If you are taking any type of medications, do you know the benefits? How about the side effects? Do you have any clue what percentage of the patients it works on, or how likely it is that you will benefit from it? Based on statistics, we can definitely say that most prescription drugs don't work most of the time for most people. This is a pretty bold statement, and one that is being hidden by not only our medical profession, but by those at the highest level of government policy making. Yet, we see medication use continued to increase while health continues to decrease. The problem stems from looking at the numbers in a false way.
When drug manufacturers go before the FDA to license a new medication or market this new drug to doctors, they tout the relative risk reduction (or RRR) numbers. They make claims like osteoporosis drugs cut your risk of fracture by 50%, or blood pressure drugs cut your risk of stroke by 45%, or statin (cholesterol lowering) drugs cut your risk of heart attacks by 50%. These numbers are astounding, but completely misleading. These numbers are all based on relative risk.
Think of it like this. Take 1000 adults, of which two would die from a heart attack. If we place all 1000 on the medication, and one of the two that would have died is saved, this is a 50% reduction in the death rate, so we can say that taking this medication reduces your risk of dying from a heart attack by 50%. That's relative risk. What they are failing to mention is the other 998 who would not have had a heart attack anyway, that either received no benefit, or were actually harmed by the medication. And, we're assuming that all 1000 will be on the drug for the rest of their lives to save that one person and achieve that astounding 50% rating.
Instead of using relative risk, we need to be focusing our attention on the number need to treat or NNT. How many patients have to take the medication for the rest of their lives to save one person? When we look at that same scenario above, we see that in order to save that one person, we need to treat 999 others. When we look at it from this perspective, we are talking about the absolute risk benefit (or ARB). Again, in this case, it is not 50%, but .01%. Unfortunately, these numbers have been well hidden by not only the drug manufacturers, but also industrialized medicine and government policy makers for way too long. Luckily, this concept is finally being released to the general public. While not a complete database by any means yet, you can check the NNT of a variety of medications at www.thennt.com. This website has taken the time to compile the real statistics so consumers can finally have accurate information.
In some cases, the NNT is extremely good. Take defribillation for cardiac arrest. It has an NNT of 2.5. That's great. We need to treat 2.5 people to save one. I'll take those odds; keep the paddles ready. Another is steroids given during an asthma attack. It has an NNT of 8. Again, that's a pretty good number. There's a whole host of great treatments out there that this data reinforces. However, there are many more lies that are finally being debunked.
Take Sally Fields and her bisphosphonates for osteoporosis. There is no NNT, because there is no one saved from having the fracture. This multi-billion dollar a year market is all based on smoke and mirrors. The same can be said for aspirin to prevent a first heart attack or stroke. The NNT is 1667. That means we have to treat 1667 people who will get absolutely not benefit, and could well end up with a bleeding ulcer, in order to prevent one person from getting a heart attack OR a stroke. And yet, how many out there are taking their baby aspirin, making millions of dollars for Bayer a year? Another without an NNT because there is absolutely no benefit is antibiotics for ear infections. I haven't seen any reduction in kids getting antibiotics, yet the research is clear that there is no one benefiting except the drug manufacturers. The benefit is 1 out of 16 for reduced pain, but the harm was 1 out of 9 for diarrhea. The benefit to harm ratio doesn't even work.
Before you just blindly take the recommendation to start, or even continue, a medication, take a look at the NNT. While you may be the one saved (if there have been any yet to date), we are told we base our medical treatment on cold hard statistics. Faced with the NNT as that cold hard statistic, I find it hard to imagine a continued rise in medication use. Instead, I see a populace that can finally confront treatments that should have been thrown out long ago, instead of being touted as lifesaving. With informed, empowered patients, the cost of health care could finally start going down, and the quality of health may start to go up.
Look for future blogs that will give more information and insights into improving your health with natural health care. You can also visit my website, like me on Facebook, or follow me on Twitter.
No comments:
Post a Comment