Tory MP in 4x4 fined for 'momentary lapse of concentration'

"A.Dazzle" wrote in message
...
"Marc" wrote...
maria wrote:
On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 00:20:12 -0000, "OG"
wrote:

snip


Do you take a claim like 'helmets prevent 85% of head injuries' at face
value, or do you examine how the evidence was gathered and work out if
it's a justifiable claim.



I suspect that most people do not take this 'helmets prevent 85% of
head injuries' claim at "face value" - the trouble is what is this
face value - from where is the quote taken?

I don't believe it - but I would like to know who has said it.


Thompson RS, Rivara FP, Thompson DC. A case-control study of the
effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets. N Engl J Med 1989;

If I remember correctly ,they also showed that helmets reduced leg
injuries.
I'm sure if fitted correctly to knees and elbows, helmets *will* reduce
injuries
to legs and arms. Yeah, I can see that!
You wouldn't be able to cycle very fast, for a start!;-)
With the extra weight and the helmets knocking the handlebars!;-)
And the other road-users would think, 'Loony alert! Loony alert!';-)
And give you a very wide berth.

But seriously, there is a difference between:
'helmets prevent 85% of head injuries' (above)
and what the study *actually said*, which was:
'... we found that riders with helmets had an 85 percent reduction in
their
risk of head injury (odds ratio, 0.15; 95 percent confidence interval,
0.07 to 0.29 ...'
(according to http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1068.html)
Is that 'reduction in the *risk* of head injury' the same as a 'reduction
in
actual head injuries'?
Is there a mathematician or a statistician in the house?
What does all that 'odds ratio' and 'confidence interval' mean, please?

May we ask what evidence you have for believing that promoting helmets is a
good idea?

wrote:
On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 11:11:15 +0000, Daniel Barlow


It's easy enough to tell from the writing style - he uses hyphens -
where other punctuation would be more conventional - like this


-dan

I think you are getting me confused with someone else; I very rarely
use hyphens. I think they can be quite confusing; particularly when
you don't want to be misunderstood.


judith
Is that different from ?



Judith, Judith, Judith
You know that's not true.

For JTS only:
Darling, do a quick count of how often your posts in this thread have
used hyphens as punctuation. Guess what: 17; but I'll keep mum

On Feb 6, 9:29*pm, mrssmithslittlegirl wrote:

You must realise that cyclehelmets.org is not an independent website.
It *was originally set up with the objective of promoting the message
that cycle helmets are not beneficial to cyclists. *I believe, but I
am not sure, that they had a proviso that they would continue this
message unless the evidence forced them to a dramatically different
conclusion - and it hasn't.

Shame on you for a transparent joe-job. judith has already admitted
that she was "mistaken" in stating this, after it was pointed out to
her that there was no source for it other than her own imagination,
and we all know that judith would never deliberately repeat a
falsehood after acknowledging that it is false. It's bad enough
having the real judith trolling her incessant repetitions of lies,
misrepresentations and distortions without the regulars (one must
presume) taunting her like this.

--
Guy

On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 17:37:47 +0000 someone who may be Marc
wrote this:-

Thompson RS, Rivara FP, Thompson DC. A case-control study of the
effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets. N Engl J Med 1989;

If I remember correctly ,they also showed that helmets reduced leg injuries.

Not quite. Others demonstrated that if one adopts the "scientific"
method which they adopted then one can "demonstrate" that helmets
"prevent" an equally impressive percentage of knee injuries.

The conclusion one can draw from this is that the method is, at
best, bogus.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:35:51 +0000, David Hansen
said in
:

The conclusion one can draw from this is that the method is, at
best, bogus.

It's all well enough explained at
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1068.html

If you compare two dissimilar groups and attribute all differences
between them to a single variable then you are likely to get the
wrong answer. In this case they got it wrong because they were
working back from a conclusion, and that's probably why they got it
much more wrong than any other comparable study, but in the case of
HRT and coronary heart disease the error was due to simply not
considering other potential significant factors.

This is one of the main reasons why case-control studies alone are
insufficient as a form of proof. People often cite the case of
smoking and lung cancer as a support for the use of such studies,
but in that case there was a wealth of supporting evidence
(including the infamous beagles), all of which pointed to the same
conclusion.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
GPG sig #3FA3BCDE http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 11:54:13 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:35:51 +0000, David Hansen
said in
:

The conclusion one can draw from this is that the method is, at
best, bogus.

