Slashdot Mirror
Researchers Show Parachutes Don't Work, But There's A Catch (npr.org)
Reader Beeftopia shares a report: Research published in a major medical journal concludes that a parachute is no more effective than an empty backpack at protecting you from harm if you have to jump from an aircraft. But before you leap to any rash conclusions, you had better hear the whole story. The gold standard for medical research is a study that randomly assigns volunteers to try an intervention or to go without one and be part of a control group. For some reason, nobody has ever done a randomized controlled trial of parachutes. In fact, medical researchers often use the parachute example when they argue they don't need to do a study because they're so sure they already know something works. Cardiologist Robert Yeh, an associate professor at Harvard Medical School and attending physician at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, got a wicked idea one day. He and his colleagues would actually attempt the parachute study to make a few choice points about the potential pitfalls of research shortcuts.
They started by talking to their seatmates on airliners. [...] In all, 23 people agreed to be randomly given either a backpack or a parachute and then to jump from a biplane on Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts or from a helicopter in Michigan. Relying on two locations and only two kinds of aircraft gave the researchers quite a skewed sample. But this sort of problem crops up frequently in studies, which was part of the point Yeh and his team were trying to make. Still, photos taken during the experiment show the volunteers were only too happy to take part. The drop in the study was about 2 feet total, because the biplane and helicopter were parked. Nobody suffered any injuries. Surprise, surprise. So it's technically true that parachutes offered no better protection for these jumpers than the backpacks.
They started by talking to their seatmates on airliners. [...] In all, 23 people agreed to be randomly given either a backpack or a parachute and then to jump from a biplane on Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts or from a helicopter in Michigan. Relying on two locations and only two kinds of aircraft gave the researchers quite a skewed sample. But this sort of problem crops up frequently in studies, which was part of the point Yeh and his team were trying to make. Still, photos taken during the experiment show the volunteers were only too happy to take part. The drop in the study was about 2 feet total, because the biplane and helicopter were parked. Nobody suffered any injuries. Surprise, surprise. So it's technically true that parachutes offered no better protection for these jumpers than the backpacks.
is the dumbest fucking thing I've read today.
My favorite study along these lines was a randomized selection of men, half of whom were injected with steroids and half got no steroids. Neither group showed muscle gains during the study period. Not mentioned in the headline was that neither group lifted weights or engaged in any exercise. So in a sense the headline was true: just taking steroids doesn't give you big muscles. But the guys in my gym who took steroids got big because they were able to recuperate faster from heavier workouts.
You are so dumb, you believe you are the smart one again.
So you are the average "voter".
This type of research. exposing the crack in science in practice and "science", is some of the most important research. Unfortunately, I don't think you can make the average person get it.
....just guess.
now waste your foster parents, Alexa said!
This first test involves something the lab boys call 'repulsion gel.' You're not part of the control group, by the way. You get the gel. Last poor son of a gun got blue paint. Hahaha. All joking aside, that did happen â" broke every bone in his legs. Tragic. But informative. Or so I'm told. --Cave Johnson
Meanwhile, the researchers didn't produce anything new, similar "research" was done in the past where researchers didn't know how strings worked in Java.
For some reason, nobody has ever done a randomized controlled trial of parachutes.
It would be unethical to send people to their certain deaths when gravity has been sufficiently tested to the point where it is accepted as a physical constant.
However, I'm sure ethicists would be willing to look the other way if all idiots complaining about a lack of controlled trial were used as the subjects of such a test.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
A little education makes someone have more potential.
A lot of education makes someone maximize their potential.
Too much education? You become the stupidest humans known to mankind and can't even do simple math like 2+2 and get the right answer.
And these asshats are probably getting paid with taxpayer funds to do this.
It's making a point about medical researchers making assumptions and/or cherry picking situations/test candidates that will skew results towards a preferred/anticipated outcome. The Christmas issue of BMJ is intentionally lighthearted, something that probably should have been made clearer in TFS to avoid the amount of "WHOOSH!" that's going on.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
Still just a waste of everyone's time.
You assume out your ass.
Shalom and Happy Hanukkah!
Nazi faggots try to make everything about jews, deny it.
We already know you can jump off a plane and survive. Lois Ann Frotten was parachuting back in 1962 and the parachute failed, but as any true dare devil, she wouldn't set such a minor setback kill her.
The newspaper on the event
Her TV appearance where she talked about it
No opened parachutes, you will be dead, obviously.
Bad parachutes maybe by its bad quality or low cost from their industries.
