4 ms·

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC300808/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC300808/ (disclaimer: I don't want to go back into the office)

stopnamingnuts 5y ago
This made my day.
falcolas 5y ago
> Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials Not sure this is the study you wanted to link to.
- HPsquared 5y ago
  He's referring to the "no evidence that..." statement. Some things are difficult to prove by experiment.
jacobmischka 5y ago
This is a spicy read, thank you for the link. My favorite bit: > It is often said that doctors are interfering monsters obsessed with disease and power, who will not be satisfied until they control every aspect of our lives (Journal of Social Science, pick a volume). [...] The widespread use of the parachute may just be another example of doctors' obsession with disease prevention and their misplaced belief in unproved technology to provide effective protection against occasional adverse events.
xyst 5y ago
Wow, if that's all it takes to get published then I will start pushing put trash papers to pump my CV.
- jvanderbot 5y ago
  If you only published joke articles with this level of snark I think you'd have a great career.
CPLX 5y ago
This is an utter classic. The follow up, where someone actually did conduct a randomized controlled trial where people jumped out of airplanes without a parachute, is similarly amusing: https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094 https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094
- amackera 5y ago
  I love this, a lot: > Conclusions: Parachute use did not reduce death or major traumatic injury when jumping from aircraft in the first randomized evaluation of this intervention. However, the trial was only able to enroll participants on small stationary aircraft on the ground, suggesting cautious extrapolation to high altitude jumps. When beliefs regarding the effectiveness of an intervention exist in the community, randomized trials might selectively enroll individuals with a lower perceived likelihood of benefit, thus diminishing the applicability of the results to clinical practice.

stopnamingnuts 5y ago

This made my day.

falcolas 5y ago

> Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials Not sure this is the study you wanted to link to.

HPsquared 5y ago
He's referring to the "no evidence that..." statement. Some things are difficult to prove by experiment.

jacobmischka 5y ago

This is a spicy read, thank you for the link. My favorite bit: > It is often said that doctors are interfering monsters obsessed with disease and power, who will not be satisfied until they control every aspect of our lives (Journal of Social Science, pick a volume). [...] The widespread use of the parachute may just be another example of doctors' obsession with disease prevention and their misplaced belief in unproved technology to provide effective protection against occasional adverse events.

xyst 5y ago

Wow, if that's all it takes to get published then I will start pushing put trash papers to pump my CV.

jvanderbot 5y ago
If you only published joke articles with this level of snark I think you'd have a great career.

CPLX 5y ago

This is an utter classic. The follow up, where someone actually did conduct a randomized controlled trial where people jumped out of airplanes without a parachute, is similarly amusing: https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094 https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094

amackera 5y ago
I love this, a lot: > Conclusions: Parachute use did not reduce death or major traumatic injury when jumping from aircraft in the first randomized evaluation of this intervention. However, the trial was only able to enroll participants on small stationary aircraft on the ground, suggesting cautious extrapolation to high altitude jumps. When beliefs regarding the effectiveness of an intervention exist in the community, randomized trials might selectively enroll individuals with a lower perceived likelihood of benefit, thus diminishing the applicability of the results to clinical practice.