|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Ads |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
John Doe typed But a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. In the clearing stands a boxer and a fighter by his trade and he carries the reminders of every blow that cut him or laid him down till he cried out in his anger and his shame I AM LEAVING I AM LEAVING but the fighter still remains... LOL blushes |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 07:32:51 GMT, John Doe
wrote: rantThe problem with the soundbite internet culture I posted a link to the source. You snip the link, then turn around and imply that I am part of a soundbite Internet culture. How ironic. You seem to think that this **** has not been stirred a thousand times around here already. Do you have any idea how much time some of us have spent reading and understanding the research evidence? What you posted was soundbytes taken from sources which are often merely repetitions of other sources in the list, and excluding all the evidence which does not support your cause. That was the meat of the complaint as I understand it, and I agree. Here's a question for you, though: what proportion of serious injuries do you think helmets prevent? Which study do you believe? 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 Washington University |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 10:57:42 GMT, John Doe
wrote: Troll. Mike gets his fiver, then. 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 Washington University |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 08:12:09 GMT, John Doe
wrote: Or maybe you can have something published yourself, along with the other hundred or more published opinions written by doctors, neurosurgeons, research scientists, and from clinical studies, all of which enthusiastically support the wearing of bicycle helmets. He has had a letter published in those journals showing the paper you cited to be this: Complete ********. Once you correct for the authors' schoolboy statistical error the claimed efficacy is 186%. Which is a bit surprising given that one of them is also the author of a standard text on statistics... 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 Washington University |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 08:59:28 GMT, John Doe
wrote: Based on the knowledge that you have gained from your reading of these papers, I assume that you can explain why it is that the introduction of enforced, compulsory helmet wearing has had no effect on head injuries anywhere that it has been introduced. According to all of the article summaries I read, that is plainly false. Then you need to read more widely. You also need to go beyond the summaries. It will take a while, I have accumulated over 160 helmet papers to date and I am still learning. I didn't say anything about compulsory helmet wearing. My focus was on the fact that serious head injuries to children are significantly reduced by helmet wearing. Yet this assertion is flatly contradicted by population statistics form countries which have achieved close to 100% helmet use in children over a very short period. How do you account for that? I recommend you start by reading the actual papers you cite, in detail, and comparing the injury profiles (not just for head injuries) and demographics of the groups of cyclists they compare. 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 Washington University |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Troll.
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote: Path: newssvr12.news.prodigy.com!newssvr11.news.prodigy. com!newscon03.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01a.news.pro digy.com!prodigy.com!newshosting.com!nx02.iad01.ne wshosting.com!news2.euro.net!216.196.110.149.MISMA TCH!border2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.co m!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!not-for-mail From: "Just zis Guy, you know?" Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: What doctors/researchers think about wearing a helmet. Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 15:26:38 +0000 Organization: Disorganised Lines: 26 Message-ID: References: Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de XtPPEFaV15QomUaEYHorQQjpQGAUStkpfB9KK6TaBPv1DrtLSV X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652 Xref: newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com uk.rec.cycling:363197 On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 07:32:51 GMT, John Doe wrote: rantThe problem with the soundbite internet culture I posted a link to the source. You snip the link, then turn around and imply that I am part of a soundbite Internet culture. How ironic. You seem to think that this **** has not been stirred a thousand times around here already. Do you have any idea how much time some of us have spent reading and understanding the research evidence? What you posted was soundbytes taken from sources which are often merely repetitions of other sources in the list, and excluding all the evidence which does not support your cause. That was the meat of the complaint as I understand it, and I agree. Here's a question for you, though: what proportion of serious injuries do you think helmets prevent? Which study do you believe? 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 Washington University |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
"Dave Larrington" typed He's almost as upminster as Mike Corley. Is upminster close to barking? I don't know East London... A quick google confirms my suspicion that it's beyond Barking. Heading East on the District Line, through Barking and Dagenham, Upminster is at the end of the line. (I'd heard Maggie Thatcher described as Dagenham.) http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/pdfdocs/colormap.pdf |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:39:21 GMT, John Doe
wrote: but even to the extent it is most of them are is based on an assumption that it is better, rather than actual research. So look at the other research papers. I guess you didn't notice there were more research papers than the one you claim to be faulty. They are all faulty, and mostly for the same reasons. As you would know if you had bothered to research the subject rather than regurgitating a screed of studies without even checking to see if there are published criticisms of them. This is not even that unusual. A large number of similar studies showed a link between HRT and reductions in coronary heart disease, although a vocal minority pointed out that there was consistent sample bias. A clinical trial revealed that there was no link, that the gainsayers had been entirely correct. In the same way, countries which have passed helmet laws based on the famous 85% claim have found that cyclists' head injury rates remain unchanged. 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 Washington University |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:
wrote: Or maybe you can have something published yourself, along with the other hundred or more published opinions written by doctors, neurosurgeons, research scientists, and from clinical studies, all of which enthusiastically support the wearing of bicycle helmets. He has had a letter published in those journals showing the paper you cited In fact, I cited dozens. There are about 78 here. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed Using this simple search criteria. "head injury" bicycle helmet to be this: Complete ********. A letter to an editor which is not substantiated by either the editor or the original author. That's hardly a publication, and he isn't a doctor. Once you correct for the authors' schoolboy statistical error the claimed efficacy is 186%. Which is a bit surprising given that one of them is also the author of a standard text on statistics... 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 Washington University Path: newssvr12.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm05.news.prodigy. com! newsdst01.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01a.news.prodigy .com!prodigy.com! newshosting.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newsfee d.icl.net! newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!216.196.11 0.149.MISMATCH! border2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!fu-berlin.de!uni- berlin.de!not-for-mail From: "Just zis Guy, you know?" Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: What doctors/researchers think about wearing a helmet. Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 15:31:34 +0000 Organization: Disorganised Lines: 21 Message-ID: References: Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de P1ShXb4SE/XDm8JDOuPrJQMbulxIsRpqAfqmVwmHrgZqUfjes0 X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652 Xref: newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com uk.rec.cycling:363203 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Critique of BMA paper | Just zis Guy, you know? | UK | 2 | November 11th 04 11:15 PM |
published helmet research - not troll | Frank Krygowski | General | 1927 | October 24th 04 06:39 AM |
First Helmet : jury is out. | Walter Mitty | General | 125 | June 26th 04 02:00 AM |
Compulsory helmets again! | Richard Burton | UK | 526 | December 29th 03 08:19 PM |