(1) M.D.s, by definition, have had doctorates conferred upon them:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/doctorate
(Your credibility just keeps increasing...keep it up! LOL.)

(2) That's right, you may as well just keep following your contrarianism to Todd Akin-land. All those agencies' websites are full of lies! **** doesn't cause pregnancy; vegetables aren't good for you but sugar and white bread is; washing your hands causes disease; driving fast while drunk prevents accidents. Oh, and Adam and Eve had pet dinosaurs 6,000 years ago.

I give up. There's nothing that can be done with you. If you're a troll, then you are brilliant sir.

Yup, fear mongering, that's what we pro helmet people are all about...the NIH, AMA, WHO, CDC, NHTSA and others are all out to do one thing...inject fear into our little pea brains. Put your helmets on the sky is falling, the sky is falling. And that's what our government does best, inject fear into it's citizens, like the fear of global warming, the communist scare, the terrorists scare, UFO scare, fear that our food is killing us, the fear that we can't live without big government, just to name a few fears the government is throwing on us. Yup, it's all about fear tactics. So throw those useless helmets away, don't wear seat belts either, disarm your air bags, you don't need that schit, it's just a fear tactic to get you tickets and to pay more for useless safety technology that doesn't work regardless what the government test studies, or the insurance studies show...those reports are all rigged, just as all the helmet studies are.

True story, a friend of mine, an avid roadie, always wears his helmet when out cycling in his kit. He also has a Harley, he never wears a helmet when out riding. Go figure, I guess the important thing is to do what everyone else does.

You're wrong. Degrees such as MD, DO, OD, DC are called "first professional degrees." The only people who hold doctorates are PhDs and PsyDs.

The reason I know this should be obvious by now.

Could you cite these specific studies? I notice that you approvingly reference the words of SlackerInc when he cites studies which repeat the TRT89 study as "proof". I would _love_ to see a gubmint study which points to a "true science fact" which reinforces your "commonsense".

So far SlackerInc (because s/he has not actually apparently read the pages they cite) has not done so.

You're obviously smarter ... so which studies are the ones which YOU believe pass muster?

For real?
MD = a doctorate in medicine. It is a doctorate. Period. Phd's and MD's are both " first professional " degrees . That is they are conferred after college level degrees. You are kidding I hope.

I promised myself I wouldn't get involved here. I promised I promised I promised.

Balls.

TIL Medicinae Doctor isn't a doctorate, but Philosophiae Doctor is. Also, that I've wasted all those years studying Latin.

I would really very much like you to expand on this.

You've got to be kidding.

A PhD is largely earned through having demonstrated the competence to conduct original research.

It bears little to no resemblance to an M.D., which is more akin to a an apprenticeship in the manual arts.

That's not to say that some medical doctors do not conduct research equivalent to that which a PhD student undertakes: they usually do this by taking a recognized PhD program and thus acquire the right to affix M.D., PhD to their name.

Sucker.

Man, as if this weren't a microcosm of this whole thread right here.

Wow.

Thanks for snapping me out of the delusion that putting my two cents in might be helpful so very quickly. Much appreciated, really.

I've no idea what your point is. I wonder do you?

Do you have any substantial disagreement with the idea that a PhD is a research degree whereas an MD is a taught degree?

Absolutely not. One is a professional degree and the other is a research degree.

Both are, however, doctorates, and to say otherwise belies an intellect that is beyond any force of argument I can muster.

This just keeps getting better and better. :roflmao2:

It's wise to know your limitations. I'll leave it as an exercise worthy of your brilliance to find other names which are shared between dissimilar objects.

Well said.

I just got a new (to me helmet). Upgraded from a mid-90s Giro Hammerhead to an early aughts (guessing) Giro Incline.

Right. And it's not as though Ph.D.s in different disciplines bear much similarity to each other anyway. My two closest friends here in town have Ph.D.s, one in English and the other in chemistry. The latter's education was likely at least a little closer to that of an M.D. than it is to the English professor's.

Rekmeyata, hilarious post. The best satire is subtle enough to sound almost like it could be on the level.

may I suggest you get one of these in 9 years?
http://www.giro.com/media/catalog/pr..._blublk_34.jpghttp://www.giro.com/media/catalog/pr...tslvr_34_4.jpg
I'm saving my nickels now. . .

Should be illuminating, if and when rekmeyata or a fellow scholar posts the Real Deal government test studies, or the insurance studies that demonstrate the capability/evidence of bicycle helmet "safety technology" to reduce/mitigate bicycling risk.

Since your the all knowing wise one here, why don't you prove which one of those studies are false reports?

Those look kinda warm but I reckon I could keep my current helmet for use from mid June - mid August.

I like the idea of the visor, maybe I could get some tear-offs for MTB rides.

For the complete safety minded-cyclist is the new Alpinestars Tech Air race suit. It has canisters that inflate airbags in the leathers when sensors detect that you are crashing.

Exactly. PhDs are specialist post-graduate studies. Very specialist. An MD that has no other qualification than that degree is not an expert in either epidemiological statistics nor in the biomechanics of head injuries nor in mechanical engineering. The experts worth referencing on this topic are not merely MDs.

Among those that do possess the expertise necessary to discuss the question there is widespread disagreement. If you take the trouble to read the references you have posted you'll start to see why. It is not a clear-cut subject.

Again, which studies? You spoke of "government test studies, or the insurance studies". I'd like you to specify what you're talking about: especially the "insurance studies". Even if you just want to bicker pointlessly it would be nice to have some common reference point on which to base our petulance. Here's mine (seeing as you seem to have missed it for the last couple of hundred posts):

When bicycle helmets are worn by most of the cycling population there is no measurable decrease in serious head injuries. Therefore it's probable that helmets don't prevent serious head injuries.

References:

1. The population of Australia for the last 20 years

2. The population of New Zealand for a similar period of time.

You might find this helpful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

"After it therefore because of it." It means one thing follows the other, therefore it was caused by the other. But it's not always true. In fact, it's hardly ever true. -The West Wing