Comment 67585

By burtthebike (anonymous) | Posted August 07, 2011 at 04:22:27 in reply to Comment 67536

Dear Misterque, you quite obviously either haven't read anything about the helmet debate or you are deliberately misleading people.

The case control studies you quote are all methodologically unsound, and have been roundly criticised in peer review: they are all short term, small scale projects. The evidence that you dismiss as being "soft" have been peer reviewed and found to be robust: they are all long term, large scale (sometimes whole population) studies. There are international scales for the reilability of evidence, and the research showing no benefit from helmets is rated much more reliable than that showing massive benefits.

You say that helmets have reduced deaths and injuries across a range of activities, but provide no evidence. In the only activity of which I have knowledge, motorcycling, this has not been shown.

You finish up by saying that helmets should be worn, as the case control studies show that they are beneficial, but case control studies have been shown to be wrong on a number of occasions, producing results exactly opposite to reality, and many scientists will not rely on those results unless supported by more reliable evidence. In this case, the reliable evidence flatly contradicts the case control studies. So you want to make people wear something which can only be shown to work on the flimsiest of evidence, which is contradicted by much more reliable evidence? You would appear to have a practically religious belief in helmets and dismiss any evidence which doesn't support what you "know" except that you don't know it, you only believe you do.

For those of you slightly more open minded, try looking at a few facts rather than quasi-religious beliefs cyclehelmets.org

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Site Tools

Feeds