Helmet propaganda debunked

At Thu, 09 Jun 2005 02:05:10 GMT, message
was posted by
(Bill Z.), including some, all or none of
the following:

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.

Yes, Bill, anything you say, Bill. Not that you've ever actually
managed to cite an example of anything sufficiently immoderate as to
be characterised as ranting or raving, of course...

But than, you are probably using another of your Vandeman-style
idiosyncratic definitions, aren't you? One which excludes your
telling other people to go f**k themselves.

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.

ROFLMAO! Who was it started the thread with a personal attack on
Avery Burdett? That would be you! You want facts? Go back and read
the text *just below* the point at which you start flushing! No, of
course you won't. You don't want reasoned argument, you want to keep
to your familiar ground of ad-hominem. You are hilarious!

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

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

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?

We were not talking about "research" but rather your specific statements
on a usenet group (rather incoherent, rambling statements at that.)

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

No you dindn't post a number (the number of "serious" head injuries
you need in a sample to see if helmets are having a useful effect) -
you do know what that is, don't you? I'll make it easy for you

1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
1000000
10000000
100000000

Pick the closest number and change the first digit or first two
digits. Even you should be able to manage that. We all know
why you won't do this - it would put you in a real bind as you
really have no valid point.

What's the matter, Guy? You cut and paste enough that you should
be able to get a number with the right number of digits into your
post, and then you just have to change a couple of them. Scared
to have to actually produce something quantitative.

BTW, when I once suggested that Dorre (claiming to be an expert
in statistics) post the maximum level of helmet effectiveness
a study she was touting could detect, she ignored the request.
Yet that number is the one that anyone actually riding a bike
would be interested in.

Kind of telling, isn't it.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

At Thu, 09 Jun 2005 02:05:10 GMT, message
was posted by
(Bill Z.), including some, all or none of
the following:

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.

Yes, Bill, anything you say, Bill. Not that you've ever actually
managed to cite an example of anything sufficiently immoderate as to
be characterised as ranting or raving, of course...

Look at some of your posts over the last few days. Did you forget
your "Bwhawawawa" or whatever it was, not to mention the rest of
your rantings.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 07:15:39 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

[Ob Dor]

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?

We were not talking about "research" but rather your specific statements
on a usenet group (rather incoherent, rambling statements at that.)

Oh, Bill! It just gets funnier and funnier!

You believe what you want to believe, your belief is evidently
unshakeable (not least because you refuse to read anything which might
shake it!).

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

No you dindn't post a number (the number of "serious" head injuries
you need in a sample to see if helmets are having a useful effect) -
you do know what that is, don't you? I'll make it easy for you

But Bill, it's not as simpl;e as that! There's a whole table of data
to consider. You really need to look at the source data, rather than
resort to gross oversimplifications.

Pick the closest number and change the first digit or first two
digits. Even you should be able to manage that. We all know
why you won't do this - it would put you in a real bind as you
really have no valid point.

ROFLMAO! How many times have people asked you what figure you prefer
for helmet efficacy? You've never answered it. I'm not going to give
you a partial answer for you to distort and misrepresent, I've given
you a citation which has full data.

What's the matter, Guy? You cut and paste enough that you should
be able to get a number with the right number of digits into your
post, and then you just have to change a couple of them. Scared
to have to actually produce something quantitative.

Scared? Heavens, no! I've cited the source! Anyone would think you
were not prepared to follow it up! You wouldn't want me to risk
misleading people by posting a single figure when there's a whole
table of data, would you?

But to hear you talk, anyone would think it was up to the sceptics to
prove the negative, rather than those selling helmets to prove their
case!

BTW, when I once suggested that Dorre (claiming to be an expert
in statistics) post the maximum level of helmet effectiveness
a study she was touting could detect, she ignored the request.
Yet that number is the one that anyone actually riding a bike
would be interested in.
Kind of telling, isn't it.

