We hope the rewards outweigh the risks.

Statins come to mind and the ads on TV touting relative risk reduction vs absolute risk deduction when you actually look at the studies. I'm pretty sure drug reps do not dwell on all cause mortality or absolute risk reduction when they talk to doctors. I would bet they really talk about relative risk reduction though.

Relative vs absolute hypothetical example. Three in ten thousand patients die as a control in some hypothetical research test. An intervention is given that reduces deaths to two in ten thousand. Relative risk reduction of 50%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Shout it from the rooftops. Absolute risk reduction point something. Wooptydo. Take a drug ten years to save a few patients per thousand from a specific condition while many suffer the side effects of the medicine. All cause mortality (after all, if you are dead you are dead).............. wait for it. Zip. No statistical difference. Might as well take a placebo as far as not being dead. Blockbuster drug. And that is from cherry picked study. The three or four other studies that turned out worse never see the light of day. They are buried or destroyed.

It is a racket. Not saying there are not good drugs that do good things, because there are. But it has been made a racket.

Caveat emptor.

John

Bonus: Just watched a very long commercial with misleading information about salt coming from Pfizer (not as much as misinformation as information omission - only telling the part of the story to promote their blood pressure medicine). Here is the antidote to the misinformation. Doctors that have learned to think and study the research for themselves instead of listening to drug reps and turn around and implement it in their practice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVDo030WLVk