Originally Posted by
wphamilton
I didn't notice it either so I can't hold that against him. From the page he was looking at, there is no indication that it's the old study, and no link to the full study. It would be an easy mistake to make.
That really wasn't where the misrepresentation occurred. Given his long participation in these "discussions", his
cherry picking has to be deliberate or gross incompetence. The fact that
the same authors that have many publications that contradict his position (which he was completely "unaware of") is hilarious!
If he actually treated the study seriously (like you did), he would have known about the other publications. Clearly, he opportunistically linked to it just because he was able to twist into "supporting" his position. Keep in mind that his ilk keep arguing that "pro helmet" results always are "compromised".
(It took me a bit of work to establish that it was an old study. I'd really like to understand what the deal with that was.)
Originally Posted by
wphamilton
It seemed to me that the abstract conclusion itself was a bit off.
His link to the abstract isn't sufficient to "prove" his claim. He knows that (or he should) but he did it anyway.