it's a nice idea to tag an essay on, but his argument is dreadful. Why stuff two thirds of the piece with a conspiracy theory, when it would be far more elegant to simply consider the thing in its own terms. It either does what it says on the packet, or it doesn't. The fake Viagra you (well, not you, obviously, but some of the more challenged specimens on P+L) buy on the internet won't give you an everlasting stiffy. He might have simply claimed that the helmet won't protect you in an accident, and that, in consequence, the vendors are shysters, and the goods should be taken off the shelves.
(for what it's worth I've given up wearing a helmet despite having been saved serious injury by my MET Bad Boy)
(for what it's worth I've given up wearing a helmet despite having been saved serious injury by my MET Bad Boy)