|
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
| Ads |
|
#32
November 26th 04, 07:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
David Martin 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. 
|
|
#33
November 26th 04, 08:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(James Annan) wrote:
John Doe wrote in message news: If you want to read about the benefit of wearing a helmet while riding a bicycle, all you have to do is research the matter. .... Inj Prev. 2003 Sep;9(3):266-7. Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, London, UK... The wearing of a cycle helmet is estimated to prevent 60% of head injuries. It is interesting to see this cited again. The 60% figure is known to be wrong, a point which has been acknowledged by the authors, and yet no correction has been published... This known error has not to my knowledge been corrected in the published literature (it can be found on the IP web-site if you know where to look). "Somewhere, over the rainbow...la la la" This sit uneasily with IP's position on the "Committee on Publication Ethics", whose guidelines state clearly "Where a published paper is found to contain major flaws, editors must accept responsibility for correcting the record prominently and promptly". I think it's time I sent an email... 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. The opinion that helmets help prevent injury is held by practically every doctor in the world. It is like all of them are screaming "Wear a helmet!". But a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. Every reply so far to my original post has snipped the link I provided to the source. One snipped the link and then said I was being "selective". Another snipped the link to the source and then implied I am part of a "soundbite culture". How ironic. http://ip.bmjjournals.com/misc/about.shtml Looking at the articles there, I get about the same impression as I did at the PubMed site here. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed Enter something like this. "Head injury" helmet bicycle
|
|
#34
November 26th 04, 08:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
John Doe g opined the following...
"Somewhere, over the rainbow...la la la" You did claim to be good at searching! 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. No they don't. The opinion that helmets help prevent injury is held by practically every doctor in the world. It is like all of them are screaming "Wear a helmet!". No they don't. But a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. As you have nicely demonstrated with your troll^H^H^H^H^Hpost. Every reply so far to my original post has snipped the link I provided to the source. One snipped the link and then said I was being "selective". Another snipped the link to the source and then implied I am part of a "soundbite culture". The reason they snipped the links, is that when replying to a post, it is polite to only include the parts that you are discussing. Your "email address" would imply that you were already aware of this but... Looking at the articles there, I get about the same impression as I did at the PubMed site here. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed Enter something like this. "Head injury" helmet bicycle Out of interest have you actually read any of these marvelous papers, or are you just assuming that quantity somehow equals quality when dealing with medical research? 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. But then, that would assume that you were capable of genuine research, rather than simply copy-and-pasting the results of a carefully selected search. Get thee back under your bridge, troll. Jon
|
|
#35
November 26th 04, 08:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
Veering OT for light relief, I've seen fractures higher up the radius when these are worn. I haven't a clue whether this is worse numerically. (I suspect high radial fractures are technically more difficult to fix though) Have these guards been properly evaluated ;-) ?? But I think it's the case that, like helmets, most of the accidents won't actually be breaks but grazes. The scratches on mine certainly didn't transfer into breaks. And unlike a helmet it's very highly probably that you'll break a fall with your hands by reflex so if you go over your chances of a hand down onto tarmac are very high. But though I've broken falls with my hands on skates and unicycle, I haven't banged my head from either as yet. This is not to say a break won't be worse, but if breaks were that common I don't think skating would be as popular as it is... Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
|
|
#36
November 26th 04, 08:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jon Senior jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk wrote:
John Doe g opined the following... The opinion that helmets help prevent injury is held by practically every doctor in the world. It is like all of them are screaming "Wear a helmet!". But a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. Every reply so far to my original post has snipped the link I provided to the source. One snipped the link and then said I was being "selective". Another snipped the link to the source and then implied I am part of a "soundbite culture". How ironic. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed Enter something like this. "Head injury" helmet bicycle 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. But that is your troll. 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. But then, that would assume that you were capable of genuine research, rather than simply copy-and-pasting the results of a carefully selected search. Are you suggesting that PubMed only publishes articles which promote the wearing of helmets? That is all I found. If you can find something on PubMed to support your view, let's see it. Get thee back under your bridge, troll. After you. Jon Path: newssvr11.news.prodigy.com!newsswing.news.prodigy. com!prodigy.net!newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!prodig y.com!in.100proofnews.com!in.100proofnews.com!news 2.euro.net!216.196.110.149.MISMATCH!border2.nntp.a ms.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!mephistopheles.n ews.clara.net!news.clara.net!demeter.uk.clara.net From: Jon Senior jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: What doctors/researchers think about wearing a helmet. Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 08:24:35 -0000 Message-ID: References: Organization: The UK Branch of the Mafia MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: MicroPlanet-Gravity/2.70.2061 X-Complaints-To: (please include full headers) X-Trace: 6410602858000008f0162c1127745038311674a444352f0967 ada2aa41a6e826 NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 08:24:06 +0000 Lines: 56 Xref: newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com uk.rec.cycling:363076
|
|
#37
November 26th 04, 09:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
