not saying it is and have also said I care very little for the advocacy implications, just curious at the odd requirement of prevention of something that has never been shown shown to exist.

The moral lesson of the story can be interpreted many ways but I think it's fair to say things may not be always as some claim they are and that some take advantage of others gullibility, so it may be best to not be so easily led.

There's nothing wrong with wearing a helmet of course, but to require one in any real absence of reason to do so seems an odd thing to do.