3 ms·

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

by 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.
    - rms 18y ago
      Nice try, but your argument doesn't hold up for society at large. It doesn't matter to you as an individual if you are prescribed heart medicine when you need it. However, it truly does save lives in society. How do you propose we scale back the system of medicine? Should doctors no longer prescribe statins?

by arn 18y ago

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.
  - rms 18y ago
    Nice try, but your argument doesn't hold up for society at large. It doesn't matter to you as an individual if you are prescribed heart medicine when you need it. However, it truly does save lives in society. How do you propose we scale back the system of medicine? Should doctors no longer prescribe statins?