I'm not sure what you're not understanding. I'm saying that the article you posted is a poor source for anyone who is trying to decipher what McDavid's future might hold due taking a conservative treatment approach rather than surgical. The article alone is lower quality evidence due to the study design, and it studies a general population that is not relatable to McDavid at all, and likely not relatable at all to the rehab protocol and adherence to the program that McDavid went through.
So sure, anyone can read articles even if they aren't medical professionals, but if you read this article for example and came to the conclusion that McDavid made a poor choice by going the conservative route over surgery, then you'd be laughed out of the room by anyone who has any clue what they're talking about. Not only that, but the article itself cites that there is no clear conclusion in the existing literature whether or not an individual is more likely to have poorer outcomes in the future from either treatment option.
So to clear it up, I'm saying that the article you posted is ****, and the quote from the article that you posted for the shock effect is also ****.