Hi Robert,
Jordan Fallis

Should have read the whole thing. Not the first time I’ve come across misrepresented data in a conclusion. The LRC-CPPT (1973) study, the one that handed Big Pharma a license to print money by selling cholesterol lowering drugs, claimed a 19% reduction in cardiac events in the participants taking cholestyramine. When you read the study it turns out that the actual difference between the two groups of subjects was only 1.5%. They got the higher figure through statistical gymnastics, basically taking a ratio of a ratio. Note to self: read the whole damn thing.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.