What, that she would fail to answer a loaded question from you? Why
would that be telling about anything other than the extent of your
ability to **** off anybody who dares to post real, hard data
contradicting your beliefs? And that's assuming that you are not
misrepresenting the discussion - a contentious assumption!

I've seen Dorre's analysis and it goes into detail about confidence
intervals, regression parameters and so on - thousands of words of
close argument, when you routinely flush anything over a few tens of
lines as being too long. I can quite see why she would not want you to
go plucking random numbers out of the middle of that lot and beating
her over the head with them! The devil is in the detail.

And don't forget that there is no time-series study from any
population in the world which shows any improvement in head injury
rates as a result of increasing helmet use. These studies are an
important cross-check against the estimates of the relative effects of
helmets vs. confounding in the case-control studies and with that
number of time-series coming up with zero or even negative figures,
it's hard to come to any conclusion other than that the case-control
estimates are seriously in error. Like the recent issue of the
International Journal of Epidemiology says, confounding is inherent in
observational case-control studies, so they always need to be
cross-checked against other sources. All the sceptics are doing is
following sound scientific principles!

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 Thu, 09 Jun 2005 07:18:15 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:


Yes, Bill, anything you say, Bill. Not that you've ever actually
managed to cite an example of anything sufficiently immoderate as to
be characterised as ranting or raving, of course...

Look at some of your posts over the last few days. Did you forget
your "Bwhawawawa" or whatever it was, not to mention the rest of
your rantings.

Oh come on! Do the words "ranting", "rambling", "drivel", "garbage",
"flushing", "childish", "babyish", "go f**k yourself", "liar", "little
boy", "child", "whining", "nut", "idiot", "tripe", "infant",
"incoherent" sound familiar at all? Because these are words you have
used, often in response to perfectly civil reasoned argument, in this
thread. Even my kids 'fess up and admit they threw the first punch
/sometimes/!

You started this thread by trashing a report you had not read, based
on your prejudices about one person named in a news story about the
report - a story you had not even read properly. This is documented
fact. You seem to feel that a refusal to let you get away with that
is some kind of personal vendetta! Why this need to personalise?

You went on to falsely claim Mills rebuts the later Curnow paper, but
they have substantially different subject matter; in fact the
discussion of the Cochrane review in Curnow is rebutting its
uncritical acceptance in Mills, rather than the other way around.

Bill, I am happy to discuss the details of the current Curnow paper
and its criticisms of the Cochrane review. Let's start he





Your response to discussion of confounding in case-control studies was
evasive. I find the recent discussion of this issue in the literature
to be interesting and highly relevant. I am happy to discuss
confounding in case-control studies and its implications for helmet
research and promotion. Let's start he





You profess to dislike personal attacks. Let's see if we can manage
these two discussions without resorting to name-calling, shall we?

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

Bill Z. wrote:
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.

:-) Come on, Bill. You have to admit, that was funny!

Well, no, I guess you'll find a way to not admit it. But trust me, it
was funny anyway!

- Frank Krygowski

writes:

Bill Z. wrote:
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.

:-) Come on, Bill. You have to admit, that was funny!

Well, no, I guess you'll find a way to not admit it. But trust me, it
was funny anyway!

It may be funny, but it is only funny because it fits you perfectly.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 07:15:39 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:


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?

We were not talking about "research" but rather your specific statements
on a usenet group (rather incoherent, rambling statements at that.)

Oh, Bill! It just gets funnier and funnier!

What's really funny is watching you continually shift your spin on what
you were talking about. My guess is that you don't actually remember so
just make something up.

You believe what you want to believe, your belief is evidently
unshakeable (not least because you refuse to read anything which might
shake it!).

That sort of statement from some guy too scared to produce a single
number as an answer to a simple question that is germane to the
discussion?


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

No you dindn't post a number (the number of "serious" head injuries
you need in a sample to see if helmets are having a useful effect) -
you do know what that is, don't you? I'll make it easy for you

But Bill, it's not as simpl;e as that! There's a whole table of data
to consider. You really need to look at the source data, rather than
resort to gross oversimplifications.