In the Rama story, a group of people jumped from a cliff into water, using their clothes as a braking mechanism.
I've actually calculated this; and it COULD work.
I won't be trying it unless there's no other option, but it goes like this:
Terminal velocity in the atmosphere is ~120mph in a "Spread Eagle" orientation, about 180mph in a pike position.
Hitting water at 180 will spatter you, but 120mph is right at the edge of what's possible; the guys that cliff dive are going close to that speed.
Hitting the water flat is going to splatter you, so you would have to use any available clothing to reduce your speed as much as possible, and transition to a CLEAN PIKE position as you hit the water.
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
Of course they were happy, they got to go to Martha's Vinyard. First clue something's skewed in the experiment: there's a SUBTLE difference between Martha's Vinyard and Michigan...
The point is that flawed assumptions about "common sense" stuff are a major cause of flawed results.
Indeed, it's the primary cause of irreproducible results.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I would like to repeat the experiment with the authors of the paper as my test subject.
IgNobels have been issued for this sort of work before - fish in brain scanners, anyone?
I'd be horrified if they awarded another for what is basically repeat work.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Not if it reminds people how they are constantly lied to via fancy language and assumption manipulation...
BLS numbers on the economy? Every politician ever? Parse them carefully and many take this to high art - not actually lying but saying things in a way that you thought you heard what you wanted to hear. All marketing? Man, I tried all that aftershave, toothpaste, hair gel and treament, still didn't "get the girl"...(you're supposed to know that's a joke).
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
Then you didn't understand it. Which, in all honesty, doesn't reflect on them.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
"Intellectual but Idiot" IbI - which I'd thought of it, but Nassim Taleb did.
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
My intelligence has plummeted from reading this and the comments.
Seriously. Fuck you.
Push them? And did he yell Ãoebyeà on the way out?
Somebody didn't read the summary.
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
If someone doesn't inherently understand what the real takeaway from this story is, then I question their IQ, their capacity to think critically, or both.
You made an assumption that they were jumping from a dangerous height! But your assumption was wrong! We tricked you!
So someone paid (bet it was taxpayers) to research the efficacy of parachutes vs. backpacks in jumps from a height of two feet from a stationary object.
WTActualF?
This is the dumbest shit I've seen on /. maybe ever. You're better than this. Do better.
The point is that flawed assumptions about "common sense" stuff are a major cause of flawed results.
Except that the "common sense" assumption about the outcome of this experiment is exactly what actually happened.
Nobody with "common sense" would assume a parachute would be helpful for a two foot drop.
Nope, he yelled "Get off my plane!"
#DeleteFacebook
Clearly you didn't read the article either.
My favorite study along these lines was a randomized selection of men, half of whom were injected with steroids and half got no steroids. Neither group showed muscle gains during the study period. Not mentioned in the headline was that neither group lifted weights or engaged in any exercise. So in a sense the headline was true: just taking steroids doesn't give you big muscles. But the guys in my gym who took steroids got big because they were able to recuperate faster from heavier workouts.
My favorites are medical studies on vitamins and supplements and other related.
For example, a 4-week study of Glucosamine/Chondroitin supplements that had no effect on joint pain of Rheumatoid Arthritis patients.
Conclusion? G/C supplementation has no effect.
Reality? We don't really know. 1) G/C supplementation is to make stronger and healthier joints by supplying building blocks not otherwise found in the diet, and 2) Joints have no blood vessels, so change very slowly. Typically 7 weeks or more would be needed to see an effect.
Compare with: St. John's Wort depression studies lasting less than 4 weeks (medical depression meds sometimes take as much as 6 weeks to show an effect), Omega 3 fatty acid supplementation studies in healthy adults (instead of children/adults with behavioral issues), and so on.
Nutrition studies are particularly useless. My favorite example is the guy making Soylent started out by asking the simplest question: what nutrients do we actually need to be healthy?
The answer is: No one knows, the literature is a bewildering mess of confusing and contradictory results, and nutrition experts have differing views.
(If you don't believe me, see if you can determine a) the *minimum* amount of vitamin D needed daily to prevent disease, and b) the *optimum* amount needed for best health. Bonus points if you can determine whether mega doses of Vitamin D are toxic. Supplemental bonus points if you can determine whether mega doses of Iodine are toxic.)
The common sense would be knowing this is not a reasonable way to test the effectiveness of a parachute, and then further that the researchers in this case were trolls for presenting it as if it were.
