Helmet propaganda debunked

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 01:23:28 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Dorre? Ancient history? I don't think so. My last email from her
was less than a week ago.

We were talking about this newsgroup, not your personal email.

Were you? I was talking about real life. Dorre is active and still
writing and publishing on this issue. Anyone who is actively
interested in helmet research will be well aware of this.

you think people read it over your shoulders the way you think you
can read what is in other's homes (as evident by your frequent
statements about what I do or do not read.)

LOL! You think I need to look over your shoulder to know you haven't
read something when your comments about it display ignorance of its
contents? Marvellous! This thread is getting some real comedy at
l;ast! Keep it up :-)

LOL! Amazing how your boredom kicks in just at the point where the
evidence starts!

What evidence? If you actually have any, I suggest you simply cut
all the garbage.

LOL! What evidence, he says? The evidence you "snipped", "trimmed"
and "flushed" of course! Your evasion does not make it go away, real
life is not like your cartoon!

Translation: "Tra la la la la, I'm not listening".
More repetitive baby talk from Guy (and then he wonders why I
don't take him seriously.)
LOL! Your accusation might make sense if it wasn't obvious that the
taunt is a response to your ignoring stuff; therefore the taunt is not
invoked until your evasion has already started!

What an infant Guy is.

LOL! More repetitive baby talk from Bill! Hey this is fun! Can
anyone join in? It's a lot easier than discussing the evidence like
I've been trying to do thus far!

Correction - "Vandeman / Guy concept of 'science'". Both of you
will cite something they've "read" without actually understanding
one word of it, and will then rant ad infinitum.
ROFLMAO! Damn but that's funny.

What I posted is also true, which makes it even funnier. And I'll
note that you still haven't posted the sample size you think is
required. Why is that?

Bwuhahahahahaa! Bill "Mr Evasion" Zaumen, whose response to the
discussion of confounding in case-control studies was to deny it while
simultaneously relying on it elsewhere! Oh, it just gets better and
better!

I gave you a citation for the data, Bill, like I often do. I'm not
allowed to say you haven't read it, and you wouldn't argue the toss
without having read up, would you? So here it is again: table 1,
page 2 of "Changes in head injury with the New Zealand bicycle helmet
law", Accident Analysis & Prevention: 2001 Sep;33(5):687-91

I'll post the citation to Dorre's latest when it's finished
peer-review. That has even more data and a detailed discussion of
confidence intervals in whole population studies.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 01:28:41 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:


LOL! Bill, in post you said that,
and I quote, "no professional statistician has agreed with you". I
cited Dr Dorothy Robinson, a professional statistician, who has agreed
with me. You did not specify context, and in any case she has posted
data and opinions on this group in the past which support my position.

We were discussing this on a *usenet news group* and *you* brought up
""professional statisticians" in the first place.

Indeed. And the opinion of the professional statistician in question
is in the public domain.

Cycle helmet laws - facts, figures and consequences, Robinson DL.
1996. paper at Velo Australis
(http://agbu.une.edu.au/~drobinso/velo1/velo.html)

Head injuries and bicycle helmet laws: Robinson DL. 1996. Accident
Analysis & Prevention: 1996 Jul;28(4):463-75

The efficacy of bicycle helmet laws: Robinson DL. 1996

Helmet laws and health: Robinson DL, Acton CH. 1998. Injury
Prevention: 1998;4:170-172

Changes in head injury with the New Zealand bicycle helmet law:
Robinson DL. 2001. Accident Analysis & Prevention: 2001
Sep;33(5):687-91

Costs and benefits of the New Zealand helmet laws
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2019.pdf

Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists: review and Australian
data: Robinson DL. 2004. Health Promotion Journal of Australia

So:
* Dorre is a professional statistician
* Dorre agrees with me (or rather, I agree with her)
* Dorre's opinion is a matter of record and easily accessible

Oh, and:

* You lose

:-)

It may well be a fact that you are not impressed by Dorre - I guess
that she is not impressed by you, either! - but her credibility does
not rest on whether the world's leading helmet troll is impressed; she
has an academic reputation and a publication record.

