|
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
| Ads |
|
#302
June 19th 05, 08:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet propaganda debunked
"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:
At Fri, 17 Jun 2005 20:53:01 GMT, message was posted by (Bill Z.), including some, all or none of the following: Only one study I know of has ever done that: Rodgers. As you know, Rodgers found no correlation between helmet use and serious injury, and a small but statistically significant increase in ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ risk of death among helmeted riders! A "small but statistically significant increase" can occur by chance, and sometimes does. But a lack of correlation between helmet use and injury, in a sample this big, is *very* unlikely to be down to chance. Sigh. You said, "a small but statistically singificant increase in risk of death among helmeted riders", No, I said "Rodgers found no correlation between helmet use and serious injury, and a small but statistically significant increase in risk of death among helmeted riders". Have you not read the Rodgers study? It is one of its more prominent conclusions. Guy, you are a complete and utter idiot - what I said you said was a *direct quote* of your text above. I've underlined it for you. There is no point in trying to discuss something with an idiot who denies what he said even when the quoted text is sitting right in front of him. long rant snipped. I'll ignore your other post from today as well. Why don't you come back when you learn to read what you are responding to instead of generating long repetitive responses by cutting and pasting text that is not at all relevant. I really can't believe that you type all of your long replies from scratch. Oh, and you have no valid point. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB 
|
|
#303
June 20th 05, 01:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Helmet propaganda debunked
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 07:06:14 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote: Sigh. You said, "a small but statistically singificant increase in risk of death among helmeted riders", No, I said "Rodgers found no correlation between helmet use and serious injury, and a small but statistically significant increase in risk of death among helmeted riders". Have you not read the Rodgers study? It is one of its more prominent conclusions. Guy, you are a complete and utter idiot - what I said you said was a *direct quote* of your text above. No, what you said was a *partial* quote. I reinstated the rest of it. You don't appear to like the fact that Rodgers found no significant benefit; I can't help that. The fact is, that is what he found. He also found a small but statistically significant increase in fatalities. Given that his study included every recorded serious and fatal cyclist injury in the USA for a period of 15 years, it is hard to see what more "reliable" sample one could wish for. There is no point in trying to discuss something with an idiot who denies what he said even when the quoted text is sitting right in front of him. LOL! We know, Bill. long rant snipped. As ever, the challenge is to detail precisely which text in the evaded paragraphs is sufficiently immoderate to be characterised as a rant. I'll ignore your other post from today as well. Translation: "Tra la la la la, I'm not listening". Bill, you are fooling nobody. But you are giving Frank a few chuckles, so feel free to carry on. I really can't believe that you type all of your long replies from scratch. You have a webcam in my house? Oh, but I forgot: you are allowed to make whatever wild assertions you like, it's only sceptics who are not allowed to speculate based on the available evidence. Oh, and you have no valid point. LOL! That would explain why you feel the need to evade all the time, then :-) Keep it up, it amuses Frank. 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
|
|
#304
June 21st 05, 03:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Helmet propaganda debunked
"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 07:06:14 GMT, (Bill Z.) wrote: Sigh. You said, "a small but statistically singificant increase in risk of death among helmeted riders", No, I said "Rodgers found no correlation between helmet use and serious injury, and a small but statistically significant increase in risk of death among helmeted riders". Have you not read the Rodgers study? It is one of its more prominent conclusions. Guy, you are a complete and utter idiot - what I said you said was a *direct quote* of your text above. No, what you said was a *partial* quote. I reinstated the rest of it. You don't appear to like the fact that Rodgers found no significant benefit; I can't help that. The fact is, that is what he found. The fact is you denied what you actually said. Are you now claiming you don't believe what you post? And as i noted, a 'small but statsitically significant increase" can occur by chance. And you *still* will not quantify (a) what sample size you think is adequate or even (b) what level of confidence you think is adequate (my guess is the level varies depending on whether you like the results or not.) There is no point in trying to discuss something with an idiot who denies what he said even when the quoted text is sitting right in front of him. LOL! We know, Bill. We sure do know about you, Guy. long rant snipped. As ever, the challenge is to detail precisely which text in the evaded paragraphs is sufficiently immoderate to be characterised as a rant. All of it. You were simply babbling ... I'll ignore your other post from today as well. Translation: "Tra la la la la, I'm not listening". .... and speaking in baby talk again. How infantile. rest of rant snipped. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
