The Q-Collar

[shoot_the_goalie 281]

Anyone familiar with this?

https://q30.com

I'm no scientist, but the science makes sense as it's based off research on woodpeckers and how they cushion their brains when "pecking".  Not cheap at $200 a pop though, but if it can help prevent concussions....

 

[nutters 218]

4 hours ago, shoot_the_goalie said:

Anyone familiar with this?

https://q30.com

I'm no scientist, but the science makes sense as it's based off research on woodpeckers and how they cushion their brains when "pecking".  Not cheap at $200 a pop though, but if it can help prevent concussions....

 

Didn't Bauer try this a few years ago?

[raganblink 82]

2 hours ago, nutters said:

Didn't Bauer try this a few years ago?

Yes in Canada - didn't take off for the same reason I am guessing this product wont (albeit having more sports would be beneficial to selling your product) - too expensive.

 

I already have a hell of a time selling the Tacks X simply due to its cost. We've only done a handful of custom helmets. People want to spend money on their kid's head, but the limit seems to be about $250-300 USD. 

[shoot_the_goalie 281]

Just read a bunch of articles about it, and it sounds like the science is too young and fuzzy to give any conclusive evidence that it helps prevent concussions.  So could be placebo and at $200, expensive placebo.  It's funny....in one of the articles it said:

Dr. Fisher, the co-inventor, said the lack of slam-dunk proof has allowed critics to “moan and groan,” as he put it, but no one in his family rides a bike or skis without wearing a collar. “Let’s say it does nothing, then you lose nothing,” he said.

Um...I think you lose $200 if it does nothing, no?  smh.

[puckpilot 312]

6 hours ago, shoot_the_goalie said:

Just read a bunch of articles about it, and it sounds like the science is too young and fuzzy to give any conclusive evidence that it helps prevent concussions.  So could be placebo and at $200, expensive placebo.  It's funny....in one of the articles it said:

Dr. Fisher, the co-inventor, said the lack of slam-dunk proof has allowed critics to “moan and groan,” as he put it, but no one in his family rides a bike or skis without wearing a collar. “Let’s say it does nothing, then you lose nothing,” he said.

Um...I think you lose $200 if it does nothing, no?  smh.

Isn't that just form of Pascal's Wager?

Hey everyone send me $1. If you do, you'll have good fortune for the rest of your life. There's no proof that I have the ability to grant this, but what have you got to lose? If I have this ability, you have good fortune for the rest of your life. If I don't have this ability, you're only out $1. You really lose nothing by sending me a $1. Hopefully a few thousand or few million of you do this. It's worth the risk.

 

[mojo122 535]

17 hours ago, nutters said:

Didn't Bauer try this a few years ago?

Bauer did I think under the name NeuroShield?  Here in the states I believe it was considered a medical device which would have needed FDA approval I think.

[flip12 712]

3 hours ago, puckpilot said:

Isn't that just form of Pascal's Wager?

Hey everyone send me $1. If you do, you'll have good fortune for the rest of your life. There's no proof that I have the ability to grant this, but what have you got to lose? If I have this ability, you have good fortune for the rest of your life. If I don't have this ability, you're only out $1. You really lose nothing by sending me a $1. Hopefully a few thousand or few million of you do this. It's worth the risk.

 

But isn’t the nature of Pascal’s wager that it’s in Kierkegaard’s terms “an infinite movement” requiring literally everything, not just a throwaway trifle, unless one considers one’s life a throwaway. 

[nutters 218]

3 hours ago, mojo122 said:

Bauer did I think under the name NeuroShield?  Here in the states I believe it was considered a medical device which would have needed FDA approval I think.

That's the name! Did some digging, and the idea was x% of concussions are caused by the "sloshing" of the brain when there is contact and apparently this was supposed stop the sloshing. Therefore, reduce a certain amount of concussions in hockey.

They seemed to just have one in a display case in every store, with no stock and no store employees pushing it. Though with no pros wearing it, how could it succeed?

[puckpilot 312]

3 hours ago, flip12 said:

But isn’t the nature of Pascal’s wager that it’s in Kierkegaard’s terms “an infinite movement” requiring literally everything, not just a throwaway trifle, unless one considers one’s life a throwaway. 

