3 ms·
Your comment is misled. This is a systemic review. A RCT would absolutely find a difference. The whole point of this satire is to point out that there's not
by mlyle 2y ago
Your comment is misled.
This is a systemic review. A RCT would absolutely find a difference. The whole point of this satire is to point out that there's not always studies on what you want to know. "No randomised controlled trials of parachute use have been undertaken"
Flossing has absolutely been studied. Professional flossing seems effective at combating gum disease. Telling people to floss doesn't seem to be. It's unclear why (is it just compliance effects? are people educated on how to floss still ineffective? etc.)
- lesuorac 2y agoAh, you're right I grabbed the wrong paper. I presume the other commenter (hervature ) also knew what paper I meant. But yes, the item you want studied might not have been studied. ("However, the trial was only able to enroll participants on small stationary aircraft on the ground, suggesting cautious extrapolation to high altitude jumps.") https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094 https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094
- mlyle 2y agoOK. So another low effort comment on a serious subthread.