H*lm*ts given prominent coverage on news.bbc.co.uk

[Pyromancer]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3756385.stm

:-(

Looks somewhat un-balanced, and appears to have swallowed BHIT's line
whole, if the quotes about injury reduction rates are to be believed.

--
- Pyromancer Stormshadow.
http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk <-- Pagan Gothic Rock!
http://www.littlematchgirl.co.uk <-- Electronic Metal!
http://www.revival.stormshadow.com <-- The Gothic Revival.

[elyob]

"Pyromancer" > wrote in message
...
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3756385.stm
>
> :-(
>
> Looks somewhat un-balanced, and appears to have swallowed BHIT's line
> whole, if the quotes about injury reduction rates are to be believed.
>

Right, how can I join anything to stop this? Write to my local MP, I guess?

[Peter Clinch]

elyob wrote:

> Right, how can I join anything to stop this? Write to my local MP, I guess?

CTC are trying to weigh the available evidence and go with what they see
as best for cyclists. So far that has been anti-compulsion in their
(and my) opinion. So join CTC to help fund a continuation of such action.

If it should come to pass that reliable looking evidence turns up that
really does suggest we'd be better off being forced to wear them then
I'd imagine CTC would change their line, but so far (and we await
general availability of the actual paper this is based on) this isn't
the case.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Colin McKenzie]

Pyromancer wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3756385.stm
> Looks somewhat un-balanced, and appears to have swallowed BHIT's line
> whole, if the quotes about injury reduction rates are to be believed.

Judging by the quotes, the 'experts' are just rehashing the usual
flawed figures - but I'm not going to shell out USD15 to the Journal
to find out for sure. Anyone here got access to the Journal of the
Royal Society of Medicine and can let us know if there's anything new
in the paper?

Colin McKenzie


--
Why believe statistics?
Ignore them and you can believe the damned lies instead!

[David Martin]

On 1/6/04 11:09 pm, in article ,
"Colin McKenzie" > wrote:

> Pyromancer wrote:
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3756385.stm
>> Looks somewhat un-balanced, and appears to have swallowed BHIT's line
>> whole, if the quotes about injury reduction rates are to be believed.
>
> Judging by the quotes, the 'experts' are just rehashing the usual
> flawed figures - but I'm not going to shell out USD15 to the Journal
> to find out for sure. Anyone here got access to the Journal of the
> Royal Society of Medicine and can let us know if there's anything new
> in the paper?

No there isn't. It is an argument for the compulsory wearing of helmets with
a very weak case for each of the four principles that should be fulfilled.

Basically a bunch of *** where he raises objections then proceeds to provide
a chewbacca demolition of these points.

...d

[Sarennah]

Colin McKenzie > wrote in message >...
> Pyromancer wrote:
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3756385.stm
> > Looks somewhat un-balanced, and appears to have swallowed BHIT's line
> > whole, if the quotes about injury reduction rates are to be believed.
>
> Judging by the quotes, the 'experts' are just rehashing the usual
> flawed figures - but I'm not going to shell out USD15 to the Journal
> to find out for sure. Anyone here got access to the Journal of the
> Royal Society of Medicine

I have said access (the joys of the UL)

> and can let us know if there's anything new
> in the paper?
>
> Colin McKenzie

In short - not really.

The title of the paper is "Making cycle helmets compulsory: ethical
arguments for legislation". So it doesn't need a medical degree to
realise that there are no new research studies involving data
collection from the public quoted. Instead this is an example of a
medicinal 'metastudy' which draws conclusions based on the research
done by others, following one of several methodologies accepted in the
field.

The paper is written by a Prof. GP "trained in epidemiology", bloke
from Healthcare commission, and a researcher in philosophy/ethics of
science. Worryingly, the Prof. is also on the editorial board of the
British Medical Journal ie method of keeping GPs in touch with
research and Things Worth Knowing.

(possibly) Interesting points:
(1) Paper admits in its conclusion that it is flawed because it does
not apply the methodology correctly.
(2) Paper admits that the methodology is possibly flawed too.
(3) Paper argues that for the benefit of the statistical public health
everyone should wear helmets because, "most individuals are trading
off a moderate inconvenience, possibly including some expense, against
a reduced risk of an already unlikely event." and this would reduce
demands on the health service and costs to the health service caused
by cyclists with head injuries.
(4) Paper makes no mention of studies/suggestions that helmets
increase the probability of certain types of head injury BUT cites the
Australian/US studies (supposedly) showing helmet use decreases
injuries. However, paper does mention in passing that this might be
due to a reduction in the number of people cycling.
(5) Paper justifies its existence by declaring a rigourous study of
helmet vs non-helmet use to be both unethical and impossible due to
most cyclists having strong views on helmet use, which would prejudice
results.

The full reference for the paper is J R Soc Med (2004) 97:262-265.
Its the issue of the day in the latest JRSM.

I now have a pdf file of the paper which I can send to anyone
particularly interested/able to put up on webpage. Please use the
email address (minus stars) s*j*p*l*2*@*c*a*m*.*a*c*.*u*k and bear in
mind that I'm at work, and hence email-reading, 4am-12noon today and
the next few days.

