 
| Sender: |
|
| Date: |
Sat, 29 May 1999 22:54:07 -0400 |
| Reply-To: |
|
| Subject: |
|
| MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
| Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
| Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=us-ascii |
| Organization: |
Owen's House |
| From: |
|
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
to add on to Adam's comments from thursday, i love to read a study which
has a nice, big caveat. provides the authors lots o' wiggle room for
conclusions and policy recommendations. this, however, takes the cake.
the author all but totally discredits his entire study by saying they
looked at stats in a vacuum. wonder if he had any funding from a group
with interests in the policy prescriptions?
i hope my comments won't be taken too harshly. the discussion on this
has been engaging. much appreciated!
bret marr
east lansing, MI
Vicki Price wrote:
>Although there are no published comparative studies on facial
>protection to date (1997) that used a concurrent control group, LaPrade >et al strongly recommended full facial protection to guard against chin >lacerations and dental injuries.
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey; send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.
|
|
|