You're right. The example I gave is very much a trifle. I was trying to be flippant about it because I found the CO's quote to be... irksom. It took the basic shape of Pascal's wager, using the safety of the kids as the infinite benefits. It seemed like a calculated answer to manipulate people emotionally in to using their product instead of using evidence.

[flip12 712]

55 minutes ago, puckpilot said:

You're right. The example I gave is very much a trifle. I was trying to be flippant about it because I found the CO's quote to be... irksom. It took the basic shape of Pascal's wager, using the safety of the kids as the infinite benefits. It seemed like a calculated answer to manipulate people emotionally in to using their product instead of using evidence.

Fully agree there. Makes me wonder just what kind of a dr. this guy is.

[BenBreeg 493]

21 minutes ago, flip12 said:

Fully agree there. Makes me wonder just what kind of a dr. this guy is.

https://physiology.utoronto.ca/faculty/joseph-fisher

MD

 

[start_today 770]

The Q-Collar is a noninvasive solution to brain protection, and there have been no negative effects reported relating to wearing it. It may even help you perform at your optimum.*

*These uses have not been evaluated or cleared by the FDA. Further research is necessary to determine whether the Q-Collar can provide these benefits to users.

—

If this company doesn’t also market healing crystals and reiki, they should look into expanding into those areas too. 

[BenBreeg 493]

Did anyone look at their studies or data?  Pretty legit people involved in its development both from the medical side and product side.  I've worked with one of the developers former companies and they are as legit an NPD company as I have ever worked with, and I have worked with many in both medical device development and non-medical.

[VegasHockey 1280]

On 3/8/2023 at 12:11 PM, BenBreeg said:

Did anyone look at their studies or data?  Pretty legit people involved in its development both from the medical side and product side.  I've worked with one of the developers former companies and they are as legit an NPD company as I have ever worked with, and I have worked with many in both medical device development and non-medical.

They need to get some better ambassadors for hockey, Elliott McDermott is not an ideal "poster boy." 3 points in 35 games....

Maybe get Bedard to wear it 😉 

Overall, I cannot disagree with what it does and the science behind it. Seems pretty straight forward. 

[clarkiestooth 235]

On 3/2/2023 at 11:49 AM, shoot_the_goalie said:

Anyone familiar with this?

https://q30.com

I'm no scientist, but the science makes sense as it's based off research on woodpeckers and how they cushion their brains when "pecking".  ....

 

Me either, but I think it's a real stretch. Woodpeckers have dozens of adaptations that prevent concussions. "Off the top of my head"', some of the bigger differences are a thick cartilage between the skull and brain, and a a tongue that wraps around the brain and actually pulls its tiny brain in the opposite direction of the impact. In comparison, the human brain is a large hunk of jello floating in a liquid (CSF).  As I said, the theory behind this is a stretch.

[BenBreeg 493]

On 3/14/2023 at 8:31 AM, clarkiestooth said:

Me either, but I think it's a real stretch. Woodpeckers have dozens of adaptations that prevent concussions. "Off the top of my head"', some of the bigger differences are a thick cartilage between the skull and brain, and a a tongue that wraps around the brain and actually pulls its tiny brain in the opposite direction of the impact. In comparison, the human brain is a large hunk of jello floating in a liquid (CSF).  As I said, the theory behind this is a stretch.

You don't judge theories, you test them and assess the evidence vs. the claims.  It's how every medical device in existence is cleared.

[start_today 770]

7 minutes ago, BenBreeg said:

You don't judge theories, you test them and assess the evidence vs. the claims.  It's how every medical device in existence is cleared.

Yeah, and their marketing materials say 

“Further research is necessary to determine whether the Q-Collar can provide these benefits to users.”

So, seems like despite all of the testing, they can’t validate the claims. 

[BenBreeg 493]

2 hours ago, start_today said:

Yeah, and their marketing materials say 

“Further research is necessary to determine whether the Q-Collar can provide these benefits to users.”

So, seems like despite all of the testing, they can’t validate the claims. 

 

Claims are very, very specific.  I read that sentence as relating to the performance aspect.

