1. Several of your links don't work

2. We've been through these studies before. They're based on two or three "root" studies which are then re-cycle through "meta-analysis". None of them have to stood up to examination by professional statisticians. In one especially bad case the study authors had assumed that the difference in injury rate between two cherry picked groups of children could be ENTIRELY explained by helmets - ie they credited them with preventing torso injuries! In fact, one group was riding on inner city roads without supervision, and another in parks, with adults present to herd them. For another discussion of the errors in some of this work take a look at http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1131.html

3. It is literally the case that NONE of the papers you quoted (so far as your bad links allow me to say this) have survived scrutiny by a professional statistician. They are the work of unscientifically qualified activist doctors who go out to prove what they want to believe and distort data through incompetence and enthusiasm. Again, take a look at that link- which is commentary by a professional statistician.

4. One of the 85% benefit studies was based on a factor of 10 error in arithmetic - it is still quoted, however!

Conclusion: you're either lazy or deliberately selecting papers that only prove what you want to believe - which on a safety issue is very stupid.