Breastcancerchoices.org  
.
.                         







                         
Scrutinizing the evidence for breast
cancer procedures and treatments
    Lying with statistics: How conventional
    medicine confuses the public with absolute risk
    vs. relative risk

    by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

    Which drug would you rather take? One that reduces your risk
    of cancer by 50 percent, or another drug that only eliminates
    cancer in one out of 100 people? Most people would choose
    the drug that reduces their risk of cancer by 50 percent, but the
    fact is, both of these numbers refer to the same drug. They’re
    just two different ways of looking at the same statistic. One way
    is called relative risk; the other way is absolute risk.

    Here's how it works: Let’s say that in a trial involving 100
    people, two people would normally get breast cancer during the
    trial duration, but when all 100 people are put on the drug, only
    one person gets breast cancer, meaning the reduction of breast
    cancer is one person out of 100. Yet the pharmaceutical
    industry will exclaim that the relative risk reduction is 50
    percent because one is 50 percent of two. In other words, the
    risk is cut in half from a relative point of view.

    The headlines promoting this drug, therefore, will always talk
    about the relative risk -- "A whopping 50 percent reduction in
    risk!" -- and these headlines will be parroted by the mainstream
    press, medical journals, the FDA, doctors and drug marketing
    reps who are always pushing and exaggerating the supposed
    benefits of their drugs while minimizing their risks. Because,
    you see, even though this drug may help one out of 100 people,
    its side effects create increased risks to all 100 people.
    Everyone suffers some harm from the potential side effects of
    the drug, even if that harm is not immediately evident. Yet only
    one out of 100 people was actually helped by the drug.

    When you look at drug claims, especially new miracle-sounding
    claims on drugs like Herceptin, be aware that these statistics
    are routinely given as relative statistics, not absolute. The
    numbers are distorted to make the drugs look more effective
    than they really are. Herceptin, for example, produced only a
    0.6% absolute reduction in breast cancer risk, yet the medical
    hucksters pushing this drug are wildly screaming about it being
    a "breast cancer cure!" and demanding that practically all breast
    cancer patients be immediately put on it. Yet it's not even
    effective on one person out of a hundred. See my Herceptin
    Hype article for more details.


    Reverse the perspective for natural treatments

    At the same time, when conventional medicine promoters want
    to discredit a natural substance, an herbal remedy or the effects
    of nutrition on health, they always talk about absolute risk. If
    taking green tea supplements reduce the risk of cancer by that
    same 50 percent, eliminating cancer in one out of 100 patients,
    the news about that supplement would be something like this:
    "Green tea doesn’t work. Only helps one out of 100 patients."
    In fact, a study comparing some anti-cancer drug with green tea
    might report: "New breakthrough drug reduces cancer risk by
    50 percent! Green tea only helps one out of 100."

    It’s the old joke about an Olympic race between the United
    States and the old Soviet Union. In the race, there were only two
    participants. The Soviet runner came in first, the U.S. runner
    came in second, but the U.S. newspapers reported, "U.S. Wins
    Silver Medal, Soviet Union Comes In Next to Last."

    Now you know how drug companies, the FDA, the popular press
    and many doctors lie with this numerical shell game. It's a clever
    way to promote the minuscule benefits of pharmaceuticals while
    discrediting the enormous healing effects of natural remedies.

    Now, do you want to hear some real statistics on cancer? I’ll
    share a few. Out of every 100 women who might get breast
    cancer, 50 of them can avoid breast cancer by simply getting
    adequate levels of vitamin D in their body, and that’s available
    free of charge through sensible exposure to natural sunlight,
    which produces vitamin D. This vitamin, all by itself, reduces
    relative cancer risk by 50 percent, which is better than any
    prescription drug that has ever been invented by any drug
    company in the world.

    Combine that with green tea, and your prevention of breast
    cancer gets even stronger. Even the World Health Organization
    says that 70 percent of all cancers are preventable, and in my
    view, that number is conservative, because if you combine
    sunlight therapy and green tea with anti-cancer herbs, anti-
    cancer foods such as garlic, onions, raw broccoli and raw
    sprouts, plus some rain forest herbs that are well-known for
    inhibiting the growth of cancer cells, then you can boost your
    cancer prevention success to well over 90 percent.

    There’s nothing in the world of pharmaceutical medicine that
    even comes close. Yet the only thing you’ll ever hear from the
    drug company-controlled mainstream media, medical journals,
    the FDA and most old-school doctors is that natural remedies
    are useless, but prescription drugs have all been scientifically
    proven. Sure they have, if you fall for the relative risk gimmick
    and can't do basic math.
.

 
 
 
.

 
 
 

Visit Mike Adams
at
Naturalnews.com