Editing instead of creating more posts:

FDA's statement of the DeNovo submission:

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-authorizes-marketing-novel-device-help-protect-athletes-brains-during-head-impacts

Relevant research summary of the article:

The FDA assessed the safety and effectiveness of the Q-Collar through several studies, including a prospective, longitudinal study in the United States with 284 subjects 13 years or older who were participants on a high school football team. During the sports season, 139 athletes wore the Q-Collar and 145 athletes did not. All participants also wore an accelerometer device that measured every impact to the head sustained during play. Each athlete underwent a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan pre-season and post-season. These MRI scans were used to generate Diffusion Tensor Imaging (a specialized MRI image) of the brain that allowed researchers to compare structural changes in the participants’ brain, after a season of play.

Significant changes were found in deeper tissues of the brain involved in the transmission of electrical nerve signals (white matter regions) in 106 of the 145 (73%) participants in the no-Collar group, while no significant changes in these regions were found in 107 of the 139 (77%) of the group who wore the Q Collar. These differences appear to indicate protection of the brain associated with device use. No significant adverse events were associated with device use.

 

 

Edited March 16, 2023 by BenBreeg

[stick9 888]

9 hours ago, BenBreeg said:

Claims are very, very specific.  I read that sentence as relating to the performance aspect.

Editing instead of creating more posts:

FDA's statement of the DeNovo submission:

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-authorizes-marketing-novel-device-help-protect-athletes-brains-during-head-impacts

Relevant research summary of the article:

The FDA assessed the safety and effectiveness of the Q-Collar through several studies, including a prospective, longitudinal study in the United States with 284 subjects 13 years or older who were participants on a high school football team. During the sports season, 139 athletes wore the Q-Collar and 145 athletes did not. All participants also wore an accelerometer device that measured every impact to the head sustained during play. Each athlete underwent a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan pre-season and post-season. These MRI scans were used to generate Diffusion Tensor Imaging (a specialized MRI image) of the brain that allowed researchers to compare structural changes in the participants’ brain, after a season of play.

Significant changes were found in deeper tissues of the brain involved in the transmission of electrical nerve signals (white matter regions) in 106 of the 145 (73%) participants in the no-Collar group, while no significant changes in these regions were found in 107 of the 139 (77%) of the group who wore the Q Collar. These differences appear to indicate protection of the brain associated with device use. No significant adverse events were associated with device use.

 

 

Wow, impressive. Thanks for posting Ben.

[clarkiestooth 235]

On 3/16/2023 at 11:25 AM, BenBreeg said:

You don't judge theories, you test them and assess the evidence vs. the claims.  It's how every medical device in existence is cleared.

Really? On a hockey equipment forum, you do judge theories and hypothesis. And with regard to assessing evidence and making claims, the manufacteurer isn't even making a claim that it works in its data. They use terms like warranting further study/may show promise/may benefit with other therapies/etc. Probably because they are actually prospective analysis, which offer far less compelling results than a randomized blind or double blind study. Also, the P value of 0.05 is borderline implying whether the results happened by chance. I would think a scientist would not be sold on this data. Also, the FDA doesn't do testing. Ever. Nor do the assess whether something is effective. They are primarily concerned with safety.  

[BenBreeg 493]

28 minutes ago, clarkiestooth said:

Really? On a hockey equipment forum, you do judge theories and hypothesis. And with regard to assessing evidence and making claims, the manufacteurer isn't even making a claim that it works in its data. They use terms like warranting further study/may show promise/may benefit with other therapies/etc. Probably because they are actually prospective analysis, which offer far less compelling results than a randomized blind or double blind study. Also, the P value of 0.05 is borderline implying whether the results happened by chance. I would think a scientist would not be sold on this data. Also, the FDA doesn't do testing. Ever. Nor do the assess whether something is effective. They are primarily concerned with safety.  

You can argue that the venue matters, but I disagree, why does the venue lower the threshold?  They are making the claims that their data supports based on their submission.  It's the standard all medical devices are held to.  Claims are very specific.  Anything else must have the stipulations attached.  Nobody said the FDA does testing, not sure why you are even bringing that up.  They do assess efficacy against your claims as well as safety.

[raganblink 82]

A women on the Georgia Bulldogs basketball team was wearing what I thought was this in their Loss yesterday against Iowa. I tried to find pics but could not. All the pics seem to be courtside, where as I saw this on television