Suppose a drug slows the rate of
healing by 20%. ALL 1,500 WHO Took THE
DRUGS HAVE DONE WORSE THAN THOSE ON THE SUGAR PILLS, which means the entire
bell curve has moved to the let—GOT IT?
Suppose that it is Neurontin, and for depression the average is 20%
worse at 500 days. The average for a 3,000 patient is 100 days longer compared
to the group who were given sugar pills (1,500 sugar pills and 1,500 got
Neurontin). Since the whole bell curve
is moved to the left, those in the far-right end, the 2.1% in the Neurotin
cohort took 20% longer than the 2.1% with the sugar pills. Everyone did worse
on Neurontin. Though the 2.1% depression was less than the
97.9% of Neurotin pill poppers, they were worse off than the 2.1% on sugar
pills. To assume that some benefited,
the top 15.8% on Neurontin is false since they did worse than the 15,8% on the
sugar pills—apples to apples.
explanation: The bell-curve fallacy,
patient, physician, pharma, and FDA. Those to the right of μ
(Mu) do better than average, while those to the left of the μ
line (middle) do worse. Suppose being measure is a particular type of fungal
skin infection, average duration of which is 100 days. A drugs which slows healing will make
everyone worse off than if they weren’t medicated, including those who become
fungal free with the drug in less than 50 days, for they would have healed
sooner without that drug. Secondly pharma does all it can to hide the
side effects, including running when possible a trial for just 6 week, using a
select healthy population, a washout period, which drops typically one forth of
volunteers, then starts logging the results, last observation carried forward,
and down-right scientific fraud by dropping out results that are unfavorable. Side effects are not subtracted from the
positive results 
on the bone: now suppose for the un-medicated,
those at the +20 line have the skin infection for 60 days and those to the left
at -20 have the infection for 140 days (minus 40 and plus 40 days). Now if a
drug results in the condition
lasting on an average 20 days longer, those to the right at the 20 line will be
infected for 80 days (60 + 20), and those at the left 20 line will have the
infection for 160 days (140 + 20). Not
known the average for the infection, the patient will assume that the drug
works if it takes 180 days to clear up, or if it takes her 80 days; after all
their physician wrote a prescription of an FDA approved drug, and one is a pill
pusher and the other a pill popper.
should be based on the unbiased evidence
for a large group of real-world people.
The physician would NOT prescribe the drug Weltgone that slowed healing
if he knew that it slowed healing. The
FDA doesn’t review journal articles on Weltgone for FRUB (fraudulent
bias); thus, pharma cooks the books on the trial, writes journal articles
which “shows” Welton reduced duration infection by 20 days based on FRUB.
The journals can’t review the articles for
FRUB because pharma doesn’t give the reviewer the raw data, which would expose
their FRUB. The doctor based on FRUB
prescribes the drug. His false belief
causes the patient to assume that the 120 days of infection would have been
longer if he wasn’t taking those pills.
(Why the hell give a pill for a skin infection?) The patient whose skin
clear up in 80 days
also assume it would have been longer without Weltgone. Neither understand the
FRUB and the
typical physician will likely assume all patients benefit; he reasons that the
FDA wouldn’t approve the drug if it didn’t work—which is false (evidence in
footnote near end). He will assume that
the patient who with treatment was infected for 140 days had a particular
virulent form of the fungus, and would have had the infection longer if he
wasn’t given the pills. He will also
assume the patient with 80 days would have had a longer infection. I call
this the bell-curve fallacy.
The physician is cherry picking the positive results and excusing the
negative. Since for most conditions the
physician doesn’t know the standard duration, since that information is likely
not in the medical books or presented in his required-by-law CME (continuing
medical education) classes. Add to this
the 15 minutes assembly line work schedule; he won’t have the time to go
through records to see what the average is or to remember on a subsequent visit
what went before, he will just have a synopsis on the computer, which probably
won’t include his visual assessment of the severity of the condition. Clinical
experience given assembly-line
clinics removes observational analysis; consequentially, the recognition of the
bell curve moving to the left doesn’t register in the physician’s brain.
is an even larger causal factor, humans are a social animal, thus social
reinforcers shape brain responses and often prevent seeing the obvious.
In this case the duration of illness and how
the patients are doing isn‘t obvious.
The very concept of a bell-curve fallacy, probably not-one-in-50
physicians are aware of, and even it so aware, the social conditioning would
preclude its application to treatments.
