That's a misreading if ever I saw one, my meaning was exactly the same as yours and in no way implied that the materials were useless or detrimental, nor did what I said dismiss helmets as useless, offhand or in any other way.By saying that absorbant materials aren't compatible with cycling sounds like you are saying they are useless or even detrimental to health. I have looked for facts on helmet testing, they make it clear that a helmet cannot be compatible with all the needs of cycling (motorcycling, skiing etc.) but I have never seen one that dismissed a helmets usefulness offhand like that. I would be interested to read one if you have it.
You've said this:
"they make it clear that a helmet cannot be compatible with all the needs of cycling"
and that's all I'm saying, using the same word "compatible", meaning that cycle helmets are inadequate for meeting all the needs.
.