QROT-047: When the side effect they dismiss occurs more than the "good reason" that rationalizes the product
Jan 15, 2022, 12:15 PM
(Another digestible chunk from the John Abramson JRE interview. That said, might make better sense if you listen from the beginning of that series)
Sometimes the argument for a new version of treatment is merely that it does all the good things the old thing does but without as many side effects. As was the argument for Vioxx.
YET, the slimy ones who characterize science instead of give the actual data are caught here dismissing cardiovascular side effects (heart attacks) by saying there weren't many events in the study (70) when the awful side effect actually OUTNUMBERED the original stomach issues that were originally the rationale to even market this new product over the old one.
Sometimes the argument for a new version of treatment is merely that it does all the good things the old thing does but without as many side effects. As was the argument for Vioxx.
YET, the slimy ones who characterize science instead of give the actual data are caught here dismissing cardiovascular side effects (heart attacks) by saying there weren't many events in the study (70) when the awful side effect actually OUTNUMBERED the original stomach issues that were originally the rationale to even market this new product over the old one.