What doctors/researchers think about wearing a helmet.

On 26/11/04 6:02 am, in article
, "RogerDodger"
wrote:


David Martin Wrote:
I used to be a little sceptical about the research done by clinicians.
Having now worked with them I now take a Ghandi-esque view of Evidence
Based Medicine..

...d

David -who is the Ghandi in this Ghandi-esque view? can you provide a
link to an outline of this view please?

When Ghandi was asked what he thought of western civilisation, he replied
that he thought it would be a good idea.

The implication was that the west was not civilized.

So the Ghandi-esque view on Evidence Based Medicine is that it would be a
good idea.

...d

On 26/11/04 8:12 am, in article ,
"John Doe" wrote:

(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.

This is funny. You do realise that the journal referred to published the
critique of the paper written by the person you are replying to?



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".

You are part of the soundbite culture. My newsreader keeps references so can
easily get back to the source (which in the original sense is the journal
ref, not the abstract in medline).


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

And then actually read the papers and attempt to justify the results. Shall
we start wih the paper in IP? Why do you think the conclusions are valid, or
are you not competent to actually judge (or maybe you havent actually read
the paper)?

...d

On 26/11/04 8:59 am, in article ,
"John Doe" wrote:

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.
If you had read the full papers, or even looked at the data in which they
were based, you would realise that your understanding is false. Yes the
number of head injuries has dropped where MHL came in butnot as much as the
number of cyclists. Which is an interesting phenomenon, suggesting quite
strongly that helmets have no discernable positive effect on injury rates

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.

Are they really? Based on what sample size? what methods of control? How is
self selctivity corrected for?

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.


I would suggest that PubMed soesn't actually publish any articles at all. To
suggest that PubMed is a publisher is merely displaying your ignorance.

B for effort
D for actual results.

...d

John Doe wrote in message ...
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.

You are clutching at straws. Why should there be a need to repeat the
link if you've already posted it? Snipping is vital to keep threads
readable. Creative snipping intended to alter the meaning of the post
being quoted is a different matter. You're not suggesting that's the
case here, are you?

--
Dave...

Richard wrote in message ...

Oh, I don't know - riding a tandem, one could get the stoker to read
exciting exerpts from War & Peace to get you through the more tedious
bits of the ride.

As long as it doesn't cause the captain to nod off.

--
Dave...

John Doe wrote:

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.

Well, you're the one telling us to read research, so what are the hard
numbers, and what are your sources?

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.

But in general you break the fall with your hands and arms, as reflex
action makes you do, and though you can hit your head it is unlikely to
be the sort of energy that will cause serious injury, though how you
define "serious injury" is a matter of subjective judgement.

Last time I took a fall from a bike was an over the bars job, and I hit
my head. I was wearing a helmet, but since it was my chin that hit the
tarmac it didn't do me any good. Odd that, since some of your citations
claim that helmets are effective against facial injuries...

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 actually tend to fly through the air in a headlong dive with your
arms stretched out in front of you from reflex action, so the impact is
generally taken by hands, arms and body. Of course, if you are wearing
a helmet your head is effectively larger and heavier, so you're more
likely to hit it (see Bicyclists, helmets and head injuries: a
rider-based study of helmet use and effectiveness Wasserman RC, Waller
JA, Monty MJ, Emery AB, Robinson DR 1988. American Journal of Public
Health: 1988 Sep;78(9):1220-1)

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/

"LSMike" wrote in message oups.com...
Hi Everybody!

I just wanted to delurk and say that John Doe (aka LShaping) and this
post come across from rec.sport.skating.inline. I wouldn't call him a
troll, but I'd bet he'll call at least one of you a troll in this
thread.

Give the man a cigar! See http://tinyurl.co.uk/ovsl original url
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?q=g:thl2872101224d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=Xns95 ADAFC76CB3wisdomfolly%40151.164.30.44.
Top posted too.

Imagine "John Doe" calling Nick Kew a troll. What a sauce! I've heard
everything now.

--
Dave...

Troll.

David Martin wrote:

Path: newssvr11.news.prodigy.com!newsswing.news.prodigy. com!prodigy.net!newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!prodig y.com!news.glorb.com!feeder.enertel.nl!nntpfeed-01.ops.asmr-01.energis-idc.net!216.196.110.149.MISMATCH!border2.nntp.ams. giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!not-for-mail
From: David Martin
Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling
Subject: What doctors/researchers think about wearing a helmet.
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:54:53 +0000
Lines: 58
Message-ID:
References:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de ZZ1fv7HsY4YkZwM8uMuRyQxEVE7wkAxIrVZAtQstZFhy0PAmFa
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.1.0.040913
Xref: newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com uk.rec.cycling:363096

On 26/11/04 8:59 am, in article ,
"John Doe" wrote:

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.
If you had read the full papers, or even looked at the data in which they
were based, you would realise that your understanding is false. Yes the
number of head injuries has dropped where MHL came in butnot as much as the
number of cyclists. Which is an interesting phenomenon, suggesting quite
strongly that helmets have no discernable positive effect on injury rates

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.

Are they really? Based on what sample size? what methods of control? How is
self selctivity corrected for?

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.


I would suggest that PubMed soesn't actually publish any articles at all. To
suggest that PubMed is a publisher is merely displaying your ignorance.

B for effort
D for actual results.

..d

Troll.

(Dave Kahn) wrote:

Path: newssvr11.news.prodigy.com!newsswing.news.prodigy. com!prodigy.net!newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!prodig y.com!news.glorb.com!postnews.google.com!not-for-mail
From: (Dave Kahn)
Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling
Subject: What doctors/researchers think about wearing a helmet.
Date: 26 Nov 2004 02:25:06 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 16
Message-ID:
References:
NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.188.207.157
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1101464706 10608 127.0.0.1 (26 Nov 2004 10:25:06 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 10:25:06 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com uk.rec.cycling:363106

John Doe wrote in message ...
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.

You are clutching at straws. Why should there be a need to repeat the
link if you've already posted it? Snipping is vital to keep threads
readable. Creative snipping intended to alter the meaning of the post
being quoted is a different matter. You're not suggesting that's the
case here, are you?

--
Dave...

Troll.

David Martin wrote:

Path: newssvr11.news.prodigy.com!newscon03.news.prodigy. com!newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newsho sting.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newsfeed.icl. net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!not-for-mail
From: David Martin
Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling
Subject: What doctors/researchers think about wearing a helmet.
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:49:28 +0000
Lines: 76
Message-ID:
References:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de XV2zDvVlqmwJaOaXY1MtrwcQ9vKskhOZL8HDCijR9OQLm2i+VC
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.1.0.040913
Xref: newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com uk.rec.cycling:363095

On 26/11/04 8:12 am, in article ,
"John Doe" wrote:

(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.

This is funny. You do realise that the journal referred to published the
critique of the paper written by the person you are replying to?



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".

You are part of the soundbite culture. My newsreader keeps references so can
easily get back to the source (which in the original sense is the journal
ref, not the abstract in medline).


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

And then actually read the papers and attempt to justify the results. Shall
we start wih the paper in IP? Why do you think the conclusions are valid, or
are you not competent to actually judge (or maybe you havent actually read
the paper)?

..d