The problem wasn't the blindness of the study but the selection of the participants. They should've asked them what kind of chocolate they preferred from the beginning.

This article was part of the journal's "Holiday Humor" issue:

Holiday humour
In keeping with our annual tradition, CMAJ presents an eclectic exultation of evidence-free exaggeration and premeditated preposterousness. In this year's Holiday Review, you will learn what cellular telephones reveal about the cognitive neurology of physicians at conferences, marvel at the compelling cost-utility analysis of repealing the law of gravity, realize why there are few randomized trials involving chocolate, revel in how an Internet sports database flouts pesky privacy laws, discover how snot and urine can aid in medical career guidance, explore cutting-edge therapies for the musically impaired and usher in a new dimension of aural analysis with your very own stereophonic stethoscope. From everyone at CMAJ, happy holidays.

That's why we posted it on April 1

[...] Related content:Discoblog: NCBI ROFL: Emotional and uncontrolled eating styles and chocolate chip cookie consumption.Discoblog: NCBI ROFL: Study proves chocolate bars different from bones.Discoblog: NCBI ROFL: Acronym win: the CHUMP study [...]

[...] Related content: Discoblog: NCBI ROFL: Emotional and rash eating styles and chocolate chip cookie consumption. Discoblog: NCBI ROFL: Study proves chocolate bars opposite from bones. Discoblog: NCBI ROFL: Acronym win: a CHUMP study [...]