The microblog: 2020.04.02 20:08:48

2020.04.02 20:08:48 (1245775204363554816) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Jonathan Toomim (@jtoomim)" (1245771624831307777):

You think a skydiver's doctor should be free to choose claimed health interventions when there isn't a randomized controlled trial showing the interventions are effective? Evidence-based medicine clearly says that you must do nothing unless doing something has been proven better.


2020.04.02 01:50:01 (1245498687360339969) from "Jonathan Toomim (@jtoomim)", replying to "Jonathan Toomim (@jtoomim)" (1245498167275077632):

Furthermore, the study found that parachutes were unreliable. Among the 12 participants in the intervention arm, the parachute failed to deploy properly for 12 (100%) of them.

2020.04.02 19:45:58 (1245769455004614656) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Jonathan Toomim (@jtoomim)" (1245498687360339969):

WHO's non-recommendation of parachutes for healthy skydivers predates the specific followup paper that you're talking about. Under the rules of evidence-based medicine, WHO has to recommend inaction (e.g., not wearing a parachute) unless there's clear evidence _for_ the action.

2020.04.02 19:52:56 (1245771210312413185) from "Jonathan Toomim (@jtoomim)":

Yes, but the US Surgeon General told us "Seriously people- STOP BUYING CHUTES! They are NOT effective in preventing general public" etc. That claim came from this RCT.

2020.04.02 19:54:35 (1245771624831307777) from "Jonathan Toomim (@jtoomim)", replying to "Jonathan Toomim (@jtoomim)" (1245771210312413185):

The WHO said they haven't been proven effective. The USSG and others have said they have been proven ineffective. I think the USSG may have overlooked the deficiencies in this study and overgeneralized. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.