This is an ad seen a while back, touting the benefits of Lipitor.
In 2011, sales from Lipitor had averaged about $11 billion a year since 1996.
Rest assured that thousands of medical doctors saw this ad in a glossy brochure,
provided by a $100k+ a year Pfizer sales rep..
We must wonder if they would have even put it on the market if
their ad had looked like this:
When you take a look at the fine print, you see that they actually told the truth
about the drugs effectiveness in reducing risk of heart attack..
How do the math wizards at Pfizer get 36% out of a 1% difference between their drug and a placebo?
Here is a graph of the data from the study the ad is based on.
At the top, you see where the actual 3% ( placebo ) vs 2% ( Lipitor ) numbers came from.
They divided 2 by 3 and came up with 36%..
The calculation they used is to produce a number called ' relative risk ' , which has virtually nothing
to do with the actual effectiveness of the drug.
A little digging will show you how drug companies do this all the time..
Reporting the findings: Absolute vs relative risk
Since it's legal, why not? Do you give up $11 billion dollars if you don't have to.
Would you have a problem with a financial advisor who touted a 36% return on your investment,
while only showing a 1% ?
How about a Dr. who wants you to take a drug based on the same numbers?
Meanwhile, millions of people take a drug whose effectiveness in doing what it claims is questionable,
while the possible debilitating and life threatening side effects are not.
Statin side effects:
This topic was inspired by a recent lecture by David Diamond Ph.D
( A real doctorate in biology )
[yt]uc1XsO3mxX8[/yt]
( If you watch the lecture, my images will look familiar.. )
In 2011, sales from Lipitor had averaged about $11 billion a year since 1996.
Rest assured that thousands of medical doctors saw this ad in a glossy brochure,
provided by a $100k+ a year Pfizer sales rep..
We must wonder if they would have even put it on the market if
their ad had looked like this:
When you take a look at the fine print, you see that they actually told the truth
about the drugs effectiveness in reducing risk of heart attack..
How do the math wizards at Pfizer get 36% out of a 1% difference between their drug and a placebo?
Here is a graph of the data from the study the ad is based on.
At the top, you see where the actual 3% ( placebo ) vs 2% ( Lipitor ) numbers came from.
They divided 2 by 3 and came up with 36%..
The calculation they used is to produce a number called ' relative risk ' , which has virtually nothing
to do with the actual effectiveness of the drug.
A little digging will show you how drug companies do this all the time..
Reporting the findings: Absolute vs relative risk
Since it's legal, why not? Do you give up $11 billion dollars if you don't have to.
Would you have a problem with a financial advisor who touted a 36% return on your investment,
while only showing a 1% ?
How about a Dr. who wants you to take a drug based on the same numbers?
Meanwhile, millions of people take a drug whose effectiveness in doing what it claims is questionable,
while the possible debilitating and life threatening side effects are not.
Statin side effects:
This topic was inspired by a recent lecture by David Diamond Ph.D
( A real doctorate in biology )
[yt]uc1XsO3mxX8[/yt]
( If you watch the lecture, my images will look familiar.. )
via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/2L2k5BV
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire