
|
 |
Pharmacy |
 |
|
Over
10,000 products currently online...
|
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Statistical Contortionism among Statin Drugs
Shane Ellison, M.Sc.
A veil of secrecy obscures the truth behind FDA-approved drugs,
especially the cholesterol-lowering drugs. This veil was
constructed using millions of dollars for marketing campaigns and
consulting fees to medical doctors. Thanks to successful government
lobbying on behalf of drug companies, the U.S. Government upholds
these immoral practices. While effective, the veil is wafer-thin.
It is easily torn down using basic statistical definitions.
Before you consider the effectiveness and safety of a prescribed
drug, you must first understand these statistical definitions. They
are total mortality, absolute risk reduction (ARR) and relative risk
reduction (RRR). Understanding these statistical definitions is the
number-one weapon for defending against dangerous drugs.
Total mortality is the most logical focal point for deciphering
whether or not a drug is worth the risk. Using the total mortality
rate to measure effectiveness ensures that while a drug might
prevent the targeted disease, it does not accidentally kill you from
cancer, heart attack, or some other deadly illness.
If Mr. Jones knew that drug X might accidentally kill him from
cancer would he spend his money on it?
When reporting total mortality, drug companies can either
report "absolute" or "relative" terms. For the big picture, the
absolute risk reduction in total mortality (termed absolute total
mortality) must be used rather than relative risk reduction.
Absolute total mortality is the most important statistical
association. It refers to the actual difference in risk reduction
between the treated (the suckers who received the experimental drug)
and the non-treated group. This difference elucidates whether or
not drug X increases lifespan.
For example, the absolute total mortality rate for drug X is 1%.
This was derived from the raw data. It showed the treated group to
have a 3% reduction in total mortality. The untreated had a 2%
reduction in total mortality. Therefore, the absolute total
mortality rate was 1%. This translates to a 1% chance of increasing
lifespan for users of drug X.
If Mr. Jones knew that drug X might accidentally kill him from
cancer and confer a paltry 1% chance of increasing his lifespan,
would he spend the money on it? No. He will use that money to pay
for a personal trainer. Knowing the absolute total mortality rate
preserved Mr. Jones' health and saved him money.
The same cannot be said for Bob Misinformed Smith. Leaving out the
absolute total mortality rate, Bob Misinformed Smith's family doctor
told him that drug X had a 33% risk reduction in total mortality.
He left out that this was "relative" risk reduction and Bob did not
ask. Following doctor's orders, Bob scurried to the pharmacist to
pay for his prescription. He then rushed home to watch football.
Subsequent football commercials deceptively regurgitated the 33%
relative risk reduction in total mortality among users of drug X.
John Misinformed Smith smiled with hope – false hope.
What was deceptive about using relative risk reduction? Relative
risk reduction exaggerates benefits. It is the percentage (not an
actual difference in risk reduction) of the decrease achieved by
the treated group vs. the untreated group. While the absolute total
mortality was 1%, the same raw data yielded a relative risk
reduction in total mortality of 33%.
Pretend you are a medical doctor. Which number will you regurgitate
to patients? The absolute 1% or the relative 33%?
Relative terms are the least important statistical associations.
Yet they are the most important for drug representatives, medical
doctors and statistical contortionists within the media because they
exaggerate benefits. Relative terms are good for a drug company's
bottom line but bad for our health. Focusing soley on relative risk
reduction is akin to hiding evidence because it always makes a drug
look more effective than it really is.
Now meet drug X: The statin drugs, particularly Pravachol, Zocor
and Lipitor. The unprecedented success of these drugs is due to a
combination of the pharmaceutical industry's statistical
contortionists and their propaganda claiming that high cholesterol
leads to heart disease.
Pravachol fails to increase lifespan. The WOSCOPS trial showed only
a 0.9% absolute drop in total mortality among those taking Pravachol
over 5 years. Pravachol drug pushers touted a 22% drop in relative
risk reduction for total mortality.
Zocor fails to increase lifespan. The 4S trial showed only a 3.3%
drop in absolute drop in total mortality among users of Zocor.
Zocor drug pushers touted a 29% relative risk reduction for total
mortality.
Lipitor fails to increase lifespan. The Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac
Outcomes Trial — Lipid Lowering Arm (ASCOT-LLA) trial, showed
Lipitor to offer a 0% reduction in absolute total mortality rates
among users. Lipitor drug pushers touted…whatever they wanted.
Those unable to lift the veil of secrecy behind the statin drugs
will no doubt fall victim to them. Just say no to unsafe and
ineffective FDA-approved drugs.
About the Author
Shane holds a Master's degree in organic chemistry and has first-
hand industry experience with drug research, design and synthesis.
He understands that Americans want and deserve education rather than
prescriptions. His shocking e-book surrounding cholesterol-lowering
drugs and HEART DISEASE can be downloaded for FREE at www.health-fx.net
. His life saving book Health Myths Exposed is available at
Amazon or www.healthmyths.net.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
 |