It's all well enough explained at
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1068.html

If you compare two dissimilar groups and attribute all differences
between them to a single variable then you are likely to get the
wrong answer. In this case they got it wrong because they were
working back from a conclusion, and that's probably why they got it
much more wrong than any other comparable study, but in the case of
HRT and coronary heart disease the error was due to simply not
considering other potential significant factors.

This is one of the main reasons why case-control studies alone are
insufficient as a form of proof. People often cite the case of
smoking and lung cancer as a support for the use of such studies,
but in that case there was a wealth of supporting evidence
(including the infamous beagles), all of which pointed to the same
conclusion.

Guy

There is much criticism of the paper as you say - do you know whether
there have been any "scientific" critiques of it ? - I guess if it
is that bad then there will have been. Any links please?

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 12:25:39 +0000,
said in
:

There is much criticism of the paper as you say - do you know whether
there have been any "scientific" critiques of it ? - I guess if it
is that bad then there will have been. Any links please?

The cited link http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1068.html contains
scientific discussion, the "see also" links also provide background.

Journals typically do not publish papers commenting on
twenty-year-old research. Actually a fair chunk of the research
published in the last five years has been documenting the equivocal
nature of the real-world evidence.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
GPG sig #3FA3BCDE http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 12:25:39 +0000,
said in
:

There is much criticism of the paper as you say - do you know whether
there have been any "scientific" critiques of it ? - I guess if it
is that bad then there will have been. Any links please?

The cited link http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1068.html contains
scientific discussion, the "see also" links also provide background.

Journals typically do not publish papers commenting on
twenty-year-old research. Actually a fair chunk of the research
published in the last five years has been documenting the equivocal
nature of the real-world evidence.

And do you think that yet-another judith nym will take any notice of that?

On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 01:54:51 -0800 (PST), "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Feb 6, 9:29*pm, mrssmithslittlegirl wrote:

You must realise that cyclehelmets.org is not an independent website.
It *was originally set up with the objective of promoting the message
that cycle helmets are not beneficial to cyclists. *I believe, but I
am not sure, that they had a proviso that they would continue this
message unless the evidence forced them to a dramatically different
conclusion - and it hasn't.

Shame on you for a transparent joe-job. judith has already admitted
that she was "mistaken" in stating this, after it was pointed out to
her that there was no source for it other than her own imagination,
and we all know that judith would never deliberately repeat a
falsehood after acknowledging that it is false. It's bad enough
having the real judith trolling her incessant repetitions of lies,
misrepresentations and distortions without the regulars (one must
presume) taunting her like this.


You really are deceitful Chapman - I can see why you are despised by
so many people in so many different spheres.

Not content with denying what it said on his own web-page - and being
caught out changing it to cover up his lie, he now tries to change
history again.

From cyclehelmet.org's early trial:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAINPAGE. Sidebar with links to the (colloquial) FAQ “helpful or
harmful”, the (formal) summary, to chapter headings, and to other
links.


BICYCLE HELMET RESEARCH CENTRE (or other title)


(nice pictures, maybe one of Steve Norris?)

Message: Helmets are not beneficial to cyclists (unless the evidence
forces us to a dramatically different conclusion.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So the deceitful Chapman is caught out lying yet again.

I am really amazed that "normal" people in this group put up with you;
if I was part of the clique I would be asking myself - "can I ever
believe what Chapman says?"


I for one don't.

Cyclehelmet.org's message was, and is clearly still:

"Helmets are not beneficial to cyclists"

any chance of admitting that Chapman?

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 01:57:45 +0000, Judith's best friend
wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 11:11:15 +0000, Daniel Barlow


It's easy enough to tell from the writing style - he uses hyphens -
where other punctuation would be more conventional - like this


-dan

I think you are getting me confused with someone else; I very rarely
use hyphens. I think they can be quite confusing; particularly when
you don't want to be misunderstood.


judith
Is that different from ?



Judith, Judith, Judith
You know that's not true.

For JTS only:
Darling, do a quick count of how often your posts in this thread have
used hyphens as punctuation. Guess what: 17; but I'll keep mum

Judith to her Best Friend: What do you find to do with your time since
you got the sack?

Best Friend: As you know I haven't many friends and I don't get out
much. I spend a lot of time squeezing blackheads - but I've just
found something really interesting - I look back through news postings
counting messages with certain characters in; it's really interesting
and the long winter evenings just fly by.

Judith: Very Good - keep it up.


judith

--
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy
Chapman)
I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage
my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
I pointed out the web page
He then quickly changed the web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment so it looked like the change had been there for
years.