Quote from: joel321 on March 22, 2015, 12:33:28 AM
Well now we are getting somewhere.

Dude.  Seriously?  Every time I clearly and unambiguously say words to the effect that vaccines are not 100% risk free.  You act surprised.  How often do you want to keep repeating the same act?

QuoteWhat are those statistics of failure? And how long are the studies done of failure?

Please use English phrases because I have no idea what "statistics of failure" means.

QuoteYes you did say that because the masses

Please cite where I use those EXACT words.  Otherwise please reference what words of mine you're referring to and I'll tell you what I meant.

QuoteHow in the world can you know the vaccine is safe over the long run?

It depends on what "know", "safe" and "long run' mean.  Let me know when you actually understand what you're saying.

QuoteLOL, look at this clown believing that he is an expert at everything

Uh that's you actually.  You're the one who always says things are 100% facts.  That's what someone who pretends they're an expert would say.  I don't.  The only thing I'm claiming is that I have better knowledge about ID than you do and I know somewhere between 10x and 100000000000000000000000000x more about how to read a research paper or study than you do.  Two things you repeatedly fail at.

After all you are the person who didn't read the paper but felt ok writing completely ignorant nonsense.  I did read the paper and it's weak at best.  There are a couple of studies about the same subject which are better (because unlike you I know that this subject is somewhat in vogue) but still far from good.

Quote
That guy that runs naked in the middle of a football game. lol

Joel please stop picturing me naked.  Go back to flirting with profits.

Big Pharma used "statistical deception" to sell deadly statin scam to Americans, study concludes

Learn more:  http://www.naturalnews.com/049079_statins_statistical_deception_Big_Pharma.html#ixzz3V9W5mcDm


(NaturalNews) Statins are a deadly scam, and new research published in the journal Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology undoubtedly proves this. Using "statistical deception" to make statins appear safe and effective, the drug industry has deviously sold the United States and other Western nations a bill of goods, say researchers, as actual data shows that statins provide almost no benefits while causing serious harm.

Dr. David M. Diamond, a professor of psychology, molecular pharmacology and physiology at the University of South Florida, and Dr. Uffe Ravnskov, an independent health researcher and expert in cholesterol and cardiovascular disease, teamed up to a take a closer look at the claims made about statins. After reviewing a cohort of published studies on statins, they concluded that statistical trickery is responsible for their ill-gained notoriety.

"Statin advocates have used statistical deception to create the illusion that statins are 'wonder drugs,' when the reality is that their modest benefits are more than offset by their adverse effects," wrote the authors in their paper.

Lying drug companies use "relative risk" data to create illusion that statins are safe and effective When poring through the data, the two doctors found that nearly every drug-industry-backed study claiming that statins are safe and effective used "relative risk" data rather than "absolute risk" data. This deceptive tactic is often employed to make drug treatments appear more effective than they actually are, as well as to cover up any adverse effects associated with drug interventions.

By comparing the treatment outcome of one specific group of people to another specific group (relative risk), rather than evaluating how each individual responds to a particular treatment over time irrespective of all others (absolute risk), drug companies deceitfully veil the ineffectiveness of pharmaceuticals and their respective risks from the public.

This is how statin researchers are able to claim that statins benefit 30-50% of the population (relative risk) rather than 1% or less of the population (absolute risk).

"In the Jupiter trial, the public and healthcare workers were informed of a 54 percent reduction in heart attacks, when the actual effect in reduction of coronary events was less than 1 percentage point," wrote the authors concerning a major trial that evaluated Crestor.

"In the ASCOT-LLA study, which was terminated early because it was considered to have such outstanding results, there were heart attacks and deaths in 3% of the placebo (no treatment) group as compared to 1.9% in the Lipitor group."

"The improvement in outcome with Lipitor treatment was only 1.1 percentage point, but when this study was presented to the public, the advertisements used the inflated (relative risk) statistic, which transformed the 1.1% effect into a 36% reduction in heart attack risk."

Cholesterol changes brought about by statin use lead to cancer Meanwhile, ending statin trials early under the guise of prudence -- most drug industry-pioneered statin studies are terminated within two to five years -- conveniently hides the fact that statins come with major health risks. One of these risks is cancer, as demonstrated by at least one long-term trial which showed a dramatic increase in breast cancer rates among women who took statins for 10 years or longer.