|
|
#305
June 21st 05, 06:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Helmet propaganda debunked
Bill Z. wrote: "Just zis Guy, you know?" writes: No, I said "Rodgers found no correlation between helmet use and serious injury, and a small but statistically significant increase in risk of death among helmeted riders". ... as i noted, a 'small but statsitically significant increase" can occur by chance. Well, a small but statistically significant increase _could_ occur by chance; but the very meaning of "statistically significant" is that it's _very_ unlikely to have been caused by chance. If we allow sufficient improbability, we can visualize all sorts of odd things happening. For example, we can envision spacecraft taking Ford Prefect instantaneously to the other end of the universe, towel in hand. In fact, we can even envision a rational post from nemuaZ lliB ... But it's not wise to bet on such extreme improbabilities! ;-) - Frank Krygowski
|
|
#306
June 21st 05, 07:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Helmet propaganda debunked
|
|
#307
June 21st 05, 01:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Helmet propaganda debunked
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 02:40:19 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote: Sigh. You said, "a small but statistically singificant increase in risk of death among helmeted riders", No, I said "Rodgers found no correlation between helmet use and serious injury, and a small but statistically significant increase in risk of death among helmeted riders". Have you not read the Rodgers study? It is one of its more prominent conclusions. Guy, you are a complete and utter idiot - what I said you said was a *direct quote* of your text above. No, what you said was a *partial* quote. I reinstated the rest of it. You don't appear to like the fact that Rodgers found no significant benefit; I can't help that. The fact is, that is what he found. The fact is you denied what you actually said. Are you now claiming you don't believe what you post? And as i noted, a 'small but statsitically significant increase" can occur by chance. No, I did not deny what I had said, I questioned your emphasis on one part of it to the exclusion of the other, especially since you questioned it on a basis which clearly would not apply to the (much larger) group of injured cyclists. I am pretty confident that you cannot advance a single pro-helmet study which meets the exacting standards of population size you require from sceptics. Rodgers' figures is shown in his Tables 4 and 5 (pages 313 and 314 in your copy); the standard deviation for the fatality figure is 0.018, which is substantially lower than the standard deviation in any of the pro-helmet studies of which I am aware - and this based on the most accurate of all collected statistics, fatalities. The 95% CI does not cross the axis. At the lowest point of the 95% confidence band, the effect is still positive. The effect on head injuries overall was an increase, but not one which was significant, it being swamped by the prevailing trend (some twenty times greater). And you *still* will not quantify (a) what sample size you think is adequate or even (b) what level of confidence you think is adequate (my guess is the level varies depending on whether you like the results or not.) As previously stated, it's not that simple. There is very little point in speculating what size of population might be needed to prove or disprove some arbitrarily chosen level of benefit, since that is both a reversal of the burden of proof and a repudiation of the actual findings, which are, uniformly, no benefit. Whether it's zero plus or minus 5% or zero plus or minus 10% is not really terribly relevant. The main thing to remember is that these populations are substantially larger in every case than those on which the pro-helmet studies are based, so any caveat which applies to sampling rates and confidence intervals applies across the board. Of all the studies, Rodgers has the smallest confidence intervals. The largest I have seen is (from memory) 6%-92%, stated by the authors as 75%. It would be particularly pointless to start on such speculations when a part of the sceptical position has always been that attempting to reduce a complex issue to single headline-catching one-size-fits-all numbers is a core part of the problem. As to whether I like the answers, well who can say. I didn't like the answers I got when, as a helmet advocate, I was invited to check the details of the research on which helmet advocacy was based - life is like that, if you allow your preconceptions to be challenged you often find they are wrong (so I can quite see why you are so keen to avoid this). Who knows, maybe some research will