No evidence that parachutes prevent injuries when jumping out of planes (2003)(bmj.com)
bmj.com
No evidence that parachutes prevent injuries when jumping out of planes (2003)
https://www.bmj.com/content/327/7429/1459
33 comments
I’m too lazy to search for it, but there was an organization that collected the top “stop doing these things in medicine because they don’t work”. The polled the major medical societies to put them together. Ranges from emergency medicine to gynecology.
I think most people would be shocked to learn: 1) how many “obvious” interventions don’t work and 2) how common they are in today’s medical practice.
I think most people would be shocked to learn: 1) how many “obvious” interventions don’t work and 2) how common they are in today’s medical practice.
Cochrane Reviews? https://www.cochranelibrary.com/about/about-cochrane-reviews
Hmmm… it may have come from Cochrane, but I don’t think so.
They were a collection of two page PDFs with nice formatting and all. Made it easy for any physician to see just how extensive the issue was beyond their own specialty.
But maybe Cochrane drove the initiative? The lists definitely came from the respective medical societies.
Now I have a urge to try and find it again.
They were a collection of two page PDFs with nice formatting and all. Made it easy for any physician to see just how extensive the issue was beyond their own specialty.
But maybe Cochrane drove the initiative? The lists definitely came from the respective medical societies.
Now I have a urge to try and find it again.
And 3, how many people are utterly convinced they DO work. Like with homeopathy.
I'm not sure I'd classify drinking and incredibly dilute version of the poison you have just ingested to cure you of that poison as an obvious intervention that doesn't work. It seems more of an obviously useless thing to do that doesn't work.
I fully agree, yet here I am with many friends that swear their kids stop having gum aches after applying some stuff that contains 0.5 molecules per tube of whatever. I tell them it could be their attention, the actual rubbing, just the fact that the kid thinks he's being helped. Yet none of them is up for rubbing the kids with water in a double blind way and making structured notes of the effects. "It obviously helps, everybody happy". Yeah, especially the manufacturer of said half molecule*.
(* I get that it means there is just 1 molecule in every 2nd tube, or more likely some tubes have 0, some 1, some 2, some 3, we have to take counting statistics into account.)
(* I get that it means there is just 1 molecule in every 2nd tube, or more likely some tubes have 0, some 1, some 2, some 3, we have to take counting statistics into account.)
Funny story related to this:
My son, who was in training to become an EMT, came to me one day concerned that my wife had several small bottles of aromatherapy (potions?, tinctures?) on her desk. He was deeply concerned that "she believed in that stuff" and felt that we needed to stage an intervention. I assured him that I doubted that she believed they had any therapeutic value, but that I would talk to her about it.
Turns out, they were sent by an acquaintance of hers who was sending out free samples to everyone she knew hoping to drum up sales for her business. My wife was going to throw them out, but wanted to look up how to "properly dispose of the contents" and rinse out the bottles before recycling them. I just laughed: dumping the contents down the drain would likely be no different than washing them--other than saving water and time.
My son, who was in training to become an EMT, came to me one day concerned that my wife had several small bottles of aromatherapy (potions?, tinctures?) on her desk. He was deeply concerned that "she believed in that stuff" and felt that we needed to stage an intervention. I assured him that I doubted that she believed they had any therapeutic value, but that I would talk to her about it.
Turns out, they were sent by an acquaintance of hers who was sending out free samples to everyone she knew hoping to drum up sales for her business. My wife was going to throw them out, but wanted to look up how to "properly dispose of the contents" and rinse out the bottles before recycling them. I just laughed: dumping the contents down the drain would likely be no different than washing them--other than saving water and time.
LSD’s dose is 100 micro grams, and that’s enough for significant effects.
I’m not saying homeopathy is valid, I’m just saying the it’s hubris to dismiss low dosages as meaningless.
I’m not saying homeopathy is valid, I’m just saying the it’s hubris to dismiss low dosages as meaningless.
Low doses in homeopathy are indicated by a p nummer, like p13, meaning 10 times diluted, 13 times. Which brings it into individual molecules per tube territory.
Isn’t homeopathy just a way to sell the placebo effect, for which we have ample supporting evidence as the basis for medical studies?
They sell placebos without you needing to give money to quacks practicing 18th century pseudoscience
Also: MMS, "cleanses", crystals, sonic pest defenders, fuel efficiency devices, zero point energy generators, perpetual motion machines, and magic laundry balls. <-- That's the abbreviated list.
I will have you know that since I got my tiger-repelling rock I have not been attacked by tigers…
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSVqLHghLpw
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSVqLHghLpw
But do they repel llamas and killer rabbits? If not, I'll wait for v2.
This "review" is meant to highlight the absurdity of needing randomized control studies for things that are observationally obvious.
