Ryan Tannehill’s Regenexx Experience

[Phinsguy]

His decision based on the information of multiple surgeons and physicians.

Do you have any proof of what was actually advised or recommended by them??

Again HIS DECISION .....the surgeons & physicians could have said the stem cell thing was an option but felt the best results (tried & true) would have been to surgically repair it. Or they could have said that he should do both. Or....etc., etc. And "for all we know" Tannehill may have thanked them for the advice and chose the stem cell treatment over their primary recommendation of surgery (or a combo of both).

What keeps coming through here and all we really know as fact is 1) Tannehill met with and was examined by surgeons/doctors and 2) after that TANNEHILL decided to go with the experimental treatment.

 

[lurking]

Do you have any proof of what was actually advised or recommended by them??

Again HIS DECISION .....the surgeons & physicians could have said the stem cell thing was an option but felt the best results (tried & true) would have been to surgically repair it. Or they could have said that he should do both. Or....etc., etc. And "for all we know" Tannehill may have thanked them for the advice and chose the stem cell treatment over their primary recommendation of surgery (or a combo of both).

What keeps coming through here and all we really know as fact is 1) Tannehill met with and was examined by surgeons/doctors and 2) after that TANNEHILL decided to go with the experimental treatment.

Maybe after the examination they recommended the stem cell experiment. Nobody knows, stop beating the drum as if your opinion is correct.

 

[Gonzo]

Do you have any proof of what was actually advised or recommended by them??

Again HIS DECISION .....the surgeons & physicians could have said the stem cell thing was an option but felt the best results (tried & true) would have been to surgically repair it. Or they could have said that he should do both. Or....etc., etc. And "for all we know" Tannehill may have thanked them for the advice and chose the stem cell treatment over their primary recommendation of surgery (or a combo of both).

What keeps coming through here and all we really know as fact is 1) Tannehill met with and was examined by surgeons/doctors and 2) after that TANNEHILL decided to go with the experimental treatment.

Yes, he made his decision based on the information and guidance provided by multiple physicians and surgeons who went to medical school, residency, fellowships, and worked in their respective fields for sometimes decades. But yeah, sure, pretty much the same as "pre-med."

I don't need "proof" to know that's how medical decisions like this work because I'm not a moron. You're digging deep for reasons to whine about Tannehill.

 

[The Goat]

Agreed...."For all we know" would have probably been better - however, just about every story I've read on this said he made the choice to avoid surgery so that kind of makes it clear in connection to what I was saying - "it's very clear that this was Tannehill's decision".

The point still is, yes , he consulted & was examined by them but he made the final decision to not have surgery and go with the experimental treatment. So far I have seen nothing to say the team doctors or any specialists chose the experimental & unproven procedure as what would be the first choice....again, if you had to guess, which way would you think the team would decide if they had the final say?

Of course it was Tannehill's decision. That's not the point.

Are you suggesting that because Tannehill was pre-med he acted against the advice of physicians by not having surgery? Because that seems to be the way you're framing it.

The truth is the exact opposite, and this is important...because it's your advice and recommendations bit:

http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/armando-salguero/article134484399.html

"Team doctors, athletic trainers and Andrews told Tannehill and coaches in December that not having surgery on this particular injury but instead taking on a rigorous workout and healing regimen that spanned approximately two months would bring results just as good as surgery. Tannehill’s regimen concluded in early February."

From earlier in the article:

"Numerous sources with knowledge of Tannehill’s recovery from a partially torn ACL and grade 2 sprained MCL said that weeks ago he passed a battery of tests that determine the stability and functionality of his knees and that he is now ready to go.

Even better for all involved, these sources insist, is that Tannehill will not be any more susceptible to a future ACL tear in his left knee following his completed rehabilitation than if he had had a reconstructive surgery.

Tannehill, pronounced healed by team doctor John Uribe and with a concurring second opinion from respected surgeon Dr. James Andrews, will be participating in the team’s conditioning program in April, OTA days which begin in May, minicamps after that and training camp, which is scheduled to begin in late July."

So if that was the information given to Tannehill...what he was told in December by the most respected orthopedic surgeon on the planet...and he was under the impression that he would be ready to go in 2017 and help the team...why would he opt for surgery?

If he had, I'm pretty damn certain there would be people calling for his head for being selfish. As much as you love to paint anyone who defends Tannehill with an odd and vague homophobic brush, you're sure as heck trying to spin this into a scenario where Tannehill acted irresponsibly...and it just ain't so.