come along that will change my mind again. At present it seems to be going the other way, with sceptical research finding more of an airing as people discuss the documented failure of helmet laws to yield the claimed benefits, but you never know what's around the corner. There is no point in trying to discuss something with an idiot who denies what he said even when the quoted text is sitting right in front of him. LOL! We know, Bill. We sure do know about you, Guy. Yes, we know about me: I read the studies. We also know about you: you snip, trim, flush or otherwise evade anything which challenges your cherished assumptions. And you make us laugh as you do it :-) long rant snipped. As ever, the challenge is to detail precisely which text in the evaded paragraphs is sufficiently immoderate to be characterised as a rant. All of it. You were simply babbling ... Argument by assertion. Having gone back and re-read it, I can only conclude that you are using another of those Vandeman/Zaumen idiosyncratic definitions - I am unable to find (and you are unwilling to identify) anything sufficiently immoderate as to be characterised as a "rant", so I guess that's it: "rant" is a Zaumen word meaning disagreeing with Zaumen. I'll ignore your other post from today as well. Translation: "Tra la la la la, I'm not listening". ... and speaking in baby talk again. How infantile. LOL! In a way that putting your hands over your ears and humming is mature, I guess... rest of rant snipped. Translation: "Tra la la la la, I'm not listening". As usual. And not fooling anyone either, also as usual. 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
|
|
#308
June 22nd 05, 04:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Helmet propaganda debunked
"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 02:40:19 GMT, (Bill Z.) wrote: Sigh. You said, "a small but statistically singificant increase in risk of death among helmeted riders", No, I said "Rodgers found no correlation between helmet use and serious injury, and a small but statistically significant increase in risk of death among helmeted riders". Have you not read the Rodgers study? It is one of its more prominent conclusions. Guy, you are a complete and utter idiot - what I said you said was a *direct quote* of your text above. No, what you said was a *partial* quote. I reinstated the rest of it. You don't appear to like the fact that Rodgers found no significant benefit; I can't help that. The fact is, that is what he found. The fact is you denied what you actually said. Are you now claiming you don't believe what you post? And as i noted, a 'small but statsitically significant increase" can occur by chance. No, I did not deny what I had said, I questioned your emphasis on one part of it to the exclusion of the other, especially since you questioned it on a basis which clearly would not apply to the (much larger) group of injured cyclists. No you didn't. You simply denied what you had in fact said. BTW, why don't you email Rogers and ask him if he actually thinks helmets increase the risk of a fatality. He'll most likely tell that, statistically significant or not, the increase he saw was probably due to random chance, and that anyone reading the paper would be expected to know that (and you will not say what confidence level you *personally* would require to believe such a result.) Is that really too much to ask? rest snipped as usual - he's just ranting. I'll ignore your other post from today as well. Translation: "Tra la la la la, I'm not listening". ... and speaking in baby talk again. How infantile. LOL! In a way that putting your hands over your ears and humming is mature, I guess... rest of rant snipped. Translation: "Tra la la la la, I'm not listening". As usual. And not fooling anyone either, also as usual. Repeating your baby talk, Guy. BTW, in case you don't know, there is *nobody* listening to you except people like Krygowski, and I'm just posting very short replies, after which I watch you respond with long posts. You are really making yourself look pretty silly. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
|
|
#309
June 22nd 05, 01:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Helmet propaganda debunked
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 03:48:13 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote: The fact is you denied what you actually said. Are you now claiming you don't believe what you post? And as i noted, a 'small but statsitically significant increase" can occur by chance. No, I did not deny what I had said, I questioned your emphasis on one part of it to the exclusion of the other, especially since you questioned it on a basis which clearly would not apply to the (much larger) group of injured cyclists. No you didn't. You simply denied what you had in fact said. Full exchange: You said, "a small but statistically singificant increase in risk of death among helmeted riders", No, I said "Rodgers found no correlation between helmet use and serious injury, and a small but statistically significant increase in risk of death among helmeted riders". (note that my quote includes words you snipped as well as words you quoted) Have you not read the Rodgers study? It is one of its more prominent conclusions. Guy, you are a complete and utter idiot - what