On 12/04/10 7:18 AM, Tim McNamara wrote:
In ,
wrote:

On 11/04/10 7:42 PM, wrote:

How about the FACT that people who are not injured generally don't
go to the hospital? If they don't go to the hospital they are out
of the count - right?

That's a big problem with the case studies. They can compare helmeted
versus unhelmeted cyclists that have injuries serious enough to
warrant medical treatment, but they leave out all the cyclists where
the helmets prevented any injury or mitigated the injuries to a level
where no hospital treatment was sought by the cyclists.

There you go again with your faith-based mathematics.

Not at all. I accept the statistical evidence of scientifically
conducted case studies that you do not. However even those that conduct
those studies warn of the cases that fall outside the study. In the ER
helmet case studies it is important to look at the big picture and
understand that though they all show a large preventative effect
regarding injuries and fatalities, they obviously leave out those whose
injuries were prevented, or mitigated to the point where medical
treatment was not sought.

Your problem is that you're so desperate to believe the junk science
that people like Frank are so fond of, that you've lost the ability to
think critically.