It rests, rather on her own use of infantile insults that she posted
for a month straight at one point, showing that she can be almost as
childish as you. And she does have a well-known axe to grind, as is
evident from her posts on this newsgroup and her 'ballistic' reaction
when I disagreed with her.

ROFLMAO!!!!! Bill, you absolutely take the prize for hubris!

Dorre lost patience with you? I can't pretend to be in the least
surprised! She posted fact, you reacted like a Victorian bishop
confronted by a dinosaur skeleton!

LOL! I have no need to "puff up" Dr Robinson, Bill - she has a PhD
and an academic record; she has taken the trouble to obtain and
analyse data and present it so others can challenge her findings.

I'm not impressed. If she's so hot, what's she doing wasting time
on bicylce helmets?

ROFLMAO! Oh the irony! Of course, Bill, it's only appropriate to
"waste time" on bicycle helmets when you are engaged in uncritical
zealotry, like the Puget Sound team, right? You crack me up with this
one!

She's cited in the journals, for example, three published papers in
the medical press on cycle helmets. Like I said, Dorre is a
professional statistician - her credibility does not rest on your
opinion!

So are Thompson and Rivera, whom you loudly disparage.

Indeed. And I am perfectly happy to discuss the merits of either,
based on the data they present. For example, look at tables 3 and 4
in the 1989 Seattle study and see if you notice anything unusual about
the comparison between columns I-II and V-VIII which might inform the
comparisons made between them. Particularly with respect to the last
two blocks of data in Table 3. TR&T clearly think this comparison is
still robust, as it is one of the studies they included in their
"independent" review for the Cochrane library, and they didn't note
any criticisms in that review. What do *you* think?

Oh, but wait - you haven't read that study have you? I can infer that
from the fact that it describes as confounding the factors you refused
to accept were legitimately described as such. Or is it that you
simply don't accept its conclusions? If so, which study do you
believe paints a fair picture of the efficacy of helmets against
serious injury?

ROFLMAO!!!! Zaumen accuses someone else of not addressing the issues!
So, why don't you just produce the number instead of ranting.

I did: the figures are detailed in table 1, page 2 of "Changes in head
injury with the New Zealand bicycle helmet law", Accident Analysis &
Prevention: 2001 Sep;33(5):687-91

rest snipped - Guy has no point, can't do the analysis, and knows it.

Nothing I can say will add to the comedic impact of your comment
above!

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 03:53:58 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

writes:

Bill Z. wrote:
"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:


LOL! I have no need to "puff up" Dr Robinson, Bill - she has a PhD
and an academic record; she has taken the trouble to obtain and
analyse data and present it so others can challenge her findings.

I'm not impressed. If she's so hot, what's she doing wasting time
on bicylce helmets?

:-)

By that statement, you must be confessing that _you're_ not "so hot."
Right?

I'm not wasting my time doing "research" on bicycle helmets and am
spending hardly any time on these posts. That's why my posts are
10 times shorter than Guy's.

AT LAST! A tiny point on which we can agree! ;-)

We can certainly agree that all you are capable of nothing but spin.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 03:53:58 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

I'm not wasting my time doing "research" on bicycle helmets

This much is obvious!

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 05:52:53 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

No, Guy posts endlessly - I've been posting a fraction of what
he does and if he didn't post replies to basically *everything* I post,
this thread would have died out a long time ago.

LOL! The thread only exists in the first place because you made a
bogus assertion about a study you hadn't read based on your prejudices
about someone named in a news report you later admitted you hadn't
read properly! Sure, if I'd just let your misinformation stand the
thread would have died out long ago. But I don't feel inclined to!

Apparently it is also my fault that data takes up more space than
fact-free assertion and evasion.

Another belly-laugh from Bill! This is turning out to be an
entertaining thread at last :-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 05:52:53 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

No, Guy posts endlessly - I've been posting a fraction of what
he does and if he didn't post replies to basically *everything* I post,
this thread would have died out a long time ago.

