New conclusive data on Neck Braces

clinical2 wrote:

If someone measured for all of those variables, the data sets would be significantly different, but we do not know if any of those circumstances are...

If someone measured for all of those variables, the data sets would be significantly different, but we do not know if any of those circumstances are attributable to the injury. That's the point. In order to conclude a correlation, between neck brace and decrease of injury, you must operationalize the variables, then assign measurement criteria. This was not done and is not consider a legitimate report. It isn't responsible to make claims that will influence individuals based on bias and subjective opinions.

MPJC wrote:

Isn't the correlation already there, plain to see? What we're interested in is establishing causation. Do you have an alternative explanation for the data (and yes...

Isn't the correlation already there, plain to see? What we're interested in is establishing causation. Do you have an alternative explanation for the data (and yes, argument to the best explanation is a perfectly respectable form of argument)? What evidence of bias do you see? What do you take to be subjective? Aren't the procedures that you're describing exactly what companies like Atlas do in their testing - testing that gives them reason to predict results like we see in this study? If you are, in fact, knowledgeable in scientific method, I won't have to tell you that while attaining the predicted results does not confirm with certainty that they are correct in their claims about neck braces and safety (in science, nothing is ever confirmed with certainty), the fact that they haven't been falsified is significant.

clinical2 wrote:

If someone measured for all of those variables, the data sets would be significantly different, but we do not know if any of those circumstances are...

If someone measured for all of those variables, the data sets would be significantly different, but we do not know if any of those circumstances are attributable to the injury. That's the point. In order to conclude a correlation, between neck brace and decrease of injury, you must operationalize the variables, then assign measurement criteria. This was not done and is not consider a legitimate report. It isn't responsible to make claims that will influence individuals based on bias and subjective opinions.

MPJC wrote:

Isn't the correlation already there, plain to see? What we're interested in is establishing causation. Do you have an alternative explanation for the data (and yes...

Isn't the correlation already there, plain to see? What we're interested in is establishing causation. Do you have an alternative explanation for the data (and yes, argument to the best explanation is a perfectly respectable form of argument)? What evidence of bias do you see? What do you take to be subjective? Aren't the procedures that you're describing exactly what companies like Atlas do in their testing - testing that gives them reason to predict results like we see in this study? If you are, in fact, knowledgeable in scientific method, I won't have to tell you that while attaining the predicted results does not confirm with certainty that they are correct in their claims about neck braces and safety (in science, nothing is ever confirmed with certainty), the fact that they haven't been falsified is significant.

clinical2 wrote:

A correlational study serves only to describe or predict behavior, not to explain it. Always remember that correlation does not imply causation. Since there is no...

A correlational study serves only to describe or predict behavior, not to explain it. Always remember that correlation does not imply causation. Since there is no random assignment to conditions, a researcher cannot rule out the possibility that there is a third variable affecting the relationship between the two variables measured. Even if there is no third variable, it is impossible to tell which factor is influencing the other. Only experimental research can determine causation. In the above example, while a research could predict the likelihood of an alcoholic father having an alcoholic son, they could not describe why this was the case. (Psychology Research, 1979)

clinical2 wrote:

Here is a study that was done by University of Virginia. It states that based on laboratory testing, more needs to be researched.

http://ibrc.osu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Abstract_2016_Sathyanara…

MPJC wrote:

Well, then isn't it nice of this EMS group to have done that!

clinical2 wrote:

The EMS is an ambulance company in Michigan. They are not qualified to submit such claims. This study was not done by the ambulance company. It...

The EMS is an ambulance company in Michigan. They are not qualified to submit such claims. This study was not done by the ambulance company. It was performed by the University of Virginia.

MPJC wrote:

Isn't the correlation already there, plain to see? What we're interested in is establishing causation. Do you have an alternative explanation for the data (and yes...

