deep deep down:

>The PARACHUTE trial satirically highlights some of the limitations of randomized controlled trials. Nevertheless, we believe that such trials remain the gold standard for the evaluation of most new treatments. The PARACHUTE trial does suggest, however, that their accurate interpretation requires more than a cursory reading of the abstract.

It's a satirical response to a well-known prior paper critiquing Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) that essentially said "we have no evidence to support the use of parachutes, so we should re-evaluate our use of parachutes", and concluded with a suggestion that people demanding evidence for simple things should themselves participate in a randomized controlled trial of the parachute.

Satire. Also calling out studies that don't reproduce using real life, realistic parameters. It was written in 2018 so definitely no AI.

Its not strictly satire...its meant as commentary

It is part of the 'Christmas edition' of the BMJ which is famous for things like this.

It is clear that it is satire, but it does not really work because it asks the wrong question. When you ask the right question (about travelling in an airplane, not jumping out of one) the fact that commercial aviation is conducted without parachutes (though with seat restraints) makes sense.

Accepted: 22 November 2018.