Then please don't address me by screen name. Also, not evading the question as it has been asked by you ad nauseam and I'm just not addressing again not matter how many times you ask, it is a diversion from he truth and an attempt to try to make people think twice about the facts and nothing more so stop asking me. It is not a valid point, it is moot.
Speaking of evading questions, did I teach you something about your coin toss example? That really made my evening last night, showed it to a few colleagues and all agreed it was a teachable moment.View Thread
You doctor would need to classify it as FH, but based on your life style I think it is safe to say there is a genetic component at play in your case.
How high are your numbers? It sounds like you're already doing things right so I don't now how much more you can do. If you're sensitive to statins it's best to avoid them,.Keep in mind there is a new class of cholesterol lowering drugs that should be on the market in a year or so that do not carry any of the side effects of statins. You may want to take a moment to read this;
I understand what you are saying about the coin toss iride
So are you saying I taught you something? FYI, I prefer Doctor Iride if you're going to address me in a teaching environment please.
but what confirmation do we have these individuals were spared a bad event
This is really all that needs to be said;
The 20-year follow-up data are based on a 5-year difference in LDL-cholesterol lowering with pravastatin. In the trial, pravastatin lowered LDL-cholesterol levels by 26% and total-cholesterol levels by 20%. For clinical outcomes, the reduction in the primary end point in WOSCOPS was sustained over the 20-year follow-up period, said Packard. At 20 years, coronary heart disease mortality was reduced 27% and all-cause mortality by 13%. Also, the need for coronary revascularization was reduced by 19%, heart failure by 31%; there was no effect on stroke.
This is all that matters to the scientific community, the medical community and the public.View Thread
Try looking at the pharmaceutical industries record of convictions by the Justice Dept for illegal marketing practices and the billions of dollars in fines imposed for their crimes. Record fines are being imposed against them.
Bobby, you have made countless posts like the one above. If you don't think it's illegal, why keep bringing these lawsuits up? I can re-post more if you need help remembering.
The problem with a site like this is you become the sum total of your posts, you can't always walk them back. Not putting words in your mouth, just quoting you.View Thread
No, you're still wrong as I have tried to show you the results of individual participants will average out exponentially over the course of a trails. You're also shifting the topic again, we're talking about the WOSCOPS results.
If you truly understood what s being said you would have never tried to compare a trial to a coin toss, that shows a lack of understanding. It was humorous that you then tried to call me out with your "beam me up Scotty" comment.
It is a statistical rule that in large numbers of "coins" the baseline will remain constant unless acted on by an outside influence. If you understood, you would not be arguing this point.View Thread
With p values like that not much possibility of the results being by chance.
YES! You are spot on. That end p value is the result of the number of participants or for Bobby, coins.
Let's look an example, again using the "coin toss" theory. The chart below clearly shows what happens as the number of tosses increase:
As the number of throws increase, the probability distribution will eventually even out the results and the results of a given outcome will usually come in at /- .5% in every case. Some lines may not move as quickly, however the results normalize and will remain within this margin unless there is an outside influence. In the case of this thread, the introduction of a statin to one control group.
It really is not as simple as a coin toss as some would believe.View Thread
Beam me up Scotty, there is no intelligent life down here
You are correct, and let me tell you why there is no intelligent life on your side of the argument. Let's use the basic coin toss example, hang on, this is going to be good and you may learn something.
If you flip 4 coins you have a one in four chance to get any single result which will represent 25% or what you call a 25% chance difference. (actually called a result)
What happens now if you flip eight coins? Your probability of a 25% "chance difference" is cut in half. What happens when you flip say sixteen coins? That's right, you chance of getting a 25% "chance difference" is again halved.
Now, what if you flip 6,595 coins? You get the picture. As I have told you before, the number of participants or "coins" has a direct influence on the results of a random variable. In your advanced "coin flip" theory that makes you think your point is alive and well, the numbers will begin to even out exponentially as the number of participants increases. It's a cumulative function and is called probability distribution.
The studies assume nothing Bobby, they measure results. These results are made up of the cumulative results of 6,595 coin tosses. Again, take it from a professional and consider yourself schooled as you clearly have not been trained in stats.