Ben Goldacre - Helmet 'Bad Science'

[Linford]

Hang on a minute - so if you drive faster you reduce the risk as exposed for less time for a given distance !
That's why people drive faster in fog, to get out of the risk zone quicky

You have just added another factor with the fog.

Explain why motorways are the safest roads to drive on in the UK whilst still averaging the highest speed before you spin off at a tangent ?

 

[Linford]

Might one suggest that not responding may be the best hope for the future? Even the witty put downs are getting old as there's only so many ways you can call someone a twat

Another troll....seeing as you have only joined to insult...You have always come across as a twat....some of us are too polite to say it though

 

[Linford]

It's a case of being prepared for when you wheel in your gang of Linf supporters

You are obviously part of my fan club...why else are you making such an effort to interact with me in this thread ?

 

[Linford]

@Linford , in case you missed it last time, here it is again ^

And to counter this

54 “Helmets for Preventing Head and Facial Injuries in Bicyclists (Cochrane
Review)” D C Thompson et al, Issue 1, 2003
This is a review of the validity and findings of five, previously published, casecontrolled
studies from different countries into the effectiveness of cycle
helmets. The review found that all the studies provided consistent evidence that
wearing an approved cycle helmet significantly reduces the risk of head or brain
injuries in a crash or collision. It concluded that overall, cycle helmets decrease
the risk of head and brain injury by 65% to 88%, and decrease the risk of facial
injury by 65% (but do not protect the lower face or jaw). The review also stated
that helmets are effective for cyclists of all ages and in accidents involving
collisions with motor vehicle as well as those which do not.
It is a feature of Cochrane Reviews that responses to the review from other
researchers are published along with the replies by the original authors. This
review generated several responses that were critical of the review’s findings,
mainly on the following grounds:

• helmets are not designed to protect the brain from rotational injuries, which

are the most serious type

• helmet laws discourage cycling which is one reason for any apparent

reduction in head injuries and also means the health and environmental benefits of cycling are lost

• cyclists who wear helmets feel safe and so cycle in a less cautious manner,

hence increasing their accident risk (risk compensation).

• The authors disagreed with these arguments on the grounds that:
• helmets do protect against the most common types of head and brain injuries, and the research studies prove this

• there is no scientific evidence that mandatory cycle helmet laws discourage
• cycling there is no scientific evidence that cyclist who wear helmets take more risks

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/info/cycle_helmets.pdf

 

[Fab Foodie]

I have, somewhat unexpectedly, been swept up with the spirit of Christmas.

How many pints did it take?

 

[Wobblers]

And to counter this

Ah, I was wondering which munchkin would quote Riveria & Thompson at us.

It's rather unfortunate that you lack the skills to understand it - or, more importantly, its flaws. That Cochrane report was supposed to be a metastudy. A metastudy is supposed to collate ALL research on a topic to determine if there is an underlying effect that is too small to be observed in individual studies. Riveria and Thompson chose five studies - only five studies - four of which were by, err, Riveria and Thompson. They omitted to mention that other researchers who had criticised their work, who indeed had used Riveria and Thompson's own published data to show that the data did not support their conclusions. That does not necessairly mean that Riveria and Thompson are wrong, but it casts very serious doubts on their methodology. It is very poor science, at best. Furthermore, whole population studies, which use methodology that is less suspectible to subjective criteria and larger datasets (better statistics) flatly contradict their conclusions.

Before you can use Riveria and Thompson, you'll need to present a convincing argument as to why their results are in fact reliable - and why better studies with sounder methologies are in fact wrong.

 

[Wobblers]

Another troll....seeing as you have only joined to insult...You have always come across as a twat....some of us are too polite to say it though

Like you just did - oh hang on... Linford, do you WANT to be banned? Because that's what's going to happen if you continue like this. Really, just walk away from the computer. You'll feel better for it. Seriously.

 

[Wobblers]

C&PP is the new CA&D

If I were to want to debate these issues in a cesspit, would you follow me there as well ?

Now there's a vision to delight the imaginations of the rest of us.

To be honest, I was trying to ignore it in the hope that the image would go away...

 

[Linford]

Ah, I was wondering which munchkin would quote Riveria & Thompson at us.

It's rather unfortunate that you lack the skills to understand it - or, more importantly, its flaws. That Cochrane report was supposed to be a metastudy. A metastudy is supposed to collate ALL research on a topic to determine if there is an underlying effect that is too small to be observed in individual studies. Riveria and Thompson chose five studies - only five studies - four of which were by, err, Riveria and Thompson. They omitted to mention that other researchers who had criticised their work, who indeed had used Riveria and Thompson's own published data to show that the data did not support their conclusions. That does not necessairly mean that Riveria and Thompson are wrong, but it casts very serious doubts on their methodology. It is very poor science, at best. Furthermore, whole population studies, which use methodology that is less suspectible to subjective criteria and larger datasets (better statistics) flatly contradict their conclusions.

Before you can use Riveria and Thompson, you'll need to present a convincing argument as to why their results are in fact reliable - and why better studies with sounder methologies are in fact wrong.

Have you told them this ?

 

[Wobblers]

Have you told them this ?

That metastudy has received considerable criticism.

Is that really the best you can come up with? Really?

 

[Linford]

Like you just did - oh hang on... Linford, do you WANT to be banned? Because that's what's going to happen if you continue like this. Really, just walk away from the computer. You'll feel better for it. Seriously.

You mean to say his 'only' contribution to the thread was to call me a twat because I don't sit and nod my head to what you are asserting and I'm trolling....I would suggest that your perspective is skewed McWobble.

 

[Linford]

That metastudy has received considerable criticism.

Is that really the best you can come up with? Really?

from who ?

 

[Wobblers]

You mean to say his 'only' contribution to the thread was to call me a twat because I don't sit and nod my head to what you are asserting and I'm trolling....I would suggest that your perspective is skewed McWobble.

It's probably best that you don't use that line for your defence...

Anyway, why can't you be more creative with your insults? Well... when I say "more", I really mean just "creative". The t-word (you're the only one who's used it - twice) is so unimaginative, wouldn't you say?

 

[srw]

from who ?

You did read the article linked in the OP, didn't you?

Go away and read it again. Now look at reference [3]. Now read the paragraph in the link which references reference [3]. Now stop and think.

Welcome to doing science.

 

[Wobblers]

from who ?

I suggest you get off your idle arse and find out. No one is here to spoon feed you. You'd speak less manure if you made some semblance of effort.

Edit: you've yet to explain away the discrepancy between Riveria and Thompson and the whole population studies. Avoiding the issue is not the scientific method. Suggesting a plausible hypothesis, with supporting evidence and then making testable predictions is. Where's your hypothesis, evidence and predictions then?