It better not be the taxpayer. If so, heads should roll or be thrown out of an airplane with a parachute, at 66 feet.
we need protection from this word salad - "you had better hear the whole story" - why not just tell the story??? hard to even understand the story from all the word salad it's hidden in - where's my weed eater?
Their point was that the results of my medical study very much depend on which patients are selected for the study.
Those who are likely to recover probably won't show much benefit from the treatment, because they were going to be okay anyway. Those who have a really bad prognosis may not show much benefit because they are past the point of no return, beyond help. In other studies, using patients who have a bad prognosis may exaggerate the benefits of the treatment by neglecting to include the fact that most people would be fine without the treatment. That is, the study might seem to indicate "the treatment doubles your chance of survival", but that's not true if the 90% of people with mild cases aren't included in the study.
Here, they used subjects with a very mild case of "jump out airplane". The study showed that parachutes provide no benefit - but only because the study participants had a very mild degree of the problem. One could also do a study of extreme cases and discover parachutes don't work for jumping out of an SR-71 at cruise. The study would need to include participants with varying "a priori" prognosis, and probably run stats for each class - good prognosis, bad prognosis, and in between.
TL;DR: Jump was under a metre. Thanks for making me read 90% of the article before stating that.
Scientists do not only have a duty to perform good research (many do not, sadly), but also to inform the general public about the meaning of their results. This study is perfectly valid (if scientifically worthless) and nicely demonstrates that an experiment or study may not imply the things a non-expert may think it does. As such, it serves as a nice warning. Another one about as ingenious is this one here: https://blogs.scientificameric...
I hope that this study wins an IgNoble as well. Note that the IgNoble in no way implies that the research so honored is bad. Dunning and Kruger won one for what is perhaps the most important discovery in Psychology of the last century. It just implies that something is really, really messed up. In this case it is the way _other_ studies using the same, standard methodology are interpreted and generalized by the press and other non-experts.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Simple: Education does not create insight or understanding. Look at all the spelling-nazis for example. They managed to learn something, but they completely mistake the importance of it. They think form is more important than function and that never, ever is the case (except in art). What you need to be smart is intelligence, a will to use it on everything (I call that "wisdom") and, as a booster to that, education. Education by itself does absolutely nothing except to make the people that have it (but nothing else) dangerous fools except only fools.
Now, if you refer to the study at hand, that is not the result of failed education. It is what a group of really, really smart people do with it: Demonstrate its limits. And as demonstration of the limits of the standard approach to medical studies, it does not get much more ingenious than this: It is clear to everybody, it clearly is a valid study and it is clearly utterly meaningless. As such it very nicely demonstrates that generalizing medical stidies is very, very tricky and cannot be done by non-experts (such as the press).
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
I mean, unless I've missed it, there doesn't seem to be any post here thinking about how to make this "true".
Sure, the study was ridiculous and intended to make a unrelated point, but the nerds should be focusing on the fact that there have been survivors of high falls without parachutes. So the most important barrier to serious R&D has been broken - the possibility is provably there!
In looking at many of the accounts on the web of high falls, I have to discount those that had parachutes that didn't open properly or were likely within the wreckage of an aircraft for most of the fall. Those were likely slowed down by things like the drag of a defective parachute or the body of a plane.
The more intriguing accounts are the falls from high buildings. In most cases, they seem to have been helped by landing on something that absorbed some of the shock of landing. Several landed on roofs. A very intriguing one landed on the roof of a car after a fall of 22 stories and "walked away" with only a broken elbow.
One can imagine that these folks likely benefited from some combination of positioning their bodies for high drag and/or maneuvers that translated vertical speed to horizontal speed that was bled off by traversing more air distance and landing in some particular way on a surface that absorbed a lot of the shock.
So how might a compact device that could be carried at all times enhance the possibility of surviving something like this?
A smartphone app could detect the freefall as well as that it is still on the person. If connected to cameras around the area it might be able to spot the best surface to hit. Guiding the arms and legs of the person to positions that will fly them toward that while minimizing downward airspeed would be problematic. That would seem to require either an exoskeleton (maybe a soft motor one) built into clothing or some muscle control interface like those being experimented with on paralyzed people. So that's a stretch today. As for having to find a roof or car to hit, that might be made less necessary with something like a personal explosive airbag and some means of ground proximity detection.
It is an interesting rabbit trail that could have application in something like the construction industry, as a failsafe for climbers, military, etc.
Condoms are no more effective than helmets at protecting from football injuries while eating ice cream on the sidelines.
