BMJ Nerd laugh :)

Post by **S@M** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 4:24 am

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/ ... /7531/1498

:icon25:

Post by **werldhed** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 4:41 am

Nice. Reminds me of that April Fool's Letter from the Editor this year in Science.

Post by **Scourge** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 4:59 am

Now if they can figure out where the socks go.....

edit: NM, already been covered.

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=24013

Post by **S@M** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 5:50 am

either BMJ or JAMA did one on parachutes a year or so ago, it was priceless...
Smith & Pell, BMJ, vol 327, 20-27 Decemb 2003
Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials.
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/ ... issue=7429

not sure if its free access

Post by **Geebs** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 10:46 am

The parachute and the healthy cohort effect
One of the major weaknesses of observational data is the possibility of bias, including selection bias and reporting bias, which can be obviated largely by using randomised controlled trials. The relevance to parachute use is that individuals jumping from aircraft without the help of a parachute are likely to have a high prevalence of pre-existing psychiatric morbidity. Individuals who use parachutes are likely to have less psychiatric morbidity and may also differ in key demographic factors, such as income and cigarette use. It follows, therefore, that the apparent protective effect of parachutes may be merely an example of the "healthy cohort" effect.