2 ms·

it's 1.8% percentage points which is not the same as 1.8% lower chance. It's a 13% lower chance. And that's just from dying. It prevented many others from hav

by arn 18y ago

it's 1.8% percentage points which is not the same as 1.8% lower chance. It's a 13% lower chance. And that's just from dying. It prevented many others from having a heart attack or stroke which can be pretty bad to. You can dismiss it if you like, but what these numbers mean in more practical terms is this: Over 5 years on treatment, it will prevent up to 1 person out of 10 from dying, having a stroke, or heart attack. And there may be a negative study here or there, but there are many more positive studies. It's like flipping a coin 100 times in a row. There will be times when you get 70 heads, 30 tails, and times you will get 30 heads, and 70 tails. If you do it enough, it will average around 50% heads and tails. This is the "true" result or chance over time of getting heads or tails. If you do a single study, you might get a negative result (no improvement), if you do another study you might get a really positive result (huge improvement). If you do it enough, the results with trend towards the "true" result... which for statins is that it saves a significant number of lives and prevents heart attacks and strokes in certain patients.

kingkongrevenge 18y ago
Semantics. I change my odds by 1.8% in the naive assumption that these numbers are applicable to myself at face value. If you like these odds I would like to sell you some lottery tickets. Your thinking is fundamentally flawed. 1.8 people out of 100 are prevented from dying, and not for free: there are side effects and financial costs. How many died in year six as opposed to year five is also unclear. We're talking about drugs they want to keep people on for the rest of their lives. The cumulative arithmetic of how many escaped cardiovascular "events" and death cannot be computed clearly from the numbers presented, as you seem to allude.
- arn 18y ago
  I agree that the cost is not free. The point being is that these medications do do something. They aren't sugar pills. You're first assertion was that these medications don't actually do anything. I simply am pointing out they do do something. It comes at a cost of $$, possible side effects, sure. But if you are arguing that point, then you have to concede that if the price is low enough or the side effects are low enough, then it's worth it. If it's not personally worth it to you to take the statin because you have side effects from it... that's fine. don't take it. But you can't use it as a blanket to say all medications don't do anything, just because you had a bad experience with one or don't agree with the cost/benefit analysis.
  - kingkongrevenge 18y ago
    > I simply am pointing out they do do something. Personally, I'd say 1.8% over five years is nothing, and as I mentioned I've seen the abstract read closer to 0% or -X%. Think of it as 0.36% per year. Expect big lawsuits next decade about the side effects. > you have to concede that if the price is low enough or the side effects are low enough, then it's worth it. Not quite so simple, because there are lifestyle treatments that do work and are generally not pursued. The drug options are pursued at the opportunity cost of much more efficacious, much simpler, much less profitable options.
    - arn 18y ago
      Again, I believe you simply don't understand percentages, or statistics. The numbers were statistically significant, which means the differences were not likely related to random chance. The statin prevented 1079 people from having a stroke, dying, or having a heart attack. It helped 10% of the people in a non-trivial way in this study. (and lifestyle changes are typically pursued alongside these medical treatments. Certainly in these studies, of course your individual doctor's mileage may vary.)
      - kingkongrevenge 18y ago
        I understand statistics just fine, asshole. You're saying I should bank with XYZ Bank because their savings account interest rate is 100% higher than my current bank! Or, .5% vs 1%. I'm saying the interest rates are .5% and 1% respectively. As for the 10 out of 100 total winners claim, it looks fudged up to me on quickly scanning the abstract. I'd have to use a calculator and read the study. That cute little bit about a compliance adjustment smells like fudge. And, as I've said, there are other studies with other conclusions.
        demallien 18y ago
        1) Your continued comments are way off topic. In what way do they relate to doctors being overworked? None that I can see. 2) You really don't seem to have a good grasp of what the statistics are telling you. Take the statins example. As others have tried to explain to you quite politely, the statistical improvement of statins vs placebo are both significant, and even impressive. Your response? 'Asshole'. Nice work.

by arn 18y ago

kingkongrevenge 18y ago

Semantics. I change my odds by 1.8% in the naive assumption that these numbers are applicable to myself at face value. If you like these odds I would like to sell you some lottery tickets. Your thinking is fundamentally flawed. 1.8 people out of 100 are prevented from dying, and not for free: there are side effects and financial costs. How many died in year six as opposed to year five is also unclear. We're talking about drugs they want to keep people on for the rest of their lives. The cumulative arithmetic of how many escaped cardiovascular "events" and death cannot be computed clearly from the numbers presented, as you seem to allude.

arn 18y ago
I agree that the cost is not free. The point being is that these medications do do something. They aren't sugar pills. You're first assertion was that these medications don't actually do anything. I simply am pointing out they do do something. It comes at a cost of $$, possible side effects, sure. But if you are arguing that point, then you have to concede that if the price is low enough or the side effects are low enough, then it's worth it. If it's not personally worth it to you to take the statin because you have side effects from it... that's fine. don't take it. But you can't use it as a blanket to say all medications don't do anything, just because you had a bad experience with one or don't agree with the cost/benefit analysis.
- kingkongrevenge 18y ago
  > I simply am pointing out they do do something. Personally, I'd say 1.8% over five years is nothing, and as I mentioned I've seen the abstract read closer to 0% or -X%. Think of it as 0.36% per year. Expect big lawsuits next decade about the side effects. > you have to concede that if the price is low enough or the side effects are low enough, then it's worth it. Not quite so simple, because there are lifestyle treatments that do work and are generally not pursued. The drug options are pursued at the opportunity cost of much more efficacious, much simpler, much less profitable options.
  - arn 18y ago
    Again, I believe you simply don't understand percentages, or statistics. The numbers were statistically significant, which means the differences were not likely related to random chance. The statin prevented 1079 people from having a stroke, dying, or having a heart attack. It helped 10% of the people in a non-trivial way in this study. (and lifestyle changes are typically pursued alongside these medical treatments. Certainly in these studies, of course your individual doctor's mileage may vary.)
    - kingkongrevenge 18y ago
      I understand statistics just fine, asshole. You're saying I should bank with XYZ Bank because their savings account interest rate is 100% higher than my current bank! Or, .5% vs 1%. I'm saying the interest rates are .5% and 1% respectively. As for the 10 out of 100 total winners claim, it looks fudged up to me on quickly scanning the abstract. I'd have to use a calculator and read the study. That cute little bit about a compliance adjustment smells like fudge. And, as I've said, there are other studies with other conclusions.
      - demallien 18y ago
        1) Your continued comments are way off topic. In what way do they relate to doctors being overworked? None that I can see. 2) You really don't seem to have a good grasp of what the statistics are telling you. Take the statins example. As others have tried to explain to you quite politely, the statistical improvement of statins vs placebo are both significant, and even impressive. Your response? 'Asshole'. Nice work.