And you are certainly a kind man. I felt that way to start with but he has violated too many times the code of conduct for rational debates all educated people are acquainted with, which requires that you either provide convincing support for your claim or rebuttal for your interlocutor's, or concede the point. Going off on tangents again and again will disqualify you. Here is free for all, so instead of disqualification you get scorn.

There are two different opposite perspectives, fair enough, but that was not the question here. The question here was helmet statistics for the general population, and then we worked through the example of deaths from heart disease, AGAIN for general populations, and never for the individual. This segment of the thread has been concerned only with the population perspective. The individual perspective entered only as wphamilton switched gears trying to wiggle free of his burden of proof that the 14.3% population probability applies to individuals. Let us be clear about that much at least.

We have not talked past each other either. I have been saying basically the same you have said in your recent posts, though less incisively and with more verbiage. wphamilton claimed quite clearly that the 14.3% probability was "predictive for individual elements within the population," which is dead wrong, and I simply wanted him to support that claim. It's a clear and simple point which I repeated ad nauseam so that it could not possible go past him, as you say. What he wrote in reply did not go past me either, but since it was totally irrelevant had to be ignored.

All that is clearly preserved in the thread for anyone to see.

Be kind if you wish when people offer you bull****, but I have no time for that, and call it as I see it.

I don't know wphamilton so my opinion about him is uninformed of necessity. I am not after the man, I am after the argument. The man deserves the respect of any human being, but the argument is game.