In visually obvious situations, doctors don’t see the obvious when
social conditioning is used. Most
doctors for examples smoked in the 1940s through the 1960s, and the health
consequences and obvious harm from inhalation of chemical and carbon monoxide
had to be known to the physician smoker and non-smoker. Social conditioning
causes blindness to the
obvious, and the brain rules (a saying accepted most
neuroscientists). We are a social
animal. As Prof. Ben Goldacre says, you
can’t change human nature. He is
referring to the behavior of pharma executives, physicians and the public—pill
pusher and pill poppers. He concludes
that the change must come at the highest level of government. As I say dream
on, there is regulatory
are dupes of pharma: like good soldiers
with group behavior, physicians have been shaped into pill pushers. We have
a system of medicine that is worse
than you can imagine. Billions of
dollars spent by pharma for happy actors taking the miracle drugs in television
that message has been poured into the consumers’ brain. They spend 4 times
as much shaping the
medical professional than they spend on consumers. That figure includes their
evidence basis for the use of drugs and the clinical guidelines. The leading
5 English journals once published
up to a decade ago articles exposing this corruption. Pharma is in the business of treating
illnesses, and Pfizer doesn’t care for your heath any more than R. J. Reynolds
cares for my father who smoked 2 packs of Camel daily until he was 53.
the FDA approves a drug for a surrogate outcome, the example of fungal
infection could be the culture petri dish that grows slower with the drug than
without. That benefit in the petri dish
weakly translates to the skin, more weakly since the medium used was the one
which produced the most positive results.
Need I point out again whose side the FDA is on. Patients wouldn’t
take Lipitor for lowering
cholesterol, if they knew that in real world situation, there is an increase in
ischemic events, and all the CAWD. For
the elderly the death rate from ischemic events and congestive heart failure gone
up significantly because statins reduced the production of ATP around 40%
(depending on dose reducing CoQ10 an essential cofactor in the Krebs cycle). ATP
is the energy molecule that all muscles
use to contract, including the heart.
The heart needs more ATP when stressed by an ischemic event. So, pharma
in their trials of statin don’t
use the elderly,
morbidly obese, or those with congestive heart failure. With 60% of men by the
have taken statins for years. It is a major cause for CAWD. Think of statins
as a pill form cigarette, a
drug that causes ischemic events, cancer. dementia, and on and on. The rate
of smoking is 1/3rd the
rate of 1960, yet ischemic events haven’t been reduced: rather the reduction
comes from increases in
other causes of death such as dementia and cancer. The B-5 explain the shift
in death and
statins significant increase B-5.
why isn’t this message getting out: you
know, money talks louder and social shaping causes the rational module of the
brain to be silent; it knows but is muzzled.
I have yet to meet a true believer with terminal cancer who in their heart
is thanking Yahweh for getting them to the heavenly Eden early. Like
the soldiers of Yahweh on the Crusades,
we have a population of pill poppers taking slow acting poisons, and they know
in their rational module what they are doing.
Civilized man has screwed up the biological systems first with fructose,
then with unsaturated fats and weird chemicals called drugs including most
recreational ones. We are the sickest of
animals, quite different than the old elephant, old ape, and old Galapagos
tortoise. This book is about growing old
as evolution designed, and a few tricks to slow the process. I love you all.
avoided Neurontin because of breaking blind and the Hamilton Inventory used to
measure depression: it adds unneeded
complexity to the example. Fungal
infection is the young pigeon and Neurotin the mature monkey in the psych
could have used Neurontin, but in more extended example I would have to adjust
for breaking blind, which occurs both for the physician and the patient. It
is like giving a person a sugar
intravenously and the other cohort a half-pint of 100% ethanol diluted in a
liter over one hour. Psychiatric
sedative due as the category states, causes sedation, and pharma markets them
as anti-depressants. If you sleep more,
your are not as depressed for the first few weeks. Moreover the Hamilton Inventory
observational inventory for evaluation, filled out by the physician gives about
20% of the positive effects to sleeping sounder and longer.
For a book on tricks, read Prof. Ben Goldacre’s Bad Pharma It
is significantly worse than he
most cases the side effects are not a reason for the FDA to deny a patent for
pharma hawk the drug and price gouge.
Europe and 98% of countries direct to consumer advertisements on TV and radio
is forbidden, but organizations such as heart associations can provide on the
media informationals. Take a statin to
lower your risks for an ischemic event.
 In the Framingham study the top 20%
seniors lived the longest. Only through
FRUB can a claim of benefit be made.