Clear skies
Sarennah

[Colin McKenzie]

Sarennah wrote:
> Colin McKenzie > wrote in message >...
>>and can let us know if there's anything new
>>in the paper?
> In short - not really.
>
> The title of the paper is "Making cycle helmets compulsory: ethical
> arguments for legislation". So it doesn't need a medical degree to
> realise that there are no new research studies involving data
> collection from the public quoted.
....
> (possibly) Interesting points:
> (1) Paper admits in its conclusion that it is flawed because it does
> not apply the methodology correctly.
> (2) Paper admits that the methodology is possibly flawed too.
> (3) Paper argues that for the benefit of the statistical public health
> everyone should wear helmets because, ...

Thanks for this. It's clear it's just propaganda trying to justify a
pre-formed conclusion. The depressing part is that the media pick it
up and quote it as truth.

I believe others have contacted the BBC; I have complained to 'This is
London'. More letters/emails wouldn't hurt.

Colin McKenzie

--
Why believe statistics?
Ignore them and you can believe the damned lies instead!

[David Hansen]

On 1 Jun 2004 21:34:17 -0700 someone who may be
(Sarennah) wrote this:-

>(3) Paper argues that for the benefit of the statistical public health
>everyone should wear helmets because, "most individuals are trading
>off a moderate inconvenience, possibly including some expense, against
>a reduced risk of an already unlikely event." and this would reduce
>demands on the health service and costs to the health service caused
>by cyclists with head injuries.

I do hope some people who read the journal are going to ask these
"experts" why they have not looked at car and pedestrian helmets
first.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

[Nick Kew]

In article >,
(Sarennah) writes:

> The title of the paper is "Making cycle helmets compulsory: ethical
> arguments for legislation".

Aha. Now we're getting to it. It's a study with a predetermined
conclusion. Client commissions "independent" research on an issue;
independent researcher is under tremendous pressure to produce the
"right" result.

I know. I've done independent research for departments of HM Govt,
that involved reviewing statistical results provided by other people,
and doing a little analysis (but no data collection) myself.
One instance in particular sticks in the mind ...

The context was an assessment of a PhD thesis. The candidate had
done some simple maths, and claimed an alternative to algorithms
that had been developed at vast expense to the taxpayer. It took
me about three pages to express the PhD in mathematical terms
(the candidate loved this - neither he nor his supervisor had a
sufficient mathematical background for the work). My report then
went on to say that in the case of real-life data, the new method
performed about as well as the established one: that was allowed.
But the reasons for it: namely the established method was massively
flawed and the candidate had dispensed with that, but had also thrown
the baby out with the bathwater, was definitely not allowed.

Oh, and I was less than a year in total with the employer involved.
You don't get to be as distinguished as this professor if you quit
the job when you realise it's a waste of taxpayers money. But that
may be unduly harsh: if he's a few years older than me, he'll have
gained his reputation in a different culture/environment.

> (possibly) Interesting points:

They look like a researcher who would prefer to be honest, and is
trying to be technically objective while putting a spin on his
results to keep the paymasters happy. But few journalists reporting
on a paper can cope with something as technical as a caveat.

--
Nick Kew

Nick's manifesto: http://www.htmlhelp.com/~nick/

[pistolpete]

The Northern Echo (covers the North East of England) carried th
88% figure on it's front page today - I can't find the story o
it's website

It was a very short story but probably created some hysteria among som
parents. I've sent an email to the newspaper complaining


-

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 02:55:47 +0100, Pyromancer
> wrote in message
>:

>Looks somewhat un-balanced, and appears to have swallowed BHIT's line
>whole, if the quotes about injury reduction rates are to be believed.

Indeed. It is the work of Aziz Sheikh, helmet zealot and serial
innumerate. As an example of the logical fallacy "begging the
question" his paper is quite good, but that is its only merit.

Critique here: <url:http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html#1097>

Note that unlike Sheikh's earlier work this is not published in the
BMJ. The use of the word "consensus" is amusing in context, too,
since if consensus truly existed it would not be necessary for him to
indulge in his flights of fancy.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

[VC]

The Scotsman had a headline on this as well. The article stated "The
new research, published in the Journal of the Royal Society of
Medicine, found that helmets reduced serious head injuries by 88 per
cent." which of course is bullshot. It's a regurgitation of the 1989
Thompson, et al report.

See: http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=625752004

Send letters to the editor at:


"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message >...
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 02:55:47 +0100, Pyromancer
> > wrote in message
> >:
>
> >Looks somewhat un-balanced, and appears to have swallowed BHIT's line
> >whole, if the quotes about injury reduction rates are to be believed.
>
> Indeed. It is the work of Aziz Sheikh, helmet zealot and serial
> innumerate. As an example of the logical fallacy "begging the
> question" his paper is quite good, but that is its only merit.
>
> Critique here: <url:http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html#1097>
>
> Note that unlike Sheikh's earlier work this is not published in the
> BMJ. The use of the word "consensus" is amusing in context, too,
> since if consensus truly existed it would not be necessary for him to
> indulge in his flights of fancy.
>
> Guy