RE: Re: Latest misleading ad also network news story tonight

[Guest guest]

Well Jeff and everyone, feast your eyes on this from the Dr Mercola site - the drug makers dont even have to release the results of their trials to get them approved. I must say I am very disappointed that Dr. Mercola is going along though with the conclusion that the statins are helping - he seems to be hoodwinked too by the use of relative comparisons vs absolute. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/12/13/cholesterol-lowering-drugs-what-are-drugmakers-hiding.aspx What can we do? Hunger strike, camp out in trees, lay down in front of the trucks coming from the drug factories? Oh and here's a quote from a fairly good book about aging, called You Staying Young, by two highly respected doctors - "coq10 is especially

helpful for people who take statins because statins decrease levels of coq10, which may be why statins can be associated with muscle cramps and pain- your arteries are literally being starved of energy and are crying for help." No, mine were screaming for help. But some good news, I am back to running 4 miles per day vs 3, which is so great as on the statins I was about to give up running forever. Finally, I am still very skeptical about the benefits of aspirin, knowing that the Number Needed to Treat is very high, and also in this book they say, oh no, here we go again, that "two baby aspirins reduce the risk of heart attacks by (drum roll - are you ready?) 36 PERCENT. Which I think confirms that YOUR chance of a benefit is extremely low. I truly believe that doctors are some of the smartest people out there, but starting to wonder. I need to stop reading all this

stuff for awhile, increase time meditating. KipJeff Cable <jeff@...> wrote: Here is the take of a statistician on that advertisement. Follow the link and scroll down to the end of the page to read it in its original form. http://wmbriggs.com/<quote>How to Exaggerate Your Results: Case study #1In the Tuesday, 6 November 2007 edition of the Wall Street Journal, Pfizer took out a full-page ad encouraging people to "Ask your doctor"

about Lipitor, a drug which claims to lower your "risk" of a heart attack (p. A13). In enormous bold print are the words:Lipitor reduces risk of heart attack by 36%*.That asterisk on the 36% contains some meat: *That means in a large clinical study, 3% of patients taking a sugar pill or placebo had a heart attack compared to 2% of patients taking Lipitor.Congratulations, Pfizer! This ad scores a solid 7 on the Briggs Statistical Deception Scale.First, your risk is only lowered by a relative amount, from an already low 2% to a slightly lower 1%. Your real risk is only lowered by 1%. There is a world of difference between that 36% and 1%, and the ad did say, sort of, that the risk was relatively lowered, not lowered absolutely, so it wasn't terribly deceptive. And some people might think to themselves, "Ah, any lowering is good, even if it's only 1%." More on that sentiment in a moment.But what most people

won't see, or will ignore, are the smaller words under the bold headline, which say that your risk is lowered "If you have risk factors such as family history, high blood pressure, age, low HDL ('good' cholesterol) or smoking." Aha! This is what ups Pfizers ranking on the deception scale.Thus, in order to get the 1% reduction it turns out that you have to be in a pretty high risk group to begin with; namely, those with "multiple" risk factors. How many risk factors do you have to have before you can hope for the reduction? Two? Three? The ad doesn't say. Maybe you need all five before you can hope for the reduction. That is the most likely reading of the ad.What if you don't have all five? We might guess that your absolute risk reduction is either zero or negligible. We guess this because if people could reduce their risk generally, without belonging to a highly selective group, that Pfizer would have boasted of this.

They did not so boast, so etc. etc.Back to the "any lowering is good" sentiment. On the page opposite the pictures, Pfizer has quite a long list called "POSSIBLE SIDE EFFECTS OF LIPITOR". Amoung these new risks are, muscle problems, kidney "problems" or even failure, liver problems, nausea, vomiting, brown colored urine, tiredness, yellowing eyes (!), rash, gas, and others. The key words are these:Fewer than 3 people out of 100 stopped taking LIPITOR because of side effects. Well, must I point out that 3 out of 100 is 3%, which is more, 67% more!, than the 2% (in the high risk group) who will have a heart attack, and 200% more than the 1% (or so) of the "regular" people who will have a heart attack? I guess I don't need to. Of course, we can't figure out, given only the data that Pfizer provides in the ad, what the actual chance is that a regular person will have a heart attack or suffer "side" effects. But there is

enough information provided that should severly limit anybody's enthusiasm for this drug.The advertisement also pictures Jarvik, inventor of the "Jarvik artificial heart", and badly in need of a haircut, standing in front of a colorful heart-like object. <unquote>> In today's USA Today is a full-page Lipitor ad claiming that Lipitor > "reduces heart attack risk by 36%" . If you read the fine print, it is > 2% against 3% in the study quoted,which I believe is high-risk > patients. They also said that

only 3% stopped the drug because of side > effects (which I find very hard to believe.) Talk about misleading!> Linden> __________________________________________________________> More new features than ever. Check out the new AIM® Mail ! - > http://webmail.aim.com> > > > > > True affluence is not needing anything> - Snyder> > ---------------------------------> Never miss a thing. Make your homepage.>True affluence is not needing anything- Snyder

Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Search.

[Guest guest]

Very interesting article.  But did

you look at Dr. Mercola’s comments at the bottom.  He says cholesterol

lowering drugs are not the answer.  Then he goes on to give the side effects

and what you can do naturally saying that in most cases that is all you need to

do.

Beebe

From: Lipitor

[mailto:Lipitor ] On Behalf Of Kip Cleaver

Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 6:58 AM

Lipitor

Subject: Re: Re: Latest misleading ad also

network news story tonight

Well Jeff and everyone, feast your eyes on this from the Dr

Mercola site - the drug makers dont even have to release the results of their

trials to get them approved. I must say I am very disappointed that Dr. Mercola

is going along though with the conclusion that the statins are helping - he

seems to be hoodwinked too by the use of relative comparisons vs absolute.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/12/13/cholesterol-lowering-drugs-what-are-drugmakers-hiding.aspx

What can we do? Hunger strike, camp out in trees, lay down

in front of the trucks coming from the drug factories?

Oh and here's a quote from a fairly good book about

aging, called You Staying Young, by two highly respected doctors - " coq10

is especially helpful for people who take statins because statins decrease

levels of coq10, which may be why statins can be associated with muscle cramps

and pain- your arteries are literally being starved of energy and are crying

for help. "

No, mine were screaming for help. But some good news, I am

back to running 4 miles per day vs 3, which is so great as on the statins I was

about to give up running forever.

Finally, I am still very skeptical about the benefits of

aspirin, knowing that the Number Needed to Treat is very high, and also in this

book they say, oh no, here we go again, that " two baby aspirins reduce the

risk of heart attacks by (drum roll - are you ready?) 36 PERCENT. Which I

think confirms that YOUR chance of a benefit is extremely low. I truly believe

that doctors are some of the smartest people out there, but starting to wonder.

I need to stop reading all this stuff for awhile, increase

time meditating.

Kip

Jeff Cable <jeff@...> wrote:

Here is the take of a

statistician on that advertisement. Follow the link and scroll down to

the end of the page to read it in its original form.

http://wmbriggs.com/

<quote>How to Exaggerate Your Results: Case study #1

In the Tuesday, 6 November 2007 edition of the Wall Street Journal, Pfizer took

out a full-

page ad encouraging people to " Ask your doctor " about Lipitor, a drug

which claims to

lower your " risk " of a heart attack (p. A13). In enormous bold print

are the words:

Lipitor reduces risk of heart attack by 36%*.

That asterisk on the 36% contains some meat: *That means in a large clinical

study, 3% of

patients taking a sugar pill or placebo had a heart attack compared to 2% of

patients

taking Lipitor.Congratulations, Pfizer! This ad scores a solid 7 on the Briggs

Statistical

Deception Scale.

First, your risk is only lowered by a relative amount, from an already low 2%

to a slightly

lower 1%. Your real risk is only lowered by 1%. There is a world of difference

between that

36% and 1%, and the ad did say, sort of, that the risk was relatively lowered,

not lowered

absolutely, so it wasn't terribly deceptive. And some people might think to

themselves,

" Ah, any lowering is good, even if it's only 1%. "

More on that sentiment in a moment.But what most people won't see, or will

ignore, are

the smaller words under the bold headline, which say that your risk is lowered

" If you have

risk factors such as family history, high blood pressure, age, low HDL ('good'

cholesterol)

or smoking. " Aha! This is what ups Pfizers ranking on the deception scale.

Thus, in order to get the 1% reduction it turns out that you have to be in a

pretty high risk

group to begin with; namely, those with " multiple " risk factors. How

many risk factors do

you have to have before you can hope for the reduction? Two? Three? The ad

doesn't say.

Maybe you need all five before you can hope for the reduction. That is the most

likely

reading of the ad.

What if you don't have all five? We might guess that your absolute risk

reduction is either

zero or negligible. We guess this because if people could reduce their risk

generally,

without belonging to a highly selective group, that Pfizer would have boasted

of this. They

did not so boast, so etc. etc.

Back to the " any lowering is good " sentiment. On the page opposite

the pictures, Pfizer

has quite a long list called " POSSIBLE SIDE EFFECTS OF LIPITOR " .

Amoung these new risks

are, muscle problems, kidney " problems " or even failure, liver

problems, nausea, vomiting,

brown colored urine, tiredness, yellowing eyes (!), rash, gas, and others. The

key words are

these:

Fewer than 3 people out of 100 stopped taking LIPITOR because of side effects.

Well, must

I point out that 3 out of 100 is 3%, which is more, 67% more!, than the 2% (in

the high risk

group) who will have a heart attack, and 200% more than the 1% (or so) of the

" regular "

people who will have a heart attack? I guess I don't need to. Of course, we

can't figure

out, given only the data that Pfizer provides in the ad, what the actual chance

is that a

regular person will have a heart attack or suffer " side " effects. But

there is enough

information provided that should severly limit anybody's enthusiasm for this

drug.

The advertisement also pictures Jarvik, inventor of the " Jarvik

artificial heart " , and

badly in need of a haircut, standing in front of a colorful heart-like object.

<unquote>

> In today's USA Today is a full-page Lipitor ad claiming that Lipitor

> " reduces heart attack risk by 36% " . If you read the fine print,

it is

> 2% against 3% in the study quoted,which I believe is high-risk

> patients. They also said that only 3% stopped the drug because of side

> effects (which I find very hard to believe.) Talk about misleading!

> Linden

> __________________________________________________________

> More new features than ever. Check out the new AIM® Mail ! -

> http://webmail.aim.com

>

>

>

>

>

> True affluence is not needing anything

> - Snyder

>

> ---------------------------------

> Never miss a thing. Make your homepage.

>

True affluence is not needing anything

- Snyder

 

Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find

them fast with Search.