ExcelMale
Menu
Home
What's new
Latest activity
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Videos
Lab Tests
Doctor Finder
Buy Books
About Us
Men’s Health Coaching
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
General Health & Fitness
Health & Wellness
Dr. David Diamond: Exposing the cholesterol myth
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Blackhawk" data-source="post: 154030" data-attributes="member: 16042"><p>I read that article, but just drove 1900 miles and am a bit foggy. The one thing that stood out for me is that his argument cites relative risk figures, which typically drastically amplifies actual comparative statistics... exactly the same kind of mathematical manipulation that touted lipitor as reducing cardiac risk by 36% based on closer to 2% vs 3% actual comparative data (and some decimals, my grey matter hasn't kept the decimals stored). The 2% vs 3% would be 33% relative risk reduction... i.e. without lipitor 3 out of a hundred people have events, and those taking taking lipitor 2 out of 100 have cardiac events. That's 1% comparatively, but 33% RRR. So seeing 6.2 relative risk tells me that potentially the actual comparative data is very possibly in the decimal point range. This is rampant in medical research and drug marketing. Will be interesting to see actual comparative data.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Blackhawk, post: 154030, member: 16042"] I read that article, but just drove 1900 miles and am a bit foggy. The one thing that stood out for me is that his argument cites relative risk figures, which typically drastically amplifies actual comparative statistics... exactly the same kind of mathematical manipulation that touted lipitor as reducing cardiac risk by 36% based on closer to 2% vs 3% actual comparative data (and some decimals, my grey matter hasn't kept the decimals stored). The 2% vs 3% would be 33% relative risk reduction... i.e. without lipitor 3 out of a hundred people have events, and those taking taking lipitor 2 out of 100 have cardiac events. That's 1% comparatively, but 33% RRR. So seeing 6.2 relative risk tells me that potentially the actual comparative data is very possibly in the decimal point range. This is rampant in medical research and drug marketing. Will be interesting to see actual comparative data. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Share this page
Facebook
Twitter
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Sponsors
Forums
General Health & Fitness
Health & Wellness
Dr. David Diamond: Exposing the cholesterol myth
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top