> they jumped from an average altitude of 0.6 m (SD 0.1) on aircraft moving at an average of 0 km/h
> The study also has several limitations. First and most importantly, our findings might not be generalizable to the use of parachutes in aircraft traveling at a higher altitude or velocity. Consideration could be made to conduct additional randomized clinical trials in these higher risk settings. However, previous theoretical work supporting the use of parachutes could reduce the feasibility of enrolling participants in such studies
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC300808/
I'm glad to see that's finally been addressed! Though for the counterpoint, also see "Most medical practices are not parachutes: a citation analysis of practices felt by biomedical authors to be analogous to parachutes"
Somehow I am not convinced this is a real study.
My understanding of the target of the satire is studies that compare a treatment to a placebo only in "low risk" populations, and then find that they're is no significant difference between the treatment and the placebo.
For emphasis: "... the trial was only able to enroll participants on small stationary aircraft on the ground, suggesting cautious extrapolation to high altitude jumps."
Okay, parachutes don't help when jumping from stationary aircraft that are on the ground. I will not leap to the conclusion that parachutes do not help with high altitude jumps.
I would have linked the older version of this joke study: https://www.bmj.com/content/327/7429/1459