 

[Gonzo]

Of course it was Tannehill's decision. That's not the point.

Are you suggesting that because Tannehill was pre-med he acted against the advice of physicians by not having surgery? Because that seems to be the way you're framing it.

The truth is the exact opposite, and this is important...because it's your advice and recommendations bit:

http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/armando-salguero/article134484399.html

"Team doctors, athletic trainers and Andrews told Tannehill and coaches in December that not having surgery on this particular injury but instead taking on a rigorous workout and healing regimen that spanned approximately two months would bring results just as good as surgery. Tannehill’s regimen concluded in early February."

From earlier in the article:

"Numerous sources with knowledge of Tannehill’s recovery from a partially torn ACL and grade 2 sprained MCL said that weeks ago he passed a battery of tests that determine the stability and functionality of his knees and that he is now ready to go.

Even better for all involved, these sources insist, is that Tannehill will not be any more susceptible to a future ACL tear in his left knee following his completed rehabilitation than if he had had a reconstructive surgery.

Tannehill, pronounced healed by team doctor John Uribe and with a concurring second opinion from respected surgeon Dr. James Andrews, will be participating in the team’s conditioning program in April, OTA days which begin in May, minicamps after that and training camp, which is scheduled to begin in late July."

So if that was the information given to Tannehill...what he was told in December by the most respected orthopedic surgeon on the planet...and he was under the impression that he would be ready to go in 2017 and help the team...why would he opt for surgery?

If he had, I'm pretty damn certain there would be people calling for his head for being selfish. As much as you love to paint anyone who defends Tannehill with an odd and vague homophobic brush, you're sure as heck trying to spin this into a scenario where Tannehill acted irresponsibly...and it just ain't so.

 

[Phinsguy]

Of course it was Tannehill's decision. That's not the point.

Are you suggesting that because Tannehill was pre-med he acted against the advice of physicians by not having surgery? Because that seems to be the way you're framing it.

The truth is the exact opposite, and this is important...because it's your advice and recommendations bit:

http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/armando-salguero/article134484399.html

"Team doctors, athletic trainers and Andrews told Tannehill and coaches in December that not having surgery on this particular injury but instead taking on a rigorous workout and healing regimen that spanned approximately two months would bring results just as good as surgery. Tannehill’s regimen concluded in early February."

From earlier in the article:

"Numerous sources with knowledge of Tannehill’s recovery from a partially torn ACL and grade 2 sprained MCL said that weeks ago he passed a battery of tests that determine the stability and functionality of his knees and that he is now ready to go.

Even better for all involved, these sources insist, is that Tannehill will not be any more susceptible to a future ACL tear in his left knee following his completed rehabilitation than if he had had a reconstructive surgery.

Tannehill, pronounced healed by team doctor John Uribe and with a concurring second opinion from respected surgeon Dr. James Andrews, will be participating in the team’s conditioning program in April, OTA days which begin in May, minicamps after that and training camp, which is scheduled to begin in late July."

So if that was the information given to Tannehill...what he was told in December by the most respected orthopedic surgeon on the planet...and he was under the impression that he would be ready to go in 2017 and help the team...why would he opt for surgery?

If he had, I'm pretty damn certain there would be people calling for his head for being selfish. As much as you love to paint anyone who defends Tannehill with an odd and vague homophobic brush, you're sure as heck trying to spin this into a scenario where Tannehill acted irresponsibly...and it just ain't so.

Ok..I hadn't seen all that and it is factual evidence that Tannehill didn't discount the doctors wishes. It's apparent then that he didn't just base his decision on his own opinion - everything I had read kept saying he chose or he decided not to have surgery and, until now, I did not recall seeing anything that said the doctors not only suggested it but said it would turn out as well as surgery.

This really has to make one question the doctors who said it would "bring results just as good as surgery" - They were dead wrong. The question is, are they promoting this "new, non invasive procedure" with just as good results as a surgical procedure (with a long proven history) knowing it not to be true for other than the best interests of the patient(s).

I wouldn't think so with Andrews reputation and all that but why go out on a limb and say it's as good as surgery would be if they cannot be sure of that or there is little to show that's the case?

 

[uk_dolfan]

from the video to the comments... what a waste of my life this thread has been

 

[roy_miami]

from the video to the comments... what a waste of my life this thread has been

It had potential to be thread of the year. Got too serious too quick.