What doctors/researchers think about wearing a helmet.

Troll.

(Dave Kahn) wrote:

Path: newssvr12.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm03.news.prodigy. com!newsdst01.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01a.news.pro digy.com!prodigy.com!news.glorb.com!postnews.googl e.com!not-for-mail
From: (Dave Kahn)
Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling
Subject: What doctors/researchers think about wearing a helmet.
Date: 26 Nov 2004 06:42:52 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 8
Message-ID:
References: . com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.188.207.157
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1101480172 28472 127.0.0.1 (26 Nov 2004 14:42:52 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 14:42:52 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com uk.rec.cycling:363174

John Doe wrote in message .. .

Troll.

What an idiot!

--
Dave...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"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