Isn't the correlation already there, plain to see? What we're interested in is establishing causation. Do you have an alternative explanation for the data (and yes, argument to the best explanation is a perfectly respectable form of argument)? What evidence of bias do you see? What do you take to be subjective? Aren't the procedures that you're describing exactly what companies like Atlas do in their testing - testing that gives them reason to predict results like we see in this study? If you are, in fact, knowledgeable in scientific method, I won't have to tell you that while attaining the predicted results does not confirm with certainty that they are correct in their claims about neck braces and safety (in science, nothing is ever confirmed with certainty), the fact that they haven't been falsified is significant.

clinical2 wrote:

A correlational study serves only to describe or predict behavior, not to explain it. Always remember that correlation does not imply causation. Since there is no...

A correlational study serves only to describe or predict behavior, not to explain it. Always remember that correlation does not imply causation. Since there is no random assignment to conditions, a researcher cannot rule out the possibility that there is a third variable affecting the relationship between the two variables measured. Even if there is no third variable, it is impossible to tell which factor is influencing the other. Only experimental research can determine causation. In the above example, while a research could predict the likelihood of an alcoholic father having an alcoholic son, they could not describe why this was the case. (Psychology Research, 1979)

MPJC wrote:

Thanks, I just up and forgot that correlation does not imply causation! I'll try and do better.

clinical2 wrote:

Are you aware that an ambulance company who transports riders to the hospital wrote this less than professional report? Do you think that the hospital divulged...

Are you aware that an ambulance company who transports riders to the hospital wrote this less than professional report? Do you think that the hospital divulged private information on the details of the patients? All this report is telling everyone is that a tiny percent of riders had injuries with and without a brace. That isn't enough information to make an objective conclusion. Obviously, it is enough to make a subjective conclusion.

clinical2 wrote:

A correlational study serves only to describe or predict behavior, not to explain it. Always remember that correlation does not imply causation. Since there is no...

A correlational study serves only to describe or predict behavior, not to explain it. Always remember that correlation does not imply causation. Since there is no random assignment to conditions, a researcher cannot rule out the possibility that there is a third variable affecting the relationship between the two variables measured. Even if there is no third variable, it is impossible to tell which factor is influencing the other. Only experimental research can determine causation. In the above example, while a research could predict the likelihood of an alcoholic father having an alcoholic son, they could not describe why this was the case. (Psychology Research, 1979)

MPJC wrote:

Thanks, I just up and forgot that correlation does not imply causation! I'll try and do better.

clinical2 wrote:

Sarcasm: the last refuge of modest and chaste-souled people when the privacy of their soul is coarsely and intrusively invaded. Fyodor Dostoevsky

clinical2 wrote:

Are you aware that an ambulance company who transports riders to the hospital wrote this less than professional report? Do you think that the hospital divulged...

Are you aware that an ambulance company who transports riders to the hospital wrote this less than professional report? Do you think that the hospital divulged private information on the details of the patients? All this report is telling everyone is that a tiny percent of riders had injuries with and without a brace. That isn't enough information to make an objective conclusion. Obviously, it is enough to make a subjective conclusion.

AtlasBrace wrote:

The conclusion based on the numbers in the report is still the same, regardless of how it's written. You can keep pushing for some utopian report...

The conclusion based on the numbers in the report is still the same, regardless of how it's written.

You can keep pushing for some utopian report, and no matter how much evidence is presented you can still dream up some new variable that is omitted to help fit your narrative. "the report is poorly written" is not a counter argument about the effectiveness of neck brace. You don't like the report, we understand that. The fact is:

Less people had neck injuries with neck braces on. And less collarbone injuries. And less critical care after the crash. And experienced less deaths. We fail to see how that could lead you to your conclusions that braces are worse, or at the very least, the same as not wearing one.

MPJC wrote:

Thanks, I just up and forgot that correlation does not imply causation! I'll try and do better.

clinical2 wrote:

Sarcasm: the last refuge of modest and chaste-souled people when the privacy of their soul is coarsely and intrusively invaded. Fyodor Dostoevsky

MPJC wrote:

I have a PhD. Reading the things you write is painful - especially the condescending tone (the "are you aware" and "always remember" phrases), given the...

