Chalfie - this is the same evidence that Buffalo Bill elsewhere on the forum points to. I quite understand why everybody is ignoring it?
the 2006 Cochrane review is just a re-write of their 2000 review with the fictional quotes and libelous remarks about Mayer Hillman removed. The Cochrane website used to have about 15 pages of rebuttal arguments but I think they no longer show those.
Two questions: How good is a review where 60% of the cases come from two studies of the same population by the authors of the review? The data all comes from studies in the 80s and 90s when helmet wearing rates were very low and there were great socialogical differences between wearers and non wearers; why are there no recent studies that support the outcomes of the Cochrane reviewers?
Two questions: How good is a review where 60% of the cases come from two studies of the same population by the authors of the review? The data all comes from studies in the 80s and 90s when helmet wearing rates were very low and there were great socialogical differences between wearers and non wearers; why are there no recent studies that support the outcomes of the Cochrane reviewers?