainer, fan to read the article and see the light that being tough and dumb is not tough enough for the long haul...then we should take that sensational aspect of it.

[11] Um, OK. I was under the impression it was not the job of more or less credible newspaper to get me or anyone else to "see the light."

Might as well just say Lou Gehrig died of every underfunded disease on the planet. Who cares about acuracy. Of course, if Gehrig didn't die of ALS, then that charity could suffer, but I guess they had a good 71-year run.