Even the most reliable study must always be read for what it is, and for what it means. Eternity and immobility are not science, what concludes a study, even if precise and statistically correct, can be denied the next day with a similar study or just because the measurements were carried out in a different way.
The starting point to better understand this phenomenon I can provide it easily.
If I ask a question: do you think scientifically proven that the parachute protects from freefall traumas?
What do you answer? Yup!
Someone answered no? Come on, everyone instinctively answers yes. The parachute protects against freefall traumas, is clear, evident, elementary, is scientifically proven.
Yup?
I say no, scientifically (and provocatively).
There are no clear and scientifically proven elements that can confirm this (common) belief. It is a provocation, it is clear, but if we strictly adhere to what the studies have tried, even such a trivial idea becomes difficult to prove.
Two doctors tried to make a "review", a review of controlled and randomized studies that brought certain data in favor of the aforementioned opinion. They do not exist. There is no scientifically accurate data that can confirm the ability of the parachute to protect a human from falls from a height. Think about it because it is also elementary as a concept: can there be a study well done (ie with the most demanding features) on the usefulness of the parachute in protecting from falling traumas?
The study is also very ironic and it is brilliant.
The final is beautiful:
At this point there are only two options left: the first is to accept that, given the exceptional circumstances, common sense applies when considering the risks and potential benefits of using this type of instrument.
The second is that we continue in our maniacal search for a scientific demonstration, and we exclude the use of the parachute outside the context of a properly conducted trial.
However, the habit we have created in the population using parachutes could make it difficult to find people who are available for this type of experiment. In the case, we remain confident that those who support "scientific evidence based medicine" at all costs, and who criticize the use of solutions that are not based on this type of evidence, will not hesitate to show themselves their dedication to the method. , and will volunteer for a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study of parachute use.
So go ahead, who volunteers to be part of the placebo group in the parachute study?
Are we here?
Are you already tired or interested?
Well, in the second case I will continue with this topic and in the next articles we will try to find out what scientific research and method means, how a study is carried out and published, what is the placebo or the bias, what is a scientific journal and other, so that those who are moved by real curiosity for life can better understand the mechanisms that condition it.
Author: Lorenzo Mignani
In the design of the article as illustrations of the work Lorenzo Mignani
MAQ/June 2018 /183