LOL! The thread only exists in the first place because you made a
bogus assertion about a study you hadn't read based on your prejudices
about someone named in a news report you later admitted you hadn't
read properly! Sure, if I'd just let your misinformation stand the
thread would have died out long ago. But I don't feel inclined to!

No, this thread only exists because you keep ranting and raving.

Apparently it is also my fault that data takes up more space than
fact-free assertion and evasion.

Another belly-laugh from Bill! This is turning out to be an
entertaining thread at last :-)

What data? Your posts are mostly childish personal attacks.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 01:23:28 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Dorre? Ancient history? I don't think so. My last email from her
was less than a week ago.

We were talking about this newsgroup, not your personal email.

Were you? I was talking about real life. Dorre is active and still
writing and publishing on this issue. Anyone who is actively
interested in helmet research will be well aware of this.

She is not writing anything here. I really don't give a damn what
she writes - I've pretty much written her off as yet another
ideologue on this issue.


LOL! You think I need to look over your shoulder to know you haven't
read something when your comments about it display ignorance of its
contents? Marvellous! This thread is getting some real comedy at
l;ast! Keep it up :-)

Staying "on message" with your lies? You guys claim that even when
I quote something verbatim.


Bwuhahahahahaa!

The words of an infant. And he wonders why I don't take him
seriously.

Oh, and you still have not posted the number I requested - what
sample size you think might be adequate to determine if helmets
do or do not prevent what you call "serious injuries". I'm
still waiting. If you posted it somewhere in your gobs of text,
and the other messages I'll flush today, I suggest you reply with
a very short post containing just this number.

Nobody is going to read many hundreds of lines of mindless, infantile
ranting in the hope of finding something meaningful.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z. wrote:
Nobody is going to read many hundreds of lines of mindless, infantile
ranting in the hope of finding something meaningful.

No, I must disagree. I've read almost all of your posts.

Of course, I was ultimately disappointed. But I did try! ;-)

- Frank Krygowski

writes:

Bill Z. wrote:
Nobody is going to read many hundreds of lines of mindless, infantile
ranting in the hope of finding something meaningful.

No, I must disagree. I've read almost all of your posts.

Of course, I was ultimately disappointed. But I did try! ;-)

More childish prattle from the group's Karl Rove wannabe, now reduced
to trying to support an infant like Guy.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

At Thu, 09 Jun 2005 02:10:39 GMT, message
was posted by
(Bill Z.), including some, all or none of
the following:

We were talking about this newsgroup, not your personal email.
Were you? I was talking about real life. Dorre is active and still
writing and publishing on this issue. Anyone who is actively
interested in helmet research will be well aware of this.

She is not writing anything here. I really don't give a damn what
she writes - I've pretty much written her off as yet another
ideologue on this issue.

LOL! Is research only valid if published here, now? That's going to
narrow things down even more than your "Bay Area" criterion! But of
course you've written Dorre off, Bill - she is knowledgeable, has data
and disagrees with you! How could it be any other way?

LOL! You think I need to look over your shoulder to know you haven't
read something when your comments about it display ignorance of its
contents? Marvellous! This thread is getting some real comedy at
last! Keep it up :-)

Staying "on message" with your lies? You guys claim that even when
I quote something verbatim.

ROFL! This thread is about a study in AAP - you assert that it is
about one thing, actually it is about another. Not difficult to work
out whether you've read it or not!

Bwuhahahahahaa!

The words of an infant. And he wonders why I don't take him
seriously.

Oh, I know why you evade what I write, Bill - for the same reason you
evade what any other poster who cites anything other than uncritical
zealotry. Don't worry, nobody is in any doubt about your reasons.

Oh, and you still have not posted the number I requested

Yes I have, I gave a citation. Table 1, page 2 of "Changes in head
injury with the New Zealand bicycle helmet law", Accident Analysis &
Prevention: 2001 Sep;33(5):687-91

Nobody is going to read many hundreds of lines of mindless, infantile
ranting in the hope of finding something meaningful.

LOL! Keep it up, you've nearly got yourself fooled! Nobody else, of
course...

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound