Re: Re: Heard the latest news about Lipitor?

[Guest guest]

Thanks, Gayle! I know what they're doing, which is why I quoted Disraeli's "lies, damned lies and statistics." It's just that I'm so irritated at their attempts to deceive the public, which unfortunately have been working all too well. And it's not just the public; too many health care professionals have swallowed the guff as well. Even my integrative doctor, whom I was so delighted to have found, turned out to be not as integrative as I had hoped. While conceding that statins were not appropriate for me, she still insisted that for most people they are "very good drugs!" I replied, "so was thalidomide once upon a time; or so it was thought!" We have since come to a parting of the ways. If the FDA were doing its job, it would never have come to this sorry state of affairs. Can we hope the tide might be turning? Every now and then there's a ray of light brought to bear on their skullduggery, as in the Reuters story I

commented on yesterday about Big Pharma hushing up unfavorable outcomes of the use of some antidepressants. But for every grain of truth there's always a mountain of propaganda, and they have the clout and the money, which buys a lot of favorable media coverage, and a lot of legal big guns. Still, I can't bear to give up hope.Gayle Lawson <k0fly@...> wrote: :You are comparing apples and oranges. The 12% claim is the Relative Risk Reduction and the 2% percent you are familiar with is the Actual Risk Reduction.

Here is and example:Product Z has a 4% Actual event rate.Product L has a 2% Actual event rate.This would be claimed that Product L has a 50% Relative Risk Reduction and the number used by the marketing types. Another way of expressing the results would be that product Z has 100% higher rate.Relative Risk Numbers are meaningless unless you know the reference point. Most people are impressed by the rosy numbers touted by the docs, the problem is that they believe them also. Numbers don't lie but can lie with numbers.Hope this helpsGayle >> > So how did Pfizer pull this one off? According to "...an observational> study of a large U.S. managed care claims database showed that new> statin users

without cardiovascular disease who took Lipitor®> (atorvastatin calcium) Tablets had a significantly lower relative risk> of experiencing any cardiovascular event, a heart attack, or> revascularization (a type of heart surgery) compared to patients who> took simvastatin.> > "Patients taking Lipitor had a significant 12 percent lower relative> risk of experiencing a cardiovascular event. In a secondary analysis,> patients taking Lipitor had a significant 15 percent lower relative risk> of experiencing a heart attack, and a significant 12 percent lower> relative risk of revascularization compared to patients taking> simvastatin." (Emphasis mine. Go here to read the entire report:> http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/94055.php> <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/94055.php> )> > Does this make sense or is it just me? First of all, don't they admit to> there being only a 2% reduction in deaths in men within a certain age> range, and 0% for women of all ages, who are on Lipitor? So how does one> reconcile that with this report? Unless they mean that Lipitor prevents> cardiovascular events without decreasing deaths? I think there's> somethin' very fishy going on here! Or as Disraeli so aptly put it,> "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.">-----

Fight back spam! Download the Blue Frog.

http://www.bluesecurity.com/register/s?user=bmFuY2FybDIwNzQ%3D

[Guest guest]

On this topic, I posted the attached article awhile ago, that deals with this problem. The answer is using the concept of NNT - the number needed to treat. Thought it was relevant to this thread. Gayle said most people are impressed by these rosy numbers - yup, as you will read, even Harvard Medical students were nodding along with the BS percentages from the statin trials. When my wicked smart Dana Farber doctor read it, he said "well, if we treat millions of people we end up saving thousands." Yes but at what cost to the millions? And millions are being treated, like women, the elderly, and those without heart disease or risk factors, that simply will not benefit. KipGayle Lawson <k0fly@...> wrote: :You are comparing apples and oranges. The 12% claim is the Relative Risk Reduction and the 2% percent you are familiar with is the Actual Risk Reduction. Here is and example:Product Z has a 4% Actual event rate.Product L has a 2% Actual event rate.This would be claimed that Product L has a 50% Relative Risk Reduction and the number used by the marketing types. Another way of expressing the results would be that product Z has 100% higher rate.Relative Risk Numbers are meaningless unless you know the reference point. Most people are impressed by the rosy numbers touted by the docs, the problem is that

they believe them also. Numbers don't lie but can lie with numbers.Hope this helpsGayle >> > So how did Pfizer pull this one off? According to "...an observational> study of a large U.S. managed care claims database showed that new> statin users without cardiovascular disease who took Lipitor®> (atorvastatin calcium) Tablets had a significantly lower relative risk> of experiencing any cardiovascular event, a heart attack, or> revascularization (a type of heart surgery) compared to patients who> took simvastatin.> > "Patients taking Lipitor had a significant 12 percent lower relative> risk of experiencing a cardiovascular event. In a secondary analysis,> patients taking

Lipitor had a significant 15 percent lower relative risk> of experiencing a heart attack, and a significant 12 percent lower> relative risk of revascularization compared to patients taking> simvastatin." (Emphasis mine. Go here to read the entire report:> http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/94055.php> <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/94055.php> )> > Does this make sense or is it just me? First of all, don't they admit to> there being only a 2% reduction in deaths in men within a certain age> range, and 0% for women of all ages, who are on Lipitor? So how does one> reconcile that with this report? Unless they mean that Lipitor prevents> cardiovascular events without decreasing deaths? I think

there's> somethin' very fishy going on here! Or as Disraeli so aptly put it,> "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.">

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.