Originally Posted by
njkayaker
They are bringing that up to indicate that the data leads to an absurd conclusion. That is, they are using that "result' as a criticism of the study.
How can numbers collected from biking accidents lead to any conclusion that wearing a helmet increases accident risk 7 times? Thompson et al don't make that claim, it's the clowns at cyclehelmet.org.
That's cooking the books to get to an absurd claim, and it's easily testable anyway.
At best, it's random variance in data. In ONE study. It doesn't invalidate an entire body of work from various researchers across the globe that has been peer-reviewed and published in multiple scientific journals.