Introspection and Parachutes

[Madouc]

Perhaps this should be in the education forum, but anyway...

A couple of nights ago I was attending lectures in the evening at my local university. During the break I went outside to wander down the hall and stretch my legs. Being a nosy parker, I entertained myself by peering into the classroom next door. Boy howdie.

The projector read something like this:

Introspection

Fanatics of evidence based medicine should note that parachutes aren't tested by double blinded, controlled trials. Perhaps these evidence based medicine fundementalists would like to take part in a parachute test that's double blinded and variable controlled.

So I went back into my lecture hall, scribbled a note and shoved it under their door.

Since when was the placebo effect a factor in parachute use? Also, efficacy is kind of important in parachute design. Nice false analogy.

Science. Ur doin it rong.

Childish and not the most thorough response, I know, but at least I didn't sign off with: "Science. It works bitches."

I had to rush for my bus after the end of my lecture, so never saw if my note was picked up.

[ElMondoHummus]

Mother. Of. God. "Fanatics of evidence based medicine"?? "Parachutes aren't tested by double blinded, controlled trials"??? Did you really see this?

Please tell me that was a slide illustrating fallacious arguments. Please. Or at least that it was one trying to open a debate about the tension behind control studies in human medicine vs. the ethics of giving patients empty treatments. We know there's an ethical headache there; Sinclair Lewis's Arrowsmith demonstrated that well in fiction, and there are gobs of researchers who've confronted that issue in actual fact. But the existence of the dilemna doesn't change the fact that effect of a given treatment is best measured against nontreatment of the same issue. That's just obvious.

Gah... I really, really hope that wasn't a slide intended as serious instruction.

[Madouc]

I wasn't actually inside the lecture hall, so maybe it was just a presentation of fallacies. But considering that the university has a large traditional Chinese medicine facility, I doubt it.

[Mojo]

A couple of nights ago I was attending lectures in the evening at my local university. During the break I went outside to wander down the hall and stretch my legs. Being a nosy parker, I entertained myself by peering into the classroom next door. Boy howdie.

The projector read something like this:Fanatics of evidence based medicine should note that parachutes aren't tested by double blinded, controlled trials.


It's true: http://www.neonatology.org/pdf/ParachuteUseRPCT.pdf

Note the date of publication of the article: the last issue of the BMJ each year is notorious for including jokes. The trouble is that CAMsters often seem to be unable to recognise humour.

[fls]

I had to rush for my bus after the end of my lecture, so never saw if my note was picked up.

I applaud you for making the attempt.

It should be pointed out that parachutes have been tested with evidence that is regarded as equivalent to double-blind-randomized-placebo-controlled trials under the guidelines of evidence-based medicine. These are called All-Or-None Case Series. What these represent are situations where all the people used to die and now some do not (i.e. the parachute situation) or where some of the people used to die and now none do. This is regarded as Level I evidence which is the same level as high-quality RCT's and is actually higher than low-quality RCT's (Level II).

Linda

[TjW]

Perhaps this should be in the education forum, but anyway...

A couple of nights ago I was attending lectures in the evening at my local university. During the break I went outside to wander down the hall and stretch my legs. Being a nosy parker, I entertained myself by peering into the classroom next door. Boy howdie.

The projector read something like this:



So I went back into my lecture hall, scribbled a note and shoved it under their door.



Childish and not the most thorough response, I know, but at least I didn't sign off with: "Science. It works bitches."

I had to rush for my bus after the end of my lecture, so never saw if my note was picked up.

Perhaps they could be persuaded to jump out of an airplane at altitude, wearing a suit of clothes which had been soaked in a homeopathic solution of parachute -- or would it be a homeopathic solution of anvil?

It needn't be double blinded; I'd be perfectly happy to let them use as much or as little solution as they care to, applying it themselves, if they like.

[Madouc]

Wish I knew what the class was and when it's running next (and which lecture hall!) so I could print out some of your comments and sureptitiously leave them under the door too.

[MRC_Hans]

More comment to Linda's post: Quite a few medical practices, espcially among the older ones, have been proved and accepted in similar was as parachutes.

Before Insulin, the life expectance of a full-blown diabetes case was less than two years. This might be extended to about four using a virtually crippling diet (which meant slow starvation). With insulin, patients could suddenly eat, work, gain weight, live functional lives.

Also penicillin; almost certain terminal cases could suddenly be cured in a matter of days.

If some alternative medicine could be confirmed to seroconvert just one HIV patient, or restore just one type 1 diabetes patient to insulin independency, or something like that, nobody would ask for double-blind tests. More testing might be required to rule out the odd fluke, but.....

ETA: Double blind trials are really about establishing a reliable baseline to which you can compare a medicine. We have a perfectly reliable baseline for the effect of jumping from even moderate altitudes without a parachute.


Hans