ONE OF THE THINGS that may confuse people about the effectiveness of current medical therapy is the practice of defining the effectiveness of a therapy by the ‘RELATIVE RISK REDUCTION ‘ rather than the absolute risk reduction of a therapy For example if the odds of getting killed by cancer is 2 in 500 and a new drug reduced the risk to 1 in 500, this is a 50% relative risk reduction which may sound impressive but the absolute is reduced from 2 in 500 to 1 in 500, quite different from the relative risk reduction
Most medical journals do not report the absolute risk reduction in the abstract provided without a subscription. So If you don’t prescribe to the journal you have to pay $50 to find it out. The situation creates the opportunity to lie with statistics TV adds for drugs do this a lot.
There’s some good stuff on Sensible Medicine but there are also occasional posts which I think are total garbage. I’ve listed a couple in my own post on Insensible Medicine.
man I thought I unsubscribed from your dumbass when you tried to make the analogy between junk food and water using the poison/dose metaphor.
that was one of the stupidest arguments I have ever heard. eating poison "every once and a while" is not the same as necessary nutrients. you can go your whole life without junk food, try going without water.
total red herring. junk food is a product of rampant consumerism. until you address profiteering and how people's appetites have been exploited by commercial interests for the past 100+ years, you basically will never have a consistent argument.
ONE OF THE THINGS that may confuse people about the effectiveness of current medical therapy is the practice of defining the effectiveness of a therapy by the ‘RELATIVE RISK REDUCTION ‘ rather than the absolute risk reduction of a therapy For example if the odds of getting killed by cancer is 2 in 500 and a new drug reduced the risk to 1 in 500, this is a 50% relative risk reduction which may sound impressive but the absolute is reduced from 2 in 500 to 1 in 500, quite different from the relative risk reduction
Most medical journals do not report the absolute risk reduction in the abstract provided without a subscription. So If you don’t prescribe to the journal you have to pay $50 to find it out. The situation creates the opportunity to lie with statistics TV adds for drugs do this a lot.
There’s some good stuff on Sensible Medicine but there are also occasional posts which I think are total garbage. I’ve listed a couple in my own post on Insensible Medicine.
man I thought I unsubscribed from your dumbass when you tried to make the analogy between junk food and water using the poison/dose metaphor.
that was one of the stupidest arguments I have ever heard. eating poison "every once and a while" is not the same as necessary nutrients. you can go your whole life without junk food, try going without water.
total red herring. junk food is a product of rampant consumerism. until you address profiteering and how people's appetites have been exploited by commercial interests for the past 100+ years, you basically will never have a consistent argument.
Thanks for the comment. Indeed I have been called that name often. Grin
Here's something from Joe Rogan on who you should listen too. hint. IT's not him https://www.youtube.com/shorts/PfUssTRRRcs
This is so good. Never in the history of the world were well people being treated. Isn't that interesting?
Please remove me from your email. This is not evidence based and disappointed in the article by Dr Joseph Marine
You can unsubscribe.
That's not how it works.