I can't believe I'm letting myself fall down this rabbit hole... but here we go! Scientific studies provide evidence for a particular line of reasoning, as in "Helmets increase the safety of bicycle riders because of [repeatedly tested and validated statements A, B, and C]." When you explore an idea, through repeated testing and validation, you are providing evidence that either supports or invalidates that idea. When you just spout out baseless and meaningless drivel like "Baseball hats are as effective at preventing head injury as bicycle helmets" as fact though, that's a disservice to people who are genuinely interested in personal safety and the efficacy of helmets.
... What I provided are not just one-off studies, but are based on years of research into this topic.
Perhaps your "research" is as faulty as your ability to accurately quote another poster whom you take to task on the subject of your "research".
I assume this may be related to having little or no apparent understanding of risk evaluation, risk management or the concept of significant reduction of risk vis-à-vis insignificant reduction of risk.