Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge:

Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/327/7429/1459

"Abstract

Objectives: To determine whether parachutes are effective in preventing major trauma related to gravitational challenge.

Design Systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

Data sources: Medline, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases; appropriate internet sites and citation lists.

Study selection: Studies showing the effects of using a parachute during free fall.

Main outcome measure: Death or major trauma, defined as an injury severity score > 15.

Results: We were unable to identify any randomised controlled trials of parachute intervention.

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."


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am shocked!

Participants must be fully informed and give consent to participate. They will then be asked to put on a "parachute" and asked to jump out of a plane. Half of the "parachutes" will be real and half placebo chutes that will not open. The trial will be double-blinded, so neither subjects nor those dealing with subjects will know which packs actually contain parachutes.

So, the volunteers will be those willing to participate in a controlled trial with 50-percent chance of receiving a real parachute, not those willing to be in the control group. Asking for control-group volunteers would constitute self-selection, which would bias the results of the study. By contrast, randomization ensures that the expected difference between experimental and control group members will be zero on all possible dimensions.

Of course, even true randomized experiments can meet with problems. An example is contamination, or bleed-over from one group to another: e.g., if a plummeting control group member were to grab onto an experimental group member with an open chute. Yes, the odds of that being done successfully are rather slim; but even the attempt might interfere with the working of the experimental group member's chute. Another problem could be differential attrition, for example should controls be able to ascertain that the "parachutes" they had received would not operate correctly, possibly leading to some of them dropping out of the trial -- or rather, of refusing to drop out of the plane. That is why it will be essential to push participants out of the plane rapidly following their receipt of and donning of their chutes. Still, with rigorous adherence to robust testing protocols, threats to the success of the trial can be minimized or eliminated altogether.

;-)

:)

flew way over the heads of those it's intended for.

But I found it hilarious! :rofl:

Big Parachute has its thumb on the media to silence the truth! TRUTH TO POWER!!!

heheheh :evilgrin:

Sid

Of course the scientific establishment is a CONSPIRACY to keep the truth HIDDEN. Why won't they just admit that they're HIDING the TRUTH and let people DECIDE for themselves whether or not to use a parachute. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!

Wikipedia says that parachutes kill 1 in 80,000 people, but the REAL number is probably much higher. A simple Google search reveals 3.1 million results for 'parachute deaths.'

Nylon contains BENZENE, which is a known CARCINOGEN.

How many INNOCENT CHILDREN DIE each year because of parachutes? One day the truth will come out and all of you big-nylon shills will have to answer for your CRIMES.

The truth can't be hidden forever.

They should be more natural. Like made out of hemp, for example.

Or they could use a homeopathic parachute! It would have the strings and the essence of a parachute.

You are saying that some things we need to just assume - based on observational data - without the benefit of rigorous testing?

Are you endorsing herbal therapies?

Are you saying we need to trust our government to do what is best for us, without insisting on proper testing?

Are you saying that we should rely upon our intuition, what seems obvious, and anecdotal info to make our decisions, such as assuming vaccines cause autism?

Or are you basically trying to prove that humans never set foot on the moon?

Big Pharma would rather presuppose that the benefits of its products outweigh their risks than prove as much.

"We're Big Pharma. Evidence? We don't need no evidence! We don't have to show you any stinkin' scienteefic evidence!"

Your political BS is purely anti-science. You don't care about the science of any of it. You just want to get a high from bashing perceived enemies.

Why is it your preference for Big Pharma corporations to simply presuppose whatever it is that they wish to prove?

That's what is being done. Your failure to understand that, while howling at the moon, doesn't change that.