My sausage tree didn't grow, does that make me a bad mommy?
it is the same with a lot of testing and reviews when published. everything you read is so bias these days so you never get the whole picture.
I hope no one spent any research money on this stupid crap. If so, there should be real consequences.
No! They made a most valuable point about study validity. If anyone pays attention, this will be a quite valuable contribution to future studies and reconsideration of existing studies.
A large fraction of studies in the medical (and social) science can not be replicated - studies that have determined the standard treatments. Many of these studies made or financed by the major pharmaceuticals. There is a lot of snake-oil put out by big drug, Inc.
Too much education? You become the stupidest humans known to mankind and can't even do simple math like 2+2 and get the right answer.
So, how many doctorate do you have? Phoenix U or Trumpet U? At least 2 from each, right?
Good point. We clearly need more studies like this, given the quality of statistical understanding in America.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Perhaps I would have been more accurate if I pointed out prognosis is an example of a variable readers might overlook. Obviously there can be many such factors, so any generalisation based on a specific study is fraught with peril.
On a related tangent, I've noticed this effect in the extreme for legal cases. Most Slashdot headlines about legal cases are wrong when they say a court decided an issue, as opposed to deciding a specific case. A court decides a result from the wording of a specific law, as applied to a specific party, given their conduct in a specific case.
For example, in consider a Masterpiece Bakeshop, the Colorado baker who wouldn't design a custom cake for a gay wedding. The Supreme Court ruled in his favor. The state of Colorado can't prosecute him for that case, the court ruled.
People think SCOTUS ruled that it's okay to discriminate against gay people. That's not what happened.
They did NOT rule that people can refuse to do business with gay people. They did not strike down the law. In fact, he's in court again now, for doing the same thing again. The facts of the case were:
The baker said he'd happily sell them anything on the shelf.
They wanted him to custom create an artwork celebrating their marriage, and he was unwilling to do that on religious grounds.
The state board said it's okay for artists, including bakers, to refuse to create messages they don't agree with - unless the artist is a Christian. The board chair said out loud, on the record in the hearing, that he was coming after the guy for being a &$@%* Christian.
The baker asserted that his First Amendment rights proclude the state from forcing him to make a statement celebrating gay marriage, including a statement in the form of a cake with certain decorations etc.
The court ruled that the state CAN force people to make statements celebrating gay marriage. What they can't do is explicitly target Christians for enforcement, openly going after people because they are Christian. The state has to at least uphold the appearance that they would enforce the law against an atheist who diagreed with gay marriage.
The point is, the generalisation people make from the case is entirely wrong.
This story reminds me of the old joke about the scientists who proudly announced that their experiments proved that dogs and cats could live underwater ... just not very long.
I'll just miss the point the other way around, and point out that they could've got usable data by using crash test dummies. And indeed, observational studies of people who fell without parachute vs. those who fell with would easily point both the expected safety benefits and the folly of running a controlled trial. This same problem exists for a lot of automotive safety issues (Not that there aren't a LOT of willing people to test not using a helmet on bike, seatbelt on car etc. but studies don't just hurl people at a wall at high speed with and without helmets and compare the results). Any medical studies are generally interrupted if the difference is so overwhelming that it would be unethical to continue, and prior observational studies would fit that bill.
If I ever had any doubts about the Dunning-Kruger Effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), many of the comments here have erased any lingering doubts...
Nazi homosexual recruiter RAY MORRIS pushing debunked Nazi propaganda even after corrected, #ROPE
Since some commenters appear to have misunderstood the point of the article it's worth quoting from the BMJ paper (I recommend actually reading the entire paper and/or this BMJ blog):
...
The study also has several limitations. First and most importantly, our findings might not be generalizable to the use of parachutes in aircraft traveling at a higher altitude or velocity. Consideration could be made to conduct additional randomized clinical trials in these higher risk settings. However, previous theoretical work supporting the use of parachutes could reduce the feasibility of enrolling participants in such studies.
...
Finally, although all endpoints in the study were prespecified, we were unable to register the PARACHUTE trial prospectively. We attempted to register this study with the Sri Lanka Clinical Trials Registry (application number APPL/2018/040), a member of the World Health Organization’s Registry Network of the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. After several rounds of discussion, the Registry declined to register the trial because they thought that “the research question lacks scientific validity” and “the trial data cannot be meaningful.” We appreciated their thorough review (and actually agree with their decision).
