Which is a very silly argument.

A surgeon is one among the few that can see a spike in brain traumas cases and can investigate the causes, it's totally more reliable than you or me, because he has the data and the knowledge, we don't.

I don't know about you, but I would ask a veteran about the horrors of war, not to 4 years kids, who, having seen none of it, are, by your reasoning, less biased.

> A surgeon is not going to see the vast majority of people who don't suffer head trauma

Because surgeons are notoriously not people too and live in a closet in the hospital.

> Now, get me a statistician and we can talk.

first of all, medical professionals typically study statistics, epidemiology doesn't really figure out itself on its own.

Secondly, I work with statisticians to assess the risks for insurance companies (not in the US). I work with that kind of data everyday and, guess what, MDs reports are highly predictive of risks, the average Joe with a laptop opinions, are discarded because, after examination, have been found "completely non-predictive".

This sounds absurd ofcourse, and it is. But from the point of the surgeons it is not absurd, as it reduces trauma significantly. So any decisions should be taken by taking into account socio-economic effects as well. Cycling is a part of Dutch culture and compared to other countries we are doing very well. Mandatory helmets are a big deal (where do you keep the helmets?) and will definitely move people from bikes to cars.

Having tutored medical professionals trying to pass their epidemiology classes, I would not make that claim. From my observations, epidemiology and statistical literacy is treated as a "check this box" effort, the least important of their courses.