Clipping Board » Medical Myths ─ The truth about healthcare is often different from what you intuitively think.
2015/03/02 Author: Li Quanfang
"Biochemical index exceeds the standard, please report to the pharmacy immediately." This is how the medication guidelines for many diseases, including cholesterol-lowering drugs, are phrased. Several major reports claim that cholesterol-lowering drugs can reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease by dozens of percentage points. Once the news of these astonishing effects spread, the global usage of cholesterol-lowering drugs skyrocketed, almost becoming a universal trend among middle-aged people worldwide. But is it really that miraculous?
A recent article published in *Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology* analyzed how researchers and pharmaceutical companies use statistical methods to mislead the public into believing in the miraculous effects of cholesterol-lowering drugs. The following example is taken from clinical trial analyses—readers are invited to consider the significance of these numbers for cholesterol control.
Scientific data show that for every 100 people with high cholesterol who receive drug treatment, the number of people who later develop heart disease drops from 2 to 1. In other words, the drug can "reduce the risk by 50%." This 50% is the "relative risk."
If 100 people with high cholesterol do not receive treatment, 2 (2%) will develop heart disease. In other words, using the drug reduces the risk by 1% (2% - 1%). This 1% is the "absolute risk."
We should pay more attention to absolute risk rather than relative risk. Consider this: if 100 people with high cholesterol do not take the drug, as many as 98 will not develop heart disease. This figure doesn’t even account for the harmful side effects of the medication.
The scholars in the article criticize the "relative risk" claim as misleading the public, arguing that it is no different from media exaggeration—both are just clever wordplay. This kind of manipulation is widespread in drug advertisements.
The article concludes: to prevent one heart attack, 100 people must take the drug simultaneously. Yet drug advertisements often claim that "cholesterol-lowering drugs reduce the risk of heart disease by 30–50%," leading people to mistakenly believe that taking the drug will reduce *their* risk of heart disease by 30–50%.
Simply put, 100 people must take the drug to prevent one heart attack, and there’s a 99% chance that the person who benefits is *not you*. Knowing this, would you still want to take the drug?
In summary, the author of the article calls for a better understanding of cholesterol drugs, emphasizing that their benefits for cardiovascular disease are actually very small, while their side effects are far more severe than the public realizes.
Beyond the exaggerated marketing language about efficacy, the seriousness of drug side effects is often overlooked. Drug advertisements frequently omit side effects or shrink the text to near-illegible size. In reality, the use of cholesterol-lowering drugs has been linked to increased risks of cancer, cataracts, diabetes, cognitive impairment, and muscle disorders—all supported by research. However, when placed in advertisements that "highlight benefits while downplaying side effects," even healthcare professionals can be misled into thinking the risks are negligible.
For those considering medication, it is advised to closely monitor any bodily changes in the first few months of taking a new drug and to report any suspected side effects to a doctor during follow-up visits.
At the time this article was published, the Western medical community was urging pharmaceutical companies producing cholesterol-lowering drugs to disclose all previously unpublished clinical trial data on drug side effects. Recently, the *British Medical Journal (BMJ)* also published debates on the use of cholesterol-lowering drugs.The emergence of this article once again prompts us to reconsider a seemingly simple question:
Do you really need to take cholesterol-lowering medication?
Source: https:/ / www. commonhealth. com……log/ blogTopic. action? nid=922
Do You Really Need Cholesterol-Lowering Drugs?
"Biochemical index exceeds the standard, please report to the pharmacy immediately." This is how the medication guidelines for many diseases, including cholesterol-lowering drugs, are phrased. Several major reports claim that cholesterol-lowering drugs can reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease by dozens of percentage points. Once the news of these astonishing effects spread, the global usage of cholesterol-lowering drugs skyrocketed, almost becoming a universal trend among middle-aged people worldwide. But is it really that miraculous?
A recent article published in *Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology* analyzed how researchers and pharmaceutical companies use statistical methods to mislead the public into believing in the miraculous effects of cholesterol-lowering drugs. The following example is taken from clinical trial analyses—readers are invited to consider the significance of these numbers for cholesterol control.
Scientific data show that for every 100 people with high cholesterol who receive drug treatment, the number of people who later develop heart disease drops from 2 to 1. In other words, the drug can "reduce the risk by 50%." This 50% is the "relative risk."
If 100 people with high cholesterol do not receive treatment, 2 (2%) will develop heart disease. In other words, using the drug reduces the risk by 1% (2% - 1%). This 1% is the "absolute risk."
We should pay more attention to absolute risk rather than relative risk. Consider this: if 100 people with high cholesterol do not take the drug, as many as 98 will not develop heart disease. This figure doesn’t even account for the harmful side effects of the medication.
The scholars in the article criticize the "relative risk" claim as misleading the public, arguing that it is no different from media exaggeration—both are just clever wordplay. This kind of manipulation is widespread in drug advertisements.
The article concludes: to prevent one heart attack, 100 people must take the drug simultaneously. Yet drug advertisements often claim that "cholesterol-lowering drugs reduce the risk of heart disease by 30–50%," leading people to mistakenly believe that taking the drug will reduce *their* risk of heart disease by 30–50%.
Simply put, 100 people must take the drug to prevent one heart attack, and there’s a 99% chance that the person who benefits is *not you*. Knowing this, would you still want to take the drug?
In summary, the author of the article calls for a better understanding of cholesterol drugs, emphasizing that their benefits for cardiovascular disease are actually very small, while their side effects are far more severe than the public realizes.
Beyond the exaggerated marketing language about efficacy, the seriousness of drug side effects is often overlooked. Drug advertisements frequently omit side effects or shrink the text to near-illegible size. In reality, the use of cholesterol-lowering drugs has been linked to increased risks of cancer, cataracts, diabetes, cognitive impairment, and muscle disorders—all supported by research. However, when placed in advertisements that "highlight benefits while downplaying side effects," even healthcare professionals can be misled into thinking the risks are negligible.
For those considering medication, it is advised to closely monitor any bodily changes in the first few months of taking a new drug and to report any suspected side effects to a doctor during follow-up visits.
At the time this article was published, the Western medical community was urging pharmaceutical companies producing cholesterol-lowering drugs to disclose all previously unpublished clinical trial data on drug side effects. Recently, the *British Medical Journal (BMJ)* also published debates on the use of cholesterol-lowering drugs.The emergence of this article once again prompts us to reconsider a seemingly simple question:
Do you really need to take cholesterol-lowering medication?
Source: https:/ / www. commonhealth. com……log/ blogTopic. action? nid=922