It is as simple as that. I asked you what (minimum) sample size you
thought was needed to measure how effective helmets are in mitigating
serious head injuries. I.e., if a cyclist would consider a 10%
benefit adequate to justify using a helmet, then what sample size
would you want for that 10% to not be lost in the noise?

Simple question - you need to provide only a single number. Why can't
you do that?

ROFLMAO! How many times have people asked you what figure you prefer
for helmet efficacy? You've never answered it. I'm not going to give
you a partial answer for you to distort and misrepresent, I've given
you a citation which has full data.

I have answered that years ago - I presume "prefer" means the minimal
value at which I'd consider a helmet worth buying and using.

Scared? Heavens, no! I've cited the source! Anyone would think you
were not prepared to follow it up! You wouldn't want me to risk
misleading people by posting a single figure when there's a whole
table of data, would you?

Scared - sure you are! You won't produce a simple number, and your
source is not relevant - the question was the sample size *you*
think is adequate, not the sample size someone happened to use.
If you have to, since you claim to be getting email from your favorite
"professional statistician", why don't you ask her what the number
should be. You can't even do that. is it because having a number to
talk about would be rather embarassing for your side of the discussion?

lines and lines of text snipped as Guy tries his best to spin his
way out of not providing a simple number.




--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

At Fri, 10 Jun 2005 01:06:18 GMT, message
was posted by
(Bill Z.), including some, all or none of
the following:

We were not talking about "research" but rather your specific statements
on a usenet group (rather incoherent, rambling statements at that.)

Oh, Bill! It just gets funnier and funnier!

What's really funny is watching you continually shift your spin on what
you were talking about. My guess is that you don't actually remember so
just make something up.

Ah, so you base your arguments on guessing. That explains a lot.

You believe what you want to believe, your belief is evidently
unshakeable (not least because you refuse to read anything which might
shake it!).

That sort of statement from some guy too scared to produce a single
number as an answer to a simple question that is germane to the
discussion?

LOL! I did better than quote one number out of context, with the
potential to mislead: I cited the source for the data on which the
New Zealand studies are based. These give valuable context. You
would rather I run the risk of misleading people? For shame! Go to
the source.

"Changes in head injury with the New Zealand bicycle helmet law",
Accident Analysis & Prevention: 2001 Sep;33(5):687-91; Table 1, It's
all in there. It's inconceivable that you would be making the claims
you do without having this basic data to hand, after all.

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
No you dindn't post a number (the number of "serious" head injuries
you need in a sample to see if helmets are having a useful effect) -
you do know what that is, don't you? I'll make it easy for you
But Bill, it's not as simple as that! There's a whole table of data
to consider. You really need to look at the source data, rather than
resort to gross oversimplifications.

It is as simple as that. I asked you what (minimum) sample size you
thought was needed to measure how effective helmets are in mitigating
serious head injuries. I.e., if a cyclist would consider a 10%
benefit adequate to justify using a helmet, then what sample size
would you want for that 10% to not be lost in the noise?

10%? Is that the figure for efficacy you're claiming? I have no
idea, myself; I'm just measuring the predictions of the pro-helmet
studies against real-world data to see f they match up. They don't.
Consistently they don't. But then, I don't recall a pro-helmet study
which makes a claim as low as 10%, they all seem to talk about 75%,
85%, that kind of numbers.

Nobody's ever sold a helmet law on the basis of saving 10% of
injuries. The number is always higher than that. Always. The
figures are quite big enough to show up a benefit that big. And there
are similar figures from six separate jurisdictions.

Simple question - you need to provide only a single number. Why can't
you do that?

Because it would be misleading. Dorre's current paper on the issue
runs to about 2,500 words plus fifty references. You can't distill
that down to one number. Trying to render complex statistical models
down to a single headline number is one of the things I'm complaining
about in the case-control studies, after all.

