Medical Statistics - Pre-K Math at Best
The other day I posted my thoughts on the Avian Flu Scare.
So while the topic of the medical industry was still fresh in my head, I wanted to give you my thoughts on the statistics the medical industry uses to approve drugs, vaccines, etc.
Say I wanted to prove that it is safe for people to cross the road without looking. Let's see if I can prove this theory by using the standard statistical methods that the medical industry uses.
First, I get 100 people to volunteer for my study. I have them all come over to my house around 2:00am in the morning. The clinical trial begins...
We all walk down to the end of my block to what is normally a fairly busy divided two lane street.
I go down the sidewalk and tap the first person on the shoulder. His/her job is to run across the street without looking, then run back without looking. When he or she gets back I tap the next person on the shoulder and they do the same thing as the first person. I repeat this process until all 100 people have attempted to cross the street and come back without looking.
Since, it is 2:00am there is not much traffic on the street and only 1 person gets hit by a car.
Most drug companies/doctors/medical studies would take the above data and declare that running across the road without looking is perfectly safe, possibly even beneficial. In fact, even if up to fifteen people got hit by cars they would probably consider it safe to cross a road without looking (especially if most of the people in the study were only injured by the car).
Do you see anything wrong with that picture?
What if none of the people got hit? Does that mean that it is absolutely safe to cross the road without looking (ie. no side effects)?
Going back to the example above, let's say that car companies were providing doctors with nice cars, and gas money. Now, five people in the above experiment get hit and go to the doctor. Let's listen in on one of their conversations with the doctor:
Patient: "Doctor my foot really hurts, because that car ran over it a couple of hours ago. Can you tell me what's wrong with it?"
Doctor: "According to the X-Rays you have three broken toes and some torn ligaments. But I don't believe it was the car's fault. I think you must have hurt it some other way."
Patient: "But doctor the CAR RAN OVER MY FOOT, and right after that my foot was throbbing in pain."
Doctor: "Yes, but statistically speaking cars don't cause foot injuries. I am pretty sure your foot hurts because someone stepped on it or maybe you stepped on an uneven surface after the car ran over your foot."
Patient: "It's got to be the car, nobody stepped on my foot! A CAR RAN OVER IT!"
Doctor: "There's just no way that a car running over your foot could have caused those broken toes. I have never seen that happen before. I am sure it must have been something else. You probably stepped on your own foot without realizing it."
Patient: "Arghhh!"
...
That's pretty much what happens to 90% of the people I know whose children have had a reaction to a vaccine. In fact, someone I know has a friend whose 18 month old child died one week after getting a vaccine and the doctors would not say it was from the vaccine, they said it was SIDS.
SIDS! What in the world?
No way does an eighteen month old child die of SIDS. That's just crazy. It was the vaccine. I wonder how many children die from "SIDS" that have recieved a vaccine within 2 weeks of their death? That would be an interesting statistic to see.
The above is an example of yet another way medical statistics are altered. If doctors don't report reactions to vaccines and/or other medicines then statistically speaking there won't be any reactions.
Anyway, if I were President the medical industry would be in for some BIG changes...
So while the topic of the medical industry was still fresh in my head, I wanted to give you my thoughts on the statistics the medical industry uses to approve drugs, vaccines, etc.
Say I wanted to prove that it is safe for people to cross the road without looking. Let's see if I can prove this theory by using the standard statistical methods that the medical industry uses.
First, I get 100 people to volunteer for my study. I have them all come over to my house around 2:00am in the morning. The clinical trial begins...
We all walk down to the end of my block to what is normally a fairly busy divided two lane street.
I go down the sidewalk and tap the first person on the shoulder. His/her job is to run across the street without looking, then run back without looking. When he or she gets back I tap the next person on the shoulder and they do the same thing as the first person. I repeat this process until all 100 people have attempted to cross the street and come back without looking.
Since, it is 2:00am there is not much traffic on the street and only 1 person gets hit by a car.
Most drug companies/doctors/medical studies would take the above data and declare that running across the road without looking is perfectly safe, possibly even beneficial. In fact, even if up to fifteen people got hit by cars they would probably consider it safe to cross a road without looking (especially if most of the people in the study were only injured by the car).
Do you see anything wrong with that picture?
What if none of the people got hit? Does that mean that it is absolutely safe to cross the road without looking (ie. no side effects)?
Going back to the example above, let's say that car companies were providing doctors with nice cars, and gas money. Now, five people in the above experiment get hit and go to the doctor. Let's listen in on one of their conversations with the doctor:
Patient: "Doctor my foot really hurts, because that car ran over it a couple of hours ago. Can you tell me what's wrong with it?"
Doctor: "According to the X-Rays you have three broken toes and some torn ligaments. But I don't believe it was the car's fault. I think you must have hurt it some other way."
Patient: "But doctor the CAR RAN OVER MY FOOT, and right after that my foot was throbbing in pain."
Doctor: "Yes, but statistically speaking cars don't cause foot injuries. I am pretty sure your foot hurts because someone stepped on it or maybe you stepped on an uneven surface after the car ran over your foot."
Patient: "It's got to be the car, nobody stepped on my foot! A CAR RAN OVER IT!"
Doctor: "There's just no way that a car running over your foot could have caused those broken toes. I have never seen that happen before. I am sure it must have been something else. You probably stepped on your own foot without realizing it."
Patient: "Arghhh!"
...
That's pretty much what happens to 90% of the people I know whose children have had a reaction to a vaccine. In fact, someone I know has a friend whose 18 month old child died one week after getting a vaccine and the doctors would not say it was from the vaccine, they said it was SIDS.
SIDS! What in the world?
No way does an eighteen month old child die of SIDS. That's just crazy. It was the vaccine. I wonder how many children die from "SIDS" that have recieved a vaccine within 2 weeks of their death? That would be an interesting statistic to see.
The above is an example of yet another way medical statistics are altered. If doctors don't report reactions to vaccines and/or other medicines then statistically speaking there won't be any reactions.
Anyway, if I were President the medical industry would be in for some BIG changes...
posted by gmanty at 11:36 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home