The PARACHUTE trial satirically highlights some of the limitations of randomized controlled trials. Nevertheless, we believe that such trials remain the gold standard for the evaluation of most new treatments. The PARACHUTE trial does suggest, however, that their accurate interpretation requires more than a cursory reading of the abstract. Rather, interpretation requires a complete and critical appraisal of the study. In addition, our study highlights that studies evaluating devices that are already entrenched in clinical practice face the particularly difficult task of ensuring that patients with the greatest expected benefit from treatment are included during enrolment.
...
Those who need to be reminded they are being lied to, are not the kind that will understand it no matter how much you tell them. They just need another dream to follow. That is all one can do for them. Lead the horse to water etc.
That's a lot these days. :D
And no one called me out for misspelling Asimov. (You did spell it correctly above, tho.) :)
I'd definitely give it a shot, if I were falling from a plane, gravity difference or not; you KNOW what happens without trying it, lol.
Mythbusters broke Buster into pieces dropping him from a crane, trying the 'break the surface tension with a hammer" thing.
But he landed pretty badly off axis, so IDK.
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
Big Pharma is 99.99% a money making machine for the elite, and a vast amount of its 'profits' go to paying off politicians who make policies beneficial for Big Pharma. Meanwhile the vast majority of Mankind suffers thru lack of access to basic healthcare and decent food/water supplies.
Take the JUNK SCIENCE of the annual flu 'vaccination'. Just how much money do you think Big Pharma makes from having the govs of the West pay for innoculationjs offered to a significant proportion of their population. Flu 'vaccinations' are a money making con on a scale unlike any other co witnessed in Human History- and the scum who benefit from this con are never going to give that up.
Al-phas know that the 99% improvement in the Human condition was what the 'Victorian' reformers pushed for. Clean water supplies. Good nutrition for babies and developing children. Reduced polution and better working conditions. And a TINY number of early innoculations and treatments for COMMON conditions at the time.
Everything Big Pharma pushes aims in truth at the 1% at best. Statistically insignificant. Yet you dribbling be-tas get endless propaganda on outlets like this one trying to convince you otherwise.
Oh for sure the elites do benefit from the extremes of medical intervention- witness that horror on the US Supreme Court having her ultra-zi-ionist life extended, or the British Royal familiy all expecting near 100 years of life. But for you sucker riff-raff who buy into this big pharma nonsense, cos you like 'sciencey' stuff you cannot actually understand, your life expectancy has actually FALLEN in the West these last few years.
A few years back, you were GUARANTEED life expectancy in the West would continue to rise over the next 100 years at least. Now you su-ckers are being told it is falling (for you, not your supreme 'mas-ters'). Keeping YOU free from long tail CJD (the 'dementia conditions you are seeing affect so many of the elderly people in your circle), Margeret Thatcher's ultimate gift to Humanity when she ended the longstanding taboo of not feeding animals to domestic herbivores and moved the 'mad cow' prion into the Human population, is just too expensive.
And how many FAKE pseudo science 'dementia cures' have been published in the mainstream media this year. I read at least one every two days or so.
Arther Dent begins the story objecting to the council demoilishing his house, but the bloke in charge of the bulldozer is able to CORRECTLY inform Arther that the plans to do so had been long ago published and made 'available', but Dent had failed to respond in good time. Of course by 'available' the jobsworth meant the 'letter of the law' NOT the spirit. It was 100% certain that Dent would never discover the council plans in time despite their 'publication'.
The extremist scum of the BMJ, who actively support the British gov in every war they inflict of the innocent populace of nations like Yemen, Iraq, Libya and Syria, mock you HHGTTG fashion, by 'exposing' the FAKE NEWS methods of so-called medical papers- while promoting and exploiting such dishonest medical research papers the rest of the year. This allows the BMJ to say to critics "see, we did expose the methods of our lies- so if you ever believed our lies, it was YOUR fault for ignoring the 'disclaimer'.
The BMJ is part of the British Establishment- the same establishment just responsible for the drone psy-op used to ruin the holiday plans of hundreds of thousands of people, and lay the ground fro the BANNING of civilian ownership of drones in Britain in the near future.
Of course 99.99% of Big Pharma medical research papers use the GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) trick - the maths equiv of dividing by zero. But Big Pharma gets the govs of the West (and other govs influenced by the West) to implement profit schemes running to hundreds of billions of dollars off the back of these junk papers.
To whomever wrote that headline. Jump out of a plane with a backpack...
