Comment by kop316

4 years ago

Hearing how you phrased it reminds me of a study that showed how parachutes do not in fact save lives (the study was more to show the consequences of extrapolating data, so the result should not be taken seriously):

https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094

10 comments

kop316

Reply
joosters  4 years ago

The original referenced paper is also very good: http://elucidation.free.fr/parachuteBMJ.pdf (can't find a better formatted link, sorry)

Conclusions: As with many interventions intended to prevent ill health, the effectiveness of parachutes has not been subjected to rigorous evaluation by using randomised controlled trials.Advocates of evidence based medicine have criticised the adoption of interventions evaluated by using only observational data. 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.

With the footnote: Contributors: GCSS had the original idea. JPP tried to talk him out of it. JPP did the first literature search but GCSS lost it. GCSS drafted the manuscript but JPP deleted all the best jokes. GCSS is the guarantor, and JPP says it serves him right

rrmm  4 years ago

I liked this bit, from the footnotes: "Contributors: RWY had the original idea but was reluctant to say it out loud for years. In a moment of weakness, he shared it with MWY and BKN, both of whom immediately recognized this as the best idea RWY will ever have."

tpoacher  4 years ago

This is now my second favourite paper after the atlantic salmon in fmri