Other Shane Articles: Health Fascism in The 21st Century ADHD  Politics, Money or Science?

STATISTICAL CONTORTIONISM AMONG STATIN DRUGS
A veil of secrecy obscures the truth behind FDAapproved drugs, especially the cholesterollowering 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 waferthin. 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 numberone 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 nontreated 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 AngloScandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial — Lipid Lowering Arm (ASCOTLLA) 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
FDAapproved drugs. © 2005 Shane Ellison  All Rights Reserved Sign Up For Free EMail Alerts EMails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale
Shane holds a Master’s degree in organic chemistry
and has firsthand industry experience with drug research, design and
synthesis. He understands that Americans want and deserve education rather
than prescriptions. His shocking ebook surrounding cholesterol lowering
drugs can be downloaded for FREE as a pdf file at www.healthfx.net/eBook.pdf.
His book Health Myths Exposed is available at www.healthmyths.net EMail: shane@healthfx.net

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.