In fact, using statins to artificially lower cholesterol levels, as millions of Americans and others do daily, appears to be directly associated with cancer incidence -- statins clearly cause cancer! But you'll be strained to find this information anywhere in the industry literature, which is so mendaciously formulated as to make statins appear like a miracle drug rather than a lethal ruse.

"The adverse effects suffered by people taking statins are more common than reported in the media and at medical conferences," conclude the authors. "Increased rates of cancer, cataracts, diabetes, cognitive impairments and musculoskeletal disorders more than offset the modest cardiovascular benefits of statin treatment."

Medical journals starting to force drug companies to release all records of adverse events Much of the problem lies with medical journals, which are largely reluctant to demand that industry-backed studies present all their data on adverse events, including absolute risk data. But several major journals, including the British Medical Journal (The BMJ), are attempting to change this.

The BMJ's editor-in-chief, Fiona Godlee, and the chair of Britain's Commons Health Select Committee, Sarah Wollaston, have both called on drug companies to release all of their records involving undisclosed adverse events of statins in their clinical trials. At the same time, doctors like Diamond and Ravnskov are calling on people to take other practical steps to avoid heart disease, including avoiding excess carbohydrates and sugar.

"There is a great appeal to the public to take a pill that offers the promise of a longer life and to live heart attack free," wrote the duo. "The reality, however, is that statins actually produce only small beneficial effects on cardiovascular outcomes, and their adverse effects are far more substantial than is generally known."

You can read the abstract of their study here:
InformaHealthcare.com.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.eurekalert.org

http://informahealthcare.com

http://www.patient.co.ukLearn more:  http://www.naturalnews.com/049079_statins_statistical_deception_Big_Pharma.html#ixzz3V9Wuw3WY



Mags

Quote from: Magluvin on March 22, 2015, 05:35:00 PM
Big Pharma used "statistical deception" to sell deadly statin scam to Americans, study concludes

Learn less:  http://www.naturalnews.com/049079_statins_statistical_deception_Big_Pharma.html#ixzz3V9W5mcDm

So do you want to know what's wrong with the NN take on relative risk...or not? (as usual they're either deliberately misunderstanding or being stupid).  I'm pretty sure your answer is 'no'.

So how's your fake patient?

Quote from: Magluvin on March 22, 2015, 05:35:00 PM
Big Pharma used "statistical deception" to sell deadly statin scam to Americans, study concludes

Learn more:  http://www.naturalnews.com/049079_statins_statistical_deception_Big_Pharma.html#ixzz3V9W5mcDm


(NaturalNews) Statins are a deadly scam, and new research published in the journal Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology undoubtedly proves this. Using "statistical deception" to make statins appear safe and effective, the drug industry has deviously sold the United States and other Western nations a bill of goods, say researchers, as actual data shows that statins provide almost no benefits while causing serious harm.

Dr. David M. Diamond, a professor of psychology, molecular pharmacology and physiology at the University of South Florida, and Dr. Uffe Ravnskov, an independent health researcher and expert in cholesterol and cardiovascular disease, teamed up to a take a closer look at the claims made about statins. After reviewing a cohort of published studies on statins, they concluded that statistical trickery is responsible for their ill-gained notoriety.

"Statin advocates have used statistical deception to create the illusion that statins are 'wonder drugs,' when the reality is that their modest benefits are more than offset by their adverse effects," wrote the authors in their paper.

Lying drug companies use "relative risk" data to create illusion that statins are safe and effective When poring through the data, the two doctors found that nearly every drug-industry-backed study claiming that statins are safe and effective used "relative risk" data rather than "absolute risk" data. This deceptive tactic is often employed to make drug treatments appear more effective than they actually are, as well as to cover up any adverse effects associated with drug interventions.

By comparing the treatment outcome of one specific group of people to another specific group (relative risk), rather than evaluating how each individual responds to a particular treatment over time irrespective of all others (absolute risk), drug companies deceitfully veil the ineffectiveness of pharmaceuticals and their respective risks from the public.

This is how statin researchers are able to claim that statins benefit 30-50% of the population (relative risk) rather than 1% or less of the population (absolute risk).

"In the Jupiter trial, the public and healthcare workers were informed of a 54 percent reduction in heart attacks, when the actual effect in reduction of coronary events was less than 1 percentage point," wrote the authors concerning a major trial that evaluated Crestor.

"In the ASCOT-LLA study, which was terminated early because it was considered to have such outstanding results, there were heart attacks and deaths in 3% of the placebo (no treatment) group as compared to 1.9% in the Lipitor group."