A clinical trial is generally designed to test drug X in (medical) condition Y in target population Z. All three items X, Y, and Z, matter to be able to evaluate anything and draw a valid conclusion. In the example provided the target population is wrong because it was not at risk for death or injury. Therefore, there was nothing to evaluate.
Jumping out of a plane with an empty backpack.
I can already see some stable genius out there using this study to defund parachutes in the military
This is why you shoot a man before throwing him out of an airplane.
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
Let me guess: it was either psychologists or nutritionists.
Ah yes the emperor's new clothes.
You almost have it correct but u have 2 errors. The court did not hold that the state could force someone to go against their sincerely held beliefs. They punted entirely on that question... wimps.
Second mistake is that the new case isn't at all the same as the first. The second is about sending a gender change. Since you're pointing out that a case is limited to the specific case, this is a huge difference that you shouldn't claim these are the same.
As an Athiest I can easily demonstrate how different these are. If I were the Baker I wouldn't have a problem baking a cake for a wedding if humans regardless who they are or even how many are marrying eachother.
However it would be against my sincerely held beliefs based on science to bake a cake for a "gender change" celebration. To be 100% clear, if a Transgender man wants a cake to celebrate they believe their a woman, I'll bake that cake. You want to celebrate that you changed your gender I found it naive that cake because it is scientifically impossible to change your gender. Chromosomes and actual physical organs don't lie.
Just because you never received any complaints, it does not mean that all parachutes worked...
... that I read that whole stupid summary to find out what the catch was in the last line. Next time, just post it on April 1st so I can safely ignore it.
and here you go:
https://www.bmj.com/content/36...
and finally, the most pressing question answered from the article itself:
"Funding: There was no funding source for this study."
So, some fun was had by many, discussion was sparked, but no (direct) taxpayer money wasted. Might even make a useful point, if anyone remembers it where relevant:
"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."
.
The article was going on about how it was a counterpoint to the medical community's set of treatments for which they believe a trial is not necessary because you "wouldn't create a trial on the necessity of parachutes." A trial like that would be impossible to conduct and unethical.
So, here they conducted one.
It's strange because it *supports* the point that not only could you not conduct a trial on the necessity of parachutes, but you can abuse the system to create a trial where you can demonstrate the ineffectiveness of parachutes.
This seems to say that medical researchers *should* assume things are so rather than even trust papers which demonstrate that it is *not* the case. I mean, what kind of argument can this paper be used for?:
But hey, it's not my field. Not even a layman here, just a passer-by. Seems like a funny paper, but I think it's in poor taste because of the weird anti-research conclusion.
But it isnâ(TM)t April 1st and Iâ(TM)ll never get those five wasted minutes back.
not actually lying but saying things in a way that you thought you heard what you wanted to hear.
Like if I took a kg of 100% beef, and a kg of sawdust, and mixed them together and made hamburger patties, I could say my hamburgers were "Made with 100% beef".
All marketing?
I recently say a jug of juice that said "100% Juice", and underneath that in smaller letters "and other ingredients".
This isn't just about scientific method or research publication; taken as a larger whole for language in general, it shows that context is king, and the half truth can be more misleading than an outright lie.
Language is easy to manipulate.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Companies will uses the psychology experiment as an excuse to make things less safe.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
If one were heavily invested in showing parachutes were no more effective than empty backpacks when jumping out of airplanes (for whatever reason - years of research, big grants on the line whatever), it would be possible to design a study to yield this absurd headline result.
Whether it was done from malice, greed, or ignorance doesn't matter - it could be done, with the resulting benefits.
Please quote the relevant part of the summary that definitively answers my question. No, "the drop in the study was about 2 feet total, because the biplane and helicopter were parked" does not answer my question.
Yep, you get it. Too bad we couldn't make a drinking game out of this while watching almost any media where pols or other marketers are speaking. We'd all die of alcohol poisoning. Me, I just got to the point of mostly ignoring it and being cynical, kind of knowing about the sad realities, but not especially wanting to be constantly reminded (chickenshit, I know, but damn...you gotta be able to smile a little sometimes).
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
Did they really get funding? They should have been fired on the spot for even suggesting a test like this. Now, let's do the real test and get the plane up in the air, and let's see which one protects you better.. Any volunteers? maybe the researchers who did this 'research' as they are so confident the backpack will protect them just fine....
I am a big fan of medical CBD products and have recently purchased pure cbd vapors to fight stress. You know, it really helped me clear my head and relax. I will definitely sometimes take vaping for relaxation after a hard day's work.