Would skaters skate more carefully if they knew their wrists were unguarded? Quite possibly, but safety isn't a primary worry of inline skating. There isn't much death and doom, while what there is in cycling is mostly due to motor vehicles that generally don't interface with typical skaters. Skating is popular: pop down to A&E and ask how many serious breaks they see from it. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
|
|
#38
November 26th 04, 09:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
John Doe wrote:
(James Annan) wrote: Or maybe you can have something published yourself You're really not paying too much attention to the literature, are you? If you were you'd know that it was James Annan's letter to IP that was published to point out the arithmetical error that Cook and Sheikh made, and which they acknowledged they made, though they didn't subsequently see fit to revise their paper. The opinion that helmets help prevent injury is held by practically every doctor in the world. It is like all of them are screaming "Wear a helmet!". I work in a hospital, so I know this is not true, but even to the extent it is most of them are is based on an assumption that it is better, rather than actual research. But a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. Just like you're doing, then. Every reply so far to my original post has snipped the link I provided to the source. Because it's still there in the thread and not relevant to the comments made on the sections that were annotated. http://ip.bmjjournals.com/misc/about.shtml Looking at the articles there, I get about the same impression as I did at the PubMed site here. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed Enter something like this. "Head injury" helmet bicycle And find a load more improperly supported conclusions by clinicians who can't really do science very well... A doctor friend of mine is aghast at how bad many of his colleagues are at evidence based medicine, and with your pile of references to go by it's really no wonder. Have you looked critically at any of these beyond the "conclusions"? If so, why do you feel that, for example, Thompson, Rivara and Thompsons' 1989 case control study methodology is valid, showing as it does 75% protection by helmets against *leg* injuries? Please explain, because I can't explain it and since you seem to feel yourself an authority I wouldn't mind some help with it. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
|
|
#39
November 26th 04, 09:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Peter Clinch wrote:
Helen Deborah Vecht wrote: Would skaters skate more carefully if they knew their wrists were unguarded? Quite possibly, but safety isn't a primary worry of inline skating. That suggests you are not a skater, or maybe you are a rink skater. I am quite sure that in-line skating in the concrete jungle is very risky, significantly more risky than cycling. It's also thrilling. There isn't much death and doom, Serious head injury can easily happen if you are not wearing a helmet when your skates slip out from under you and your head slams into some concrete or steel. It's not difficult to visualize the risk. Look at a skater and notice when he or she is upright even with knees bent his center of balance is much higher than his feet. Again, that's not a big deal on a nice smooth level surface, it is a big deal on rough uneven surfaces. For example, if your feet are not scissored and you hit a one-inch rise in the pavement, you hit the ground immediately (depending on how fast you are going). You can fall down and hit your head anytime, but the risk is high while skating. Pad up and enjoy the thrill. Skating is popular: pop down to A&E and ask how many serious breaks they see from it. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/ Path: newssvr30.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm03.news.prodigy. com! newsdst01.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01a.news.prodigy .com!prodigy.com! border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!ne wsfeed.cwix.com! newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!easynet-quince!easynet.net! feed4.jnfs.ja.net!jnfs.ja.net!dundee.ac.uk!not-for-mail From: Peter Clinch Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: What doctors/researchers think about wearing a helmet. Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:00:15 +0000 Organization: University of Dundee Lines: 19 Message-ID: References: .com NNTP-Posting-Host: tigger.dundee.ac.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS sun4u; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20040414 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en In-Reply-To: Xref: newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com uk.rec.cycling:363079
|
|
#40
November 26th 04, 09:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Peter Clinch wrote:
John Doe wrote: The opinion that helmets help prevent injury is held by practically every doctor in the world. It is like all of them are screaming "Wear a helmet!". I work in a hospital, so I know this is not true, It is according to PubMed. 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. Apparently you think that is the only research paper in the world on the subject. But a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. Every reply so far to my original post has snipped the link I provided to the source. Because it's still there in the thread and not relevant to the comments made on the sections that were annotated. Bull****. I posted the source which is the opposite of being "selective" and part of the "soundbite culture". http://ip.bmjjournals.com/misc/about.shtml Looking at the articles there, I get about the same impression as I did at the PubMed site here. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed Enter something like this. "Head injury" helmet bicycle And find a load more improperly supported conclusions by clinicians who can't really do science very well... Even if that were true, one then has to wonder why none of them err on your side of the issue. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/ Path: newssvr11.news.prodigy.com!newscon03.news.prodigy. com!newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!news-FFM2.ecrc.net!news-lond.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!easynet-quince!easynet.net!feed4.jnfs.ja.net!jnfs.ja.net!d undee.ac.uk!not-for-mail From: Peter Clinch Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: What doctors/researchers think about wearing a helmet. Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:13:53 +0000 Organization: University of Dundee Lines: 59 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: tigger.dundee.ac.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS sun4u; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20040414 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en In-Reply-To: Xref: newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com uk.rec.cycling:363083
|
| 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 |
;9jOj:ZN?L0ZLg8[fn^8WkV\RIM4dF9
Linear Mode
