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 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.
Would they though? The real world doesn't care about variables, any and all possible variables have to be included in the data - because they have no way to exclude them. If they aren't excluded, they must be included.
Real world injury numbers over time paint the picture you are looking for, and they show a net benefit.
If (for example) you found a way to extrapolate that on a moderate sunny day, at a speed of 32.3mph, over a jump less than 15 feet in height, but greater than 4 feet in height, and no loner than 60 feet, if your body angle relative to the motorcycle is +10 degrees, you weigh between 150, and 163 LBS, and you crash in some specific way with your head at a particular angle, with a mid-high end helmet, that a certain neck brace will make the situation worse for your 3rd rib on the right side - will you not wear one?
You are looking for an exception to show it doesn't work, but it's the rule that matters, and the rule (thus far) says that it works.