Re: "Statins caused my kidney failure"

listener_at_nospam.net
Date: 07/22/04 

Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 08:27:56 -0400

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 05:13:03 GMT, "Bill" <xxx@yy.zz> wrote:

>
>"Sharon Hope" <shope@anet.net> wrote in message
>news:78FLc.159611$XM6.122427@attbi_s53...
>>
>> "Bill" <xxx@yy.zz> wrote in message
>> news:x3lLc.2616$4L7.2330@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>> >
>> > "Sharon Hope" <shope@anet.net> wrote in message
>> > news:fKkLc.132401$JR4.83874@attbi_s54...
>> > >
>> > > "Bill" <xxx@yy.zz> wrote in message
>> > > news:DYpKc.2084$r05.1952@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
>> > > >
>> > > > "Owen Lowe" <noemails@please.com> wrote in message
>> > > > news:noemails-4FD736.23393317072004@corp.supernews.com...
>> > > > > In article <qzkKc.2168$4L7.1160@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>,
>> > > > > "Bill" <xxx@yy.zz> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > You are deliberately misreading what the words say. It means
>> out
>> > > of a
>> > > > > > > > population of 1000 people 18 lives will be saved by those
>> taking
>> > > Zocor
>> > > > > > over
>> > > > > > > > the 5 year period. Do you agree or disagree with this?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > <SNIPing is GOOD>
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Again, does or does not the sentence below mean that in tested
>> > > population
>> > > > had
>> > > > > > a reduced risk of death over the 5 year period while taking Zocor?
>> If
>> > > not,
>> > > > > > what does it mean to you.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > "Results showed that the participants who took Zocor decreased
>> their
>> > > odds
>> > > > > > of overall mortality by 1.8% in the next five years, compared to
>> > > those
>> > > > who
>> > > > > > were untreated (placebo group)"
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I think it's a convoluted sentence... It's not directly saying that
>> it
>> > > > > reduced deaths of the group by 1.8%, it's saying it reduced the odds
>> of
>> > > > > dying by 1.8%. Then you need to look at... What were the
>> participants'
>> > > > > odds of dying within 5 years without the Zocor treatment? If it was
>> high
>> > > > > risk, say 20% (just picking a number out of thin air), then after
>> the 5
>> > > > > years of Zocor was the risk then 19.64%? Or does it mean it was down
>> to
>> > > > > 18.2%?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Working through the numbers: If you have your group of 1000, all at
>> the
>> > > > > same 20% high risk, by the odds, untreated, 200 would likely die
>> within
>> > > > > 5 years. According to the statement, after the Zocor treatment the
>> > > > > overall risk is lowered by 1.8% to either 19.64% or 18.2%. Therefore
>> > > > > you'd expect either 196 or 182 to die during the 5 years. Of your
>> > > > > original 1000, either 4 or 18 would not die who had been expected
>> to --
>> > > > > by appearances the med "saved" either .4% or 1.8% of all
>> participants.
>> > > > > (This still means that182 or 196 taking Zocor died regardless of the
>> > > > > treatment.)
>> > > > >
>> > > > > The question then to ask is whether it's cost effective, not only
>> > > > > financially but side-effect-wise to medicate 1000 to save 18 - or
>> less,
>> > > > > 4. It would appear to me, given the percentage of patients who
>> > > > > experience negative side-effects (roughly 5% according to some
>> reports
>> > > > > and Dr. Chung) that 3 times, or more, the number of patients are
>> > > > > detrimentally affected than are helped.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > (I attempted to find where the statement entered into the thread to
>> read
>> > > > > the original context but wasn't successful.)
>> > > >
>> > > > Yes I agree we don't know the precise numbers because we do not have
>> the
>> > > > original article, but it does clearly say that less people in the
>> Zocor
>> > > group
>> > > > died than in the placebo group - which is the only point I am trying
>> to
>> > > make.
>> > > > <snip>
>> > >
>> > > Careful. You have not addressed the "unrelated" category of deaths.
>> > >
>> >
>> > For about the 10th time the quote said:
>> >
>> > "Results showed that the participants who took Zocor decreased their odds
>> > of overall mortality by 1.8% in the next five years, compared to those
>> > who were untreated (placebo group)"
>> >
>> >
>> > And I think "overall mortality" kinda means "overall mortality".
>> >
>> > Bill
>>
>> I think you kinda want it to mean that.
>>
>> Are you saying that if a person drops out of the study due to being hit by
>> lightning and killed instantly, that would help the statistics of the group,
>> placebo or statin, from which he came? That would further weaken the 1.8%
>> odds (as described so excellently in the post we are following).
>>
>> You need to check the full story to see if the authors kinda meant that or
>> if you are kinda jumping to conclusions.
>>
>
>You should go back and read the original article. Cardiac deaths are discussed
>separately. Yes, I think it is reasonable to assume the words mean what they
>say. And it is unreasonable for you to assume that the words mean differently
>than what they say. In other words in your view, "overall mortality" does not
>mean "overall mortality" Is that correct?
>
>I would think also the burden of proof is on you.
>
>Bill
>

Actually, Sharon makes a good analogy: the odds of getting hit and
killed by lightening are probably similar to the odds of dying from a
statin side-effect.

(I know that's not what she meant, but we take what ever crumbs we can
get.)

L.