Originally Posted by
achoo
Wow, posting the results of peer-reviewed, published scientific research makes ME an idiot?
No - I think genetics took care of that.
I have posted links to close to twenty scientific peer-reviewed studies from sites as varied as the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association, Washington University, and who knows where else.
Yes. And you're so stupid that when the main study - which lots of the others being "metastudies" parasite off of - is exposed as worthless...
Data for children under 15 (the most significant comparison in the Seattle study) are used to illustrate the problem. In Seattle in 1987, observational surveys counted 4501 child cyclists; 3.2% wore helmets [3]. Hospital data showed 143 children (the 'cases') had emergency room (ER) treatment for head injury (HI) and 202 had ER treatment for other injuries (the ER controls). 2.1% of HI children and 5.9% of ER controls were wearing helmets.
Nothing can be concluded from the above data. So few children wore helmets that the differences in helmet wearing (HW) for HI and ER controls are no more than expected from random variation; neither is significantly different to HW in the observational surveys. Put simply, about 3% of child riders in Seattle wore helmets, as did roughly 3% of HI children, so from children's hospital data we cannot conclude that helmets offer any protection at all.
However, the Seattle study also considered a second group of cyclists, members of a Group Health Cooperative (GHC) who had fallen off their bikes. 86% of these cyclists were children under 15, so comparisons between this and the other groups are dominated by data for children. GHC children were from households with higher average income and educational levels and 21.1% were wearing helmets when they fell off their bikes.
If we assume the GHC group is typical of children who had bike accidents in Seattle, it would appear that helmets are of benefit. If 21.1% of children in bike accidents wore helmets, but only 2.1% of those with HI, helmets must have prevented HI in the remaining (21.1% - 2.1%) = 19% of children, i.e. helmets prevent 19/21.1 = 90% of head injuries.
This assumption (from the Seattle study) leads to other conclusions. If 21.1% of children in bike accidents wore helmets, but only 3.2% of child cyclists riding round Seattle [3], helmet wearers must be (21.1/3.2) = 6.6 times more likely to have accidents. Thus wearers may be protected if they have accidents, but because they are nearly 7 times as likely to have accidents, their overall risk of HI is similar to non-wearers, but their risk of non-head injury is much higher!
This is bad news for helmet wearers because 57% of HI in the Seattle study were wounds to the scalp, forehead or ears, presumably no more serious than wounds to other parts of the body. Who would want to have 7 times as many accidents in exchange for protection from these often minor injuries?
..Then you keep on quoting it. And even claim the refutation is worthless because it doesn't talk about admission rates - when in fact it does nothing else but talk about them!
You do nothing but keep throwing up hypotheticals and calling me names.
I haven't quoted a single "hypothetical". And if you lie - as you did about the commentary above and the article by the helmet engineer - then you should expect to be called a liar. Or, giving you the benefit of a doubt, an idiot who couldn't understand the above when he read it.
You're like a Thalidomide baby with a hand grenade.
I can see you're a deeply sensitive person. Doesn't it bother you that someone with a disability or a child with one might read this? How old are - 12?