I said you said was a *direct quote* of your text above. No, what you said was a *partial* quote. I reinstated the rest of it. You don't appear to like the fact that Rodgers found no significant benefit; I can't help that. The fact is, that is what he found. As stated: what you said was a partial quote, you evaded the fact that the HI figure (with an even smaller SD than the fatality figure, due to larger numbers) was zero within the limits of experimental accuracy - actually the risk was slightly but not significantly increased. You appear to be the one in denial here. BTW, why don't you email Rogers and ask him if he actually thinks helmets increase the risk of a fatality. He'll most likely tell that, statistically significant or not, the increase he saw was probably due to random chance, and that anyone reading the paper would be expected to know that (and you will not say what confidence level you *personally* would require to believe such a result.) Is that really too much to ask? I wonder why it is that you will only accept a finding of no benefit when stated in terms which assume the opposite? No, on second thoughts perhaps I can work that out. Why should I need to email Rodgers? His figures speak for themselves. Nobody is suggesting that the relationship is causal, just that it is yet one more instance of large-scale studies failing to support the inflated claims made by small-scale observational studies. According to your arguments it's OK for you to speculate that the figure was really zero based on some vague but undocumented chance factor even though the 95% confidence limits don't go close to the zero axis (consistently over 15 years? really?), but not valid for me to quote the conclusions directly from the report. Interesting. rest snipped as usual - he's just ranting. LOL! Ranting in the Vandeman-Zaumen "special" meaning, i.e. disagreeing and backed by cited data :-) Translation: "Tra la la la la, I'm not listening". As usual. And not fooling anyone either, also as usual. Repeating your baby talk, Guy. And I'll continue to repeat that taunt as long as you use your baby evasions :-) BTW, in case you don't know, there is *nobody* listening to you except people like Krygowski, and I'm just posting very short replies, after which I watch you respond with long posts. You are really making yourself look pretty silly. But not half as silly as I'm making you look :-) You crack me up. Of course reasoned argument takes longer to say than your "tra la la la la, I'm not listening"! 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
|
|
#310
June 23rd 05, 04:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Helmet propaganda debunked
"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 03:48:13 GMT, (Bill Z.) wrote: Full exchange: You said, "a small but statistically singificant increase in risk of death among helmeted riders", No, I said "Rodgers found no correlation between helmet use and serious injury, and a small but statistically significant increase in risk of death among helmeted riders". (note that my quote includes words you snipped as well as words you quoted) The words I snipped (about an independent issue) are not relevant. You claimed there was a statistically significant *increase* and I basically asked if you believed it and what confidence level *you* would consider adequate to make that claim. As stated: what you said was a partial quote, you evaded the fact that the HI figure (with an even smaller SD than the fatality figure, due to larger numbers) was zero within the limits of experimental accuracy - actually the risk was slightly but not significantly increased. You appear to be the one in denial here. As usual, you are handwaving. What level of statistical significance do you think is significant? I'll note too that you never seem to quantify what you are talking about. As I asked before, what sample size do you consider to be adequate? All you have to do is to produce a number. BTW, why don't you email Rogers and ask him if he actually thinks helmets increase the risk of a fatality. He'll most likely tell that, statistically significant or not, the increase he saw was probably due to random chance, and that anyone reading the paper would be expected to know that (and you will not say what confidence level you *personally* would require to believe such a result.) Is that really too much to ask? I wonder why it is that you will only accept a finding of no benefit when stated in terms which assume the opposite? No, on second thoughts perhaps I can work that out. Well, did you email him to ask? You guys try to pass off statistical noise as facts all the time. Why should I need to email Rodgers? So he'll get a chance to laugh at you. rest of Guy's rant snipped out of boredom -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Helmet propaganda debunked | [email protected] | Racing | 17 | April 27th 05 04:34 PM |
| Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through | Chris B. | General | 1379 | February 9th 05 04:10 PM |
| published helmet research - not troll | Frank Krygowski | Social Issues | 1716 | October 24th 04 06:39 AM |
| Reports from Sweden | Garry Jones | Social Issues | 14 | October 14th 03 05:23 PM |
| Helmet Advice | DDEckerslyke | Social Issues | 17 | September 2nd 03 11:10 PM |
Linear Mode
