On 24 Apr, 14:52, Mike Clark wrote:
In message you wrote:

On 24 Apr, 12:34, Mike Clark wrote:

It wasn't so much contentious as uninformative with regard to the topic
under debate. I was hoping that you could point me to where the
empirical experience and knowledge of practitioners in the field of
bicycle helmet usage points to where the flaws in the statistical
analysis of the data on overall injury rates are?

That would be a pointless exercise on this newsgroup.

Well you could always email me directly.

Having surveyed in detail some of the associated 'helmet' websites
where some *studies are presented, the sites are a farrago of twisting
prejudice, where any any research which finds helmets beneficial is
dismissed as partisan and biased, and then attacked and interpreted
with cod science and specious reasoning, *and then twisted with
statistical ignorance.

Since it seems from your comments that you may be a laboratory trained
scientist you could always do what I do, which is to go to the source
journals and see exactly what has been published on the subject.

Research which does not support beneficial effects helmets is
seemingly not subject to the same standards of (mis)interpretation.

My conclusion is that there is a degree of misrepresentation and also
misinterpretation on both sides of the fence.



My remarks on the topic stand as they are, as an indication of where
the real explanation for genuine anomalies can lie.

But since you acknowledge in your statement that there are "genuine
anomalies" and have also chosen to use the word "can", that leaves open
some doubt as to whether your remarks do point to the true explanation.



It would be pointless to make any points on real studies and actual
statistics since it merely stirs up a hornet's nest from our resident
******s.

Toom

It seems to me then that you give up too easily. Science is often hard
work and usually requires dedication to succeed. However science also
tends to rely on testing the hypothesies with evidence, and if there are
anomalies it is usually necessary to explain them away with alternative
and better controlled tests, or overcome with a greater weight of
evidence.

Mike
--
M.R. Clark PhD, *Reader in Therapeutic and Molecular Immunology
Cambridge University, Department of Pathology
Tennis Court Road, Cambridge CB2 1QP
Tel +44 (0)1223 333705 * *Web *http://www.path.cam.ac.uk/~mrc7/

Yes, I have looked at the sources of many papers as well as the
'revised' interpretations in websites associated with some of our
contributors. That is within a wider context of several decades of
experience, work, study and personal interest which just happens to
have covered road accidents, road safety, science, technology,
research and statistics. All I have said on this group is that I'm
satisfied that cycle helmets provide substantial advantages in
preventing or mitigating the effects of injury, that the benefits are
not restricted to low speed accidents, or certain particular
categories of accident.

That, in my experience, is also the view of most - neurosurgeons,
paramedics, police, accident investigators and road safety experts -
who have been exposed the real world situation in detail, and forms
the basis for the official view and recommendations, in my experience
presented in good faith however much others regard the as some health
and safety plot by zealots. It is considerably more persuasive than
the opinion of cyclists who have read a few research papers by
researchers using necessarily incomplete data in surveys 'designed' by
available second-hand data and imprecise collection procedures. It is
not possible or ethical to have a large perfectly designed, double-
blind trial of the efficacy of cycle helmets in real accidents, and I
don't get involved in the huffing and puffing about the existing
research papers and statistics. Many have flaws from necessity,
carelessness, misinterpretation, etc.

If anyone thinks my views and advice are worthless then that is a
matter of disinterest to me. If they want substantiation by my arguing
with bald men over their theoretical statistical combs, then they
won't get it.

Toom