3 ms·

I kept looking at the site to find some indication that this is satire. As near as I can tell, this was a legit study. I'm genuinely perplexed. Edit: Silly me.

by dhosek 7y ago

I kept looking at the site to find some indication that this is satire. As near as I can tell, this was a legit study. I'm genuinely perplexed. Edit: Silly me. It turns out that while BMJ is a legit journal, the study itself is satire and does identify itself as such near the end and via a linked opinion.

ceejayoz 7y ago
Click the bit that says: > Linked opinion: We jumped from planes without parachutes (and lived to tell the tale) "The PARACHUTE trial is our satirical attempt at bringing the parachute, as well as the almighty RCT, back down to earth."
- dhosek 7y ago
  Ah, I didn't realize that was a link. Nor did I read all the way to the end where they mention that it's satire. Absolutely brilliant, especially since it's in BMJ and not, say, the Journal of Irreproducible Results.
xboxnolifes 7y ago
The best kind of satire is the kind that goes all the way. This is what you get if nobody tries to accept new information without a "double blind randomly controlled trial" for it.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
  If this is meant to be salient to the current situation e.g. with hydroxychloroquine, I'm afraid it has missed the mark by a long distance. In Bayesian terms, the prior for parachutes helping when falling from great heights is extremely strong. It would take extraordinarily strong evidence to dissuade us from the idea that they are effective, given our prior knowledge of physics and the effect of high velocity collisions on the human body. The priors for a particular immunosuppressant being effective against a particular virus are not nearly so strong. Fortunately, some folks are doing actually high quality research on this right now, so we should have more solid evidence on this topic soon.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    > Published 13 December 2018 It probably has nothing to do with the current situation, barring a time machine, which should probably get its own article.
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
      I know the published study has nothing to do with the current situation. I'm referring to the motivation for posting/upvoting/commenting on it right now. For context, there is a significant push in the online COVID discussion space for discarding rational methods when evaluating potential COVID treatments. I've seen comments in this direction both here and on Reddit. That's the only reason I brought it up. For anyone just upvoting or discussing this because they thought it was funny or interesting, more power to them.
      - ceejayoz 7y ago
        My motivation in posting it was that I stumbled across it and found it funny.
        asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
        Awesome! Again, my comment is not directed at any particular person. It's directed at a particular motive. If you don't have that motive, my comment isn't talking about you and you can feel free to ignore it if it doesn't bring value into your life. :)
yellowapple 7y ago
There's also a footnote at the bottom mentioning that it's satire.

by dhosek 7y ago

ceejayoz 7y ago

Click the bit that says: > Linked opinion: We jumped from planes without parachutes (and lived to tell the tale) "The PARACHUTE trial is our satirical attempt at bringing the parachute, as well as the almighty RCT, back down to earth."

dhosek 7y ago
Ah, I didn't realize that was a link. Nor did I read all the way to the end where they mention that it's satire. Absolutely brilliant, especially since it's in BMJ and not, say, the Journal of Irreproducible Results.

xboxnolifes 7y ago

The best kind of satire is the kind that goes all the way. This is what you get if nobody tries to accept new information without a "double blind randomly controlled trial" for it.

asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
If this is meant to be salient to the current situation e.g. with hydroxychloroquine, I'm afraid it has missed the mark by a long distance. In Bayesian terms, the prior for parachutes helping when falling from great heights is extremely strong. It would take extraordinarily strong evidence to dissuade us from the idea that they are effective, given our prior knowledge of physics and the effect of high velocity collisions on the human body. The priors for a particular immunosuppressant being effective against a particular virus are not nearly so strong. Fortunately, some folks are doing actually high quality research on this right now, so we should have more solid evidence on this topic soon.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  > Published 13 December 2018 It probably has nothing to do with the current situation, barring a time machine, which should probably get its own article.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
    I know the published study has nothing to do with the current situation. I'm referring to the motivation for posting/upvoting/commenting on it right now. For context, there is a significant push in the online COVID discussion space for discarding rational methods when evaluating potential COVID treatments. I've seen comments in this direction both here and on Reddit. That's the only reason I brought it up. For anyone just upvoting or discussing this because they thought it was funny or interesting, more power to them.
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      My motivation in posting it was that I stumbled across it and found it funny.
      - asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
        Awesome! Again, my comment is not directed at any particular person. It's directed at a particular motive. If you don't have that motive, my comment isn't talking about you and you can feel free to ignore it if it doesn't bring value into your life. :)

yellowapple 7y ago

There's also a footnote at the bottom mentioning that it's satire.