As a former ABATE rep (American Bikers Aiming Toward Education, for 16 years), I'd like to say you are wrong. We are the ones who have our own personal safety in mind. We are the experts, not non-riders.
In our state, we have had rider education for nearly 20 years, and it has been free for most of those. We have advocated education over legislation, driver awareness programs, and even voluntary helmet use, but we have also worked hard to keep legislation which requires helmet use off of the books for adults. Note that riders under 18 must still wear a helmet in our state.
We do not argue that inexperience is not a killer, which is why we have advocated rider ed for so long. No matter what you wear, you can get killed by not operating your vehicle correctly.
As for anti helmet propaganda, no, I have not seen it. I have seen a lot of anecdotal evidence regarding situations in which helmets have or could have caused damage exceeding that which would have been caused (allowed?) by the absence of a helmet.
I have been over many of the seminal studies which purport to substantiate that helmets are some sort of safety panacea, and found them to be seriously mathematically, statistically or logically flawed as a rule.
They do not address the issue of helmet use logically, and base conclusions on conclusions of other, pervious and flawed studies.
If you did a study of children who died as a result of injuries from falling off of couches, and started with the mortality statistics, without allowing for the children who were not injured, you would advocate banning couches.
What we never see included in the studies are the stats on people who were not injured without a helmet, (or with) in an accident, and probably never will.
There is a tendency to pick the bike up and ride it home, or call a friend and load it up which skews non-injury data.
There are almost no studies which state that a helmet ever caused an injury, even though there should be (knowing humans, nature, etc, and with abundant anecdotal information) at least a few instances of helmet-induced injury, even if these are considered "freak" occurances.
All we have ever advocated is education, and the freedom to choose whether we, individually, wish to employ safety devices and when to do so.
This is a very simple argument as far as I am concerned. Helmet use is mandatory in motorcycle racing. Guys involved with racing take multiple falls on a yearly basis so they are a perfect test sample.
If helmets cause the types of injury (neck hyperextension) that you are suggesting, it would have shown up in racing accents. I know of no racers who have suffered this type of injury. Do you?