But I suppose that one can make a statement along the following lines:
taking the six jurisdictions where helmet use has increased by 40% or
more due to the introduction of helmet laws, then the effect on head
injury rates is statistically insignificant (unlike the effect on
cyclist numbers). That's looking at the studies and seeing what
figure they come up with, rather than plucking a figure out of the air
and seeing if the studies exclude it or not. Again, actively looking
for support for a premise is one of the things I complain about in he
case-control studies.

ROFLMAO! How many times have people asked you what figure you prefer
for helmet efficacy? You've never answered it. I'm not going to give
you a partial answer for you to distort and misrepresent, I've given
you a citation which has full data.

I have answered that years ago - I presume "prefer" means the minimal
value at which I'd consider a helmet worth buying and using.

No. I mean: what proportion of serious head injuries do you think
helmets prevent.

Scared? Heavens, no! I've cited the source! Anyone would think you
were not prepared to follow it up! You wouldn't want me to risk
misleading people by posting a single figure when there's a whole
table of data, would you?

Scared - sure you are! You won't produce a simple number, and your
source is not relevant

Sources are never relevant in your world, Bill!

lines and lines of text snipped as Guy tries his best to spin his
way out of not providing a simple number.

So you say. But it seems to me you're asking me to back up something
I'm not saying. Your question assumes benefit, and asks what size of
population would be necessary to provide proof of that benefit. Why?
What is wrong with looking at the data the right way round, noting
that the effect on head injury rates of large, rapid increases in
helmet use is statistically insignificant, over several populations?
That's my position; your question does not address that at all. It
seems to me that it doesn't much matter if the answer is 0 +/- 10% or
0 +/- 5%.

I suggest going back to the data as cited. That is much more
informative.

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

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

At Fri, 10 Jun 2005 01:06:18 GMT, message
was posted by
(Bill Z.), including some, all or none of
the following:

We were not talking about "research" but rather your specific statements
on a usenet group (rather incoherent, rambling statements at that.)

Oh, Bill! It just gets funnier and funnier!

What's really funny is watching you continually shift your spin on what
you were talking about. My guess is that you don't actually remember so
just make something up.

Ah, so you base your arguments on guessing. That explains a lot.

Rather (and unlike you), I do not claim to know exactly what goes on
in the head or home of someone I've never met.


You believe what you want to believe, your belief is evidently
unshakeable (not least because you refuse to read anything which might
shake it!).

That sort of statement from some guy too scared to produce a single
number as an answer to a simple question that is germane to the
discussion?

LOL! I did better than quote one number out of context, with the
potential to mislead: I cited the source for the data on which the
New Zealand studies are based. These give valuable context. You
would rather I run the risk of misleading people? For shame! Go to
the source.

See -case in point - you won't produce this simple number


It is as simple as that. I asked you what (minimum) sample size you
thought was needed to measure how effective helmets are in mitigating
serious head injuries. I.e., if a cyclist would consider a 10%
benefit adequate to justify using a helmet, then what sample size
would you want for that 10% to not be lost in the noise?

10%? Is that the figure for efficacy you're claiming?

Sigh. Read what you are replying to 20 times until you get it. IF
needed, look up the definitions of "I.e." "If", and "would".

lots of garbage snipped

So you say. But it seems to me you're asking me to back up something
I'm not saying. Your question assumes benefit, and asks what size of
population would be necessary to provide proof of that benefit. Why?


You really don't get it? I asked what sample size do you think would
be necessary to detect a benefit of a particular size. If you have
a sample size smaller than that, you simply can't say one way or
another on the basis of that sample. The question most assuredly does
not assume a benefit - it simply assumes that a cyclist would want
some minimum benefit from a helmet to be willing to purchase or use
one, which is basically what people do regarding any product or
service they buy.

That you don't understand that is a pretty good indication that you
really don't understand much of anything and probably explains why
your posts look like mindless rants to me. Of course, it is possible
that you do understand it (maybe you emailed your favorite statistician
for help) and found that the numbers you'd get are way too embarassing
for the agenda you are trying to push, so you do what you always do
and try to dazzle them with verbage.

more garbage snipped

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB