On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 12:13:29 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 2/21/2019 4:24 AM, news18 wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 11:33:58 +1100, James wrote:

Not sure if I mentioned this, but Professor Raphael Grzebieta has said
in a media release that in their as yet unpublished paper, they intend
to discredit the prior research into the health benefits of regular
cycling.

So much for the professor and his colleagues keeping an open mind,
remaining objective and following the science!

Speaking of "discrediting", has the data they collected been provided
for analysis?


Perhaps the classic regarding helmet data being provided for analysis:
When Thompson & Rivara first published their infamous helmet promoting
"85% benefit" paper in 1989, Dr. Dorothy Robinson asked for their data
set. (She used to post here, BTW.) She's a PhD statistician and
researcher in Australia.

Found her. Thanks.

Anyway, she was able to show that T&R's own data and techniques could be
used to "prove" that helmets prevented 75% of serious leg injuries.

I haven't found that one, but I've found another related.
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/robinson-bmj.pdf


For those who don't grasp the significance: She was really proving that
T&R's entire approach was faulty. Their "case" and "control" groups were
far from equivalent in matters other than helmet use. And in fact,
helmeted cyclists (mostly kids at that time) were seven times more
likely than non-helmeted ones to show up at ER.

Thompson & Rivara did not take kindly to her rebuttals. They never again
allowed her access to their data.

Lol, so definitely non-reproducible.

Seems the fight isn't entirely lost.
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/