Originally Posted by
Six-Shooter
I never said anything that would imply that. I said, "suggesting at least some efficacy of helmets in preventing or mitigating head injury."
No,
you haven't (but one of your links did).
Originally Posted by
Six-Shooter
I'm not sure, for instance, how you reduce the research of the
fourth article, "Bicycle helmet campaigns and head injuries among children. Does poverty matter?" full text:
http://jech.bmj.com/content/57/9/668.full to "The fourth link echos. yet again, that overly-positive result: 'Yet, research shows that helmets can reduce the risk of these deaths and injuries by as much as 85 percent.'" First, that quote is not in the article. Secondly, if they're relying on supposedly bad sources, you need to provide some sort of solid evidence that source is bad.
This is the fourth link and "Research indicates that a helmet can reduce the risk of head injury by up to 85 percent." is the last sentence of the first paragraph. I may have confused this with the "86% (or whatever) of fatalities" statistic (talked about in the other helmet threads).
Originally Posted by
Six-Shooter
========
Originally Posted by
Six-Shooter
all of them in the first section suggest at least some safety benefit from helmets, based on original research and/or analysis/examination of existing research. I will assume, unless it's proven otherwise, that the authors did due diligence and considered the validity of any sources they incorporate.
No, only some of them are actual "original research or analysis/examination of existing research" (which is really what needs to be looked at instead of "recommendations"). Some of them make recommendations with no indicated reference at all.