"The improvement in outcome with Lipitor treatment was only 1.1 percentage point, but when this study was presented to the public, the advertisements used the inflated (relative risk) statistic, which transformed the 1.1% effect into a 36% reduction in heart attack risk."

Cholesterol changes brought about by statin use lead to cancer Meanwhile, ending statin trials early under the guise of prudence -- most drug industry-pioneered statin studies are terminated within two to five years -- conveniently hides the fact that statins come with major health risks. One of these risks is cancer, as demonstrated by at least one long-term trial which showed a dramatic increase in breast cancer rates among women who took statins for 10 years or longer.

In fact, using statins to artificially lower cholesterol levels, as millions of Americans and others do daily, appears to be directly associated with cancer incidence -- statins clearly cause cancer! But you'll be strained to find this information anywhere in the industry literature, which is so mendaciously formulated as to make statins appear like a miracle drug rather than a lethal ruse.

"The adverse effects suffered by people taking statins are more common than reported in the media and at medical conferences," conclude the authors. "Increased rates of cancer, cataracts, diabetes, cognitive impairments and musculoskeletal disorders more than offset the modest cardiovascular benefits of statin treatment."

Medical journals starting to force drug companies to release all records of adverse events Much of the problem lies with medical journals, which are largely reluctant to demand that industry-backed studies present all their data on adverse events, including absolute risk data. But several major journals, including the British Medical Journal (The BMJ), are attempting to change this.

The BMJ's editor-in-chief, Fiona Godlee, and the chair of Britain's Commons Health Select Committee, Sarah Wollaston, have both called on drug companies to release all of their records involving undisclosed adverse events of statins in their clinical trials. At the same time, doctors like Diamond and Ravnskov are calling on people to take other practical steps to avoid heart disease, including avoiding excess carbohydrates and sugar.

"There is a great appeal to the public to take a pill that offers the promise of a longer life and to live heart attack free," wrote the duo. "The reality, however, is that statins actually produce only small beneficial effects on cardiovascular outcomes, and their adverse effects are far more substantial than is generally known."

You can read the abstract of their study here:
InformaHealthcare.com.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.eurekalert.org

http://informahealthcare.com

http://www.patient.co.ukLearn more:  http://www.naturalnews.com/049079_statins_statistical_deception_Big_Pharma.html#ixzz3V9Wuw3WY



Mags

Really?  These guys are morons who must have flunked math.  Let's take their 1% assertion.  They note the Ascot study on Lipitor:

Quote

Quote"In the ASCOT-LLA study, which was terminated early because it was considered to have such outstanding results, there were heart attacks and deaths in 3% of the placebo (no treatment) group as compared to 1.9% in the Lipitor group."

I have a control population placed on placebo.  3% of them die within the study period, which is to say 97% survive the study period.  I then have a treated group, and 1.9% die within the study period, while 98.1% survive.  Using this data, what can we predict?

We can predict that if the control and study populations were not biased that for any given similar population that 19 will die if treated, versus 30 if treated with a placebo within a similar period as the study period.  The placebo fatality rate is therefore 30/19, or 158% the fatality rate of the treated group. 

In 2X the study period, all health factors being equal we can predict:

(1-0.981²) deaths treated versus (1-0.97²) placebo or:  376 deaths per 10,000 versus 591 for placebo:  158% the deaths from placebo than treated.

In 5X the study period we can predict:

(1-0.981⁵) deaths treated versus (1-0.97⁵) placebo or:  915 deaths per 10,000 versus 1413 for placebo:  154% the deaths from placebo than treated.

These morons, Natural News, and you by extension of uncrititically regurgitating their nonsense have no clue how to evaluate data.

You might want to consider what kind of silly decisions this absolute difference data that these idiots propose is correct would have affected something like automobile safety features.  In 1960 automobile deaths were 5.09 per 100 million miles driven.  By 2010 that was down to 1.11 fatalities per 100 million passenger miles where it has remained stable.  By population it was 0.02016% per year in 1960 and 0.01035% in 2013.  The absolute difference is less than 0.01%.  Using the moronic logic of these authors that you advocate there would be no good reason to employ the automobile and light truck safety improvements of the past 50 years to marginally improve the fatality rate by 0.01%.  Using the correct relative comparisons we see the truth: We now suffer annual fatalities of 33,000 per year instead of around 151,000 per year that we could reasonably predict had safety improvements not been made: ~460% of what we have.  So do you still think the actionable figure is the absolute percentage?

Here's 100% truth pics.