How Easy Is It To Manipulate Results Of A BMJ "Scientific, Randomized Control" Study ? (Like The One Showing Ivermectin As Ineffective On Covid)
Posted by freedomforall 2 years, 1 month ago to Humor
Excerpt:
"Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: randomized controlled trial.
...
We have performed the first randomized clinical trial evaluating the efficacy of parachutes for preventing death or major traumatic injury among individuals jumping from aircraft. Our groundbreaking study found no statistically significant difference in the primary outcome between the treatment and control arms. Our findings should give momentary pause to experts who advocate for routine use of parachutes for jumps from aircraft in recreational or military settings.
Although decades of anecdotal experience have suggested that parachute use during jumps from aircraft can save lives, these observations are vulnerable to selection bias and confounding. Indeed, in seminal work published in the BMJ in 2003, a systematic search by Smith and Pell for randomized clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of parachutes during gravitational challenge yielded no published studies.1 In part, our study was designed as a response to their call to (broken) arms in order to address this critical knowledge gap.
Beliefs about the efficacy of commonly used, but untested, interventions often influence daily clinical decision making. These beliefs can expose patients to unnecessary risk without clear benefit and increase healthcare costs.11 Beliefs grounded in biological plausibility and expert opinion have been proven wrong by subsequent rigorous randomized evaluations.12 The PARACHUTE trial represents one more such historic moment.
Should our results be reproduced in future studies, the end of routine parachute use during jumps from aircraft could save the global economy billions of dollars spent annually to prevent injuries related to gravitational challenge."
"Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: randomized controlled trial.
...
We have performed the first randomized clinical trial evaluating the efficacy of parachutes for preventing death or major traumatic injury among individuals jumping from aircraft. Our groundbreaking study found no statistically significant difference in the primary outcome between the treatment and control arms. Our findings should give momentary pause to experts who advocate for routine use of parachutes for jumps from aircraft in recreational or military settings.
Although decades of anecdotal experience have suggested that parachute use during jumps from aircraft can save lives, these observations are vulnerable to selection bias and confounding. Indeed, in seminal work published in the BMJ in 2003, a systematic search by Smith and Pell for randomized clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of parachutes during gravitational challenge yielded no published studies.1 In part, our study was designed as a response to their call to (broken) arms in order to address this critical knowledge gap.
Beliefs about the efficacy of commonly used, but untested, interventions often influence daily clinical decision making. These beliefs can expose patients to unnecessary risk without clear benefit and increase healthcare costs.11 Beliefs grounded in biological plausibility and expert opinion have been proven wrong by subsequent rigorous randomized evaluations.12 The PARACHUTE trial represents one more such historic moment.
Should our results be reproduced in future studies, the end of routine parachute use during jumps from aircraft could save the global economy billions of dollars spent annually to prevent injuries related to gravitational challenge."
SOURCE URL: https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094
To hell with the American Medical Association. It's a labor union for doctors to keep their salaries high and to facilitate the profitability of the pharmaceutical industry.
the vaccine does prevent procreation and cause them all to retire within a year.
Referring to fig 2. This individual did not incur death or major injury upon impact with the ground.
But. All authors suffered substantial abdominal discomfort from laughter.
The use of data on non-participants is clever, albeit- misleading, as are the probability indicators.
To return to ivermectin- when used for parasite control, its original function, take without food. As an anti-viral, it was found to work best if taken with food.
I was going to write a story on this, well I got a more fluent volunteer. I mapped out the plot- A young academic is in trouble, the youngest son has had an accident, big medical and rehab bills. She is smart, meeting the rep from BigPillCorp she gathers- they are able to sponsor a new lab, extension, and project wing at the U. She mentions a big trial on ivermectin, she has actually got a decent amount of money for by clever digging, it was in an unused other defunct not understood part of their budget.
In the conversation, nothing on the following lines was said, she can have the new head-of-lab position and what goes with it, but the trial must fail.
This is planned out. It makes use of control of the records concerning meals times of the trial out-patients, and medication taking times. Sufficient staff have such poor English that convincing them that 'with food' means 'not with food' is easy, what with a bonus for the duration of the trial.
..and so it goes... That is as far as my story went.
Then to shock horror laughter! Reading Joanne Nova's description of that trial
https://joannenova.com.au/2022/03/how...
posted on here by freedomforall 1day 18hours before this thread, I see my idea has been taken up already, tho' not with the same dramatics.
This article was just tooo funny.
At the end of the day nothing beats actual clinical results for your patient.
Lloyd
1) Control Group... No Parachute, but didn't leave plane
2) Parachute Group... They were given access to the parachute within 8 minutes if exiting the plane.
3) A few crazy people who stole a parachute before we shoved them out of the plane.
Nobody in Group 1 was hurt.
Everyone in Group 2 Died
Group 3, proving the problems, suffered a lot of injuries and a few deaths.
We are certain you understand that Parachutes are NOT always safe/effective as they seem
Combined with THOUSANDS of reports of paratroopers being dead before hitting the ground (mostly from WWII and other Wars)
Thinking of giving it to my AP Stats class!
Sorry if I'm repeating, but it reminds me of another plane analogy I used in class. (It wouldn't surprise me if I first heard it here.) This is your captain speaking. We are currently at 20,000 feet and beginning our descent into Las Vegas airport. I just need you to know that there is a 99.997% chance that we'll land safely, and everyone will be okay. However, we have these new and untested parachutes that may or may not work. How many of you would like to strap one onto your child and push him/her out of the plane before we make our landing attempt?