John Doe wrote:
According to peer-reviewed, medical journal published doctors,=20
neurosurgeons, and research scientists from around the world, a=20
properly fitted bicycle helmet helps reduce serious head injury among=20
children.

The source:

=2E..Would be the same one we've already discussed at length, pointing ou=
t=20
(with frequent examples explaining exactly why) that your searches are=20
too limited to create any real depth of understanding or even a reliable =

conclusion.

Beyond that, "Some people argue that helmets are effective if 'properly=20
worn'. How those words have haunted me through many years! Apart from=20
some racing cyclists, I hardly ever see a cycle helmet worn properly.=20
Cycle helmet retention systems are the worst of all. I consider it one=20
of my biggest failings that I have not persuaded the helmet industry to=20
come up with something much better. God knows, I have tried! Anyone who=20
wears a cycle helmet will know just how long it takes to adjust the chin =

strap so that the helmet is both reasonably comfortable and sits firmly=20
in place on the head. Try adjusting a cycle helmet on a infant's head =96=
=20
it's a nightmare and in my experience hardly ever achieved=20
satisfactorily. In the HPE laboratory we have examined many cycle=20
helmets that were manufactured in such a manner that correct adjustment=20
was completely impossible."

That quote is from Brian Walker, one of the leading experts on the=20
mechanics of helmets, and whose company Head Protection Evaluations is=20
the principal UK test laboratory for helmets and head protection systems =

of all kinds

So what now? Though you accuse people here of having a "religion", it's =

your actions that have all the hallmarks. Rather than shout "heresy"=20
when someone disagrees with you, you shout "troll", and you try and=20
"prove" your point by just reciting the same mantra from your prophets=20
without ever questioning them. Yesterday you said science wasn't really =

necessary as it was obvious anyway, so why call on science to try and=20
prove your case now? Science isn't about repeating mantras from=20
prophets who you trust unquestioningly, it's about asking questions and=20
answering them with reproducible observation. The flagship studies you=20
like to cite are not reproducible, or they'd all come out with similar=20
numbers: Thomspon Rivara and Thompson can't even manage the same numbers =

between their own papers! One thing that /is/ reproducible is serious=20
head injury rates not being changed by helmet wearing rates.

We've seen your list before and we weren't impressed, and we said=20
exactly why we weren't impressed and illustrated our reasoning with=20
examples. We've answered all the questions you've raised, but the best=20
you can do when asked one in return is post your list again and/or shout =

"troll". You have ceased to have any credibility because you have=20
demonstrated you are incapable of thinking for yourself and answering=20
questions with answers rather than mantras.

Pete.
--=20
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/