I have a PhD. Reading the things you write is painful - especially the condescending tone (the "are you aware" and "always remember" phrases), given the content of your posts and your obvious failure to understand what the words you're using actually mean.

clinical2 wrote:

Sarcasm: the last refuge of modest and chaste-souled people when the privacy of their soul is coarsely and intrusively invaded. Fyodor Dostoevsky

MPJC wrote:

I have a PhD. Reading the things you write is painful - especially the condescending tone (the "are you aware" and "always remember" phrases), given the...

I have a PhD. Reading the things you write is painful - especially the condescending tone (the "are you aware" and "always remember" phrases), given the content of your posts and your obvious failure to understand what the words you're using actually mean.

clinical2 wrote:

Then you should know that most Canadians do not use periods in the PhD abbreviations.

clinical2 wrote:

I am not advocating for or against neck braces. I am, however, an advocate of information that at the very least, imparts a modicum of scientific...

I am not advocating for or against neck braces. I am, however, an advocate of information that at the very least, imparts a modicum of scientific procedure. Would you want to buy a medication that was approved by a less than scientific standard?

Kennyfreemoney wrote:

I didnt See in the article anywhere mentioning the percentage of riders who wear a neck brace vs ones who dont, but here’s something to think...

I didnt See in the article anywhere mentioning the percentage of riders who wear a neck brace vs ones who dont, but here’s something to think about. Many more people ride without braces. So whats to say the number of injuries (When a neck brace is warn) would not go up if the number of riders wearing neck braces went up? You need to look at the total percentage of riders wearing neck braces compared to the percentage of the injuries with and without neck braces.

Numbers for argument sake. 265 total Critical Cervical Spine Injuries. 90.5% without a brace. 9.5% with a brace.

If only 10% of riders wear a neck brace, then this study has to be deemed inconclusive.

Now lets say 10% is the amount of riders wearing a neck brace. There were 5 recorded deaths. 4 without a brace, 1 with. That means 20% of deaths were with a brace and only 10% of riders wear a brace. Wouldn’t that suggest that death is MORE likely if you wear a neck brace?

I could be way off base here but its just something to consider. In my opinion, The only weary for a conclusive test, if for 50% of the riders to be wearing a neck brace.

clinical2 wrote:

If someone measured for all of those variables, the data sets would be significantly different, but we do not know if any of those circumstances are...

If someone measured for all of those variables, the data sets would be significantly different, but we do not know if any of those circumstances are attributable to the injury. That's the point. In order to conclude a correlation, between neck brace and decrease of injury, you must operationalize the variables, then assign measurement criteria. This was not done and is not consider a legitimate report. It isn't responsible to make claims that will influence individuals based on bias and subjective opinions.

MPJC wrote:

Isn't the correlation already there, plain to see? What we're interested in is establishing causation. Do you have an alternative explanation for the data (and yes...

Isn't the correlation already there, plain to see? What we're interested in is establishing causation. Do you have an alternative explanation for the data (and yes, argument to the best explanation is a perfectly respectable form of argument)? What evidence of bias do you see? What do you take to be subjective? Aren't the procedures that you're describing exactly what companies like Atlas do in their testing - testing that gives them reason to predict results like we see in this study? If you are, in fact, knowledgeable in scientific method, I won't have to tell you that while attaining the predicted results does not confirm with certainty that they are correct in their claims about neck braces and safety (in science, nothing is ever confirmed with certainty), the fact that they haven't been falsified is significant.

clinical2 wrote:

A correlational study serves only to describe or predict behavior, not to explain it. Always remember that correlation does not imply causation. Since there is no...

A correlational study serves only to describe or predict behavior, not to explain it. Always remember that correlation does not imply causation. Since there is no random assignment to conditions, a researcher cannot rule out the possibility that there is a third variable affecting the relationship between the two variables measured. Even if there is no third variable, it is impossible to tell which factor is influencing the other. Only experimental research can determine causation. In the above example, while a research could predict the likelihood of an alcoholic father having an alcoholic son, they could not describe why this was the case. (Psychology Research, 1979)

MxKing809 wrote:

Here comes the down votes.....

These guys don’t want to hear anything about anecdotal evidence, correlation vs causation, or the scientific method