Nuxx:J1g6i5$5ba$1@dont-email.me

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Ding Dong  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Boy cyclist (not wearing helmet) dies after collision with a deer Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 08:36:28 +0100 References: <080b552b-e4a5-44d1-9c4a-57244be95c13@k27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>          Lines: 52 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Reply-To: ding@dong.invalid Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 07:36:37 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="8psORfuBq3je/hVXnlNHEQ"; logging-data="5482"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/W3QjckgmNCnA5unDeyrrF3SNAWtaH75k=" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 In-Reply-To:  Cancel-Lock: sha1:jhjvj1sMQF/ZZKXgfkmHtcf//JI= Bytes: 4003 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:848488

On 05/08/2011 01:15, Zapp Brannigan wrote: > Phil W Lee wrote: >> "Just zis Guy, you know?"  considered Thu, >>> On 04/08/2011 17:21, Zapp Brannigan wrote: >>>> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote: >>>> >>>>> Ah yes, their new position paper on helmets, authored for them by >>>>> BHIT. I remember the debate where the doctors' trade union adopted >>>>> that... >>>> >>>> "Please don't start telling me how they're all corrupted, biased or >>>> stupid." >>> >>> Their previous paper was written by a group of people with various >>> views, and included several types of evidence. The new paper did not >>> reference a single population study or any other evidence that cast >>> doubt on the pro-helmet agenda - including the BMA's own previous >>> research. It also cited multiple papers drawn from the same data set as >>> if they were separate research, and quoted the highest figure from one >>> rather than the much lower figure in subsequent re-analysis of the same >>> data by the same authors. >>> >>> It also included two figures that have no basis in peer-reviewed studies >>> and emanate from a single source: a pro-compulsion pressure group. >>> >>> I'm not big on conspiracy theories but this is pretty obvious; the >>> doctor who proposed the motion is connected with the pressure group and >>> the supposed author of the report has zero hits in any research >>> databases (unlike the authors of the previous report). >> >> And the same "doctor" also called the result of the show of hands, and >> refused to allow a count. >> >> It seems obvious that the result should have been vetted, rather than >> doctored. > > "Please don't start telling me how they're all corrupted, biased or stupid."

Sounds like you've got the measure of these two, and their "tactics". Anything which goes against their prejudices and agendas is simply dismissed, and anyone who says the "wrong" thing is demonised and deprecated, while anyone who says the "right" thing is exalted and never questioned.

You'd have thought that after all these years of being in the wrong, they would have come up with a strategy which wasn't quite as simplistic or transparent. Or maybe even just publicly accepted that helmets at least may have a benefit. But no, the obsession with ensuring that cyclists are not compelled to wear helmets (or do anything else for that matter), no matter what the safety benefits might be, spurs them on.

At least Phil Lee practises what he preaches though.