There is however a follow up RCT study that used actual jumpers to prove that parachutes do help https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094
There is however a follow up RCT study that used actual jumpers to prove that parachutes do help https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094
For ages was "observationally obvious" that life can came out from inanimated materia without https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation
Read about the unified field, it seems all materia extrudes from this field. Maybe not so far fetched after all?
Life being consciousness which helps the unified field extrude into intelligent forms and continues to unfold.
Life being consciousness which helps the unified field extrude into intelligent forms and continues to unfold.
They did a follow up randomized experiment where people jumped out of planes (at 2ft) with and without parachutes.
https://healthjournalism.org/blog/2019/02/breakthrough-resea...
https://healthjournalism.org/blog/2019/02/breakthrough-resea...
This is the first time I hear about this issue.
> We think that everyone might benefit if the most radical protagonists of evidence based medicine organised and participated in a double blind, randomised, placebo controlled, crossover trial of the parachute.
I wasn't expecting this. My reaction to what I understood as "Need solid studies? Nobody's preventing you to go kill yourselves to make your point, be our guests, the world will be better without you anyway!" was: what? this can't be serious.
This is indeed not serious as your link outlines:
> Obviously the first parachute study was tongue-in-cheek, but the authors’ point was important: The absence of randomized controlled trials for a certain medical intervention does not mean that the intervention cannot be safe and effective. And an RCT often would be unethical, as I noted in a past blog on the “tyranny of the RCT.” Sometimes, well-designed observational studies must suffice.
This is well done.
Okay, I have my shot of serious fun for the day, let's go back to work.
> We think that everyone might benefit if the most radical protagonists of evidence based medicine organised and participated in a double blind, randomised, placebo controlled, crossover trial of the parachute.
I wasn't expecting this. My reaction to what I understood as "Need solid studies? Nobody's preventing you to go kill yourselves to make your point, be our guests, the world will be better without you anyway!" was: what? this can't be serious.
This is indeed not serious as your link outlines:
> Obviously the first parachute study was tongue-in-cheek, but the authors’ point was important: The absence of randomized controlled trials for a certain medical intervention does not mean that the intervention cannot be safe and effective. And an RCT often would be unethical, as I noted in a past blog on the “tyranny of the RCT.” Sometimes, well-designed observational studies must suffice.
This is well done.
Okay, I have my shot of serious fun for the day, let's go back to work.
Related SSC post: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/the-phrase-no-evidence...
The Phrase "No Evidence" Is A Red Flag For Bad Science Communication
The Phrase "No Evidence" Is A Red Flag For Bad Science Communication
Article: "Data on parachutes found not to be conclusive"
Serious media: "Serious doubts on parachutes"
Tabloid portals: "Click to see the shocking truth on parachutes!"
Social media: "Parachute industry conspiracy! No-parachute jumping party at 11!"
Serious media: "Serious doubts on parachutes"
Tabloid portals: "Click to see the shocking truth on parachutes!"
Social media: "Parachute industry conspiracy! No-parachute jumping party at 11!"
It's more like "not found to be conclusive [yet]" for "Article", but the rest can remain unchanged.
^this
Hilarious.
One of the things that had most annoyed me in medicine since 1995,a slavish dedication to what I've come to call "evidence based nihilism". And a lot of the people who are most rigid do not treat patients but get promoted out of useful work.
The space of actual practice is far more complex and some applied science is actually called for.
What's worse, this kind of sanctimonious stringency (large industry/govt funded placebo DB RCT etc) is selectively applied to only certain practices, never to received wisdom or pet projects.
Hilarious.
One of the things that had most annoyed me in medicine since 1995,a slavish dedication to what I've come to call "evidence based nihilism". And a lot of the people who are most rigid do not treat patients but get promoted out of useful work.
The space of actual practice is far more complex and some applied science is actually called for.
What's worse, this kind of sanctimonious stringency (large industry/govt funded placebo DB RCT etc) is selectively applied to only certain practices, never to received wisdom or pet projects.
The experiment design is ready and waiting! The participants are all lined up.
Just have to bribe the ethics board!
Just have to bribe the ethics board!
> Ethical approval Not required
I'd say it's ready to roll.
I'd say it's ready to roll.
[deleted]
Masks work but so does the (non-)impression of a shielded face. Those aspects are luxuries maybe, but at some point, even granted the utilitarian outlook, it weights in on the Well-being calculus too. I feel sad for kids especially.
[deleted]
Published 18 December 2003
Yes changes in parachute and plane technology may have rendered this research obsolete.
Like the idea here is that there are some interventions that are so obvious that you don't need rigorous evidence to show they work. However as it turns out people use that analogy to justify interventions that did later turn out to not work.