corner
Healthy Skepticism
Join us to help reduce harm from misleading health information.
Increase font size   Decrease font size   Print-friendly view   Print
Register Log in

Healthy Skepticism Library item: 11581

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

 

Publication type: Journal Article

Cohen JT, Neumann PJ.
What's more dangerous, your aspirin or your car? Thinking rationally about drug risks (and benefits).
Health Affairs 2007 May-Jun; 26:(3):636-646
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/26/3/636?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=JT+Cohen&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT


Abstract:

We compare mortality risks of several common drugs with risks related to work, transportation, and recreation. Comparing risks can provide a more intuitive sense of the magnitude of drug risks than stand-alone estimates can, to help inform policy discussions. The drug risks we quantify generally exceed the magnitude of risks for other domains (although aspirin and cars are similarly “risky” under the definition of risk used here). Nonetheless, these comparisons underscore a crucial point: that risks should not be evaluated without considering attendant benefits. We discuss the need for the Food and Drug Administration to compare risks and benefits quantitatively, consistently, and explicitly.

 

  Healthy Skepticism on RSS   Healthy Skepticism on Facebook   Healthy Skepticism on Twitter

Please
Click to Register

(read more)

then
Click to Log in
for free access to more features of this website.

Forgot your username or password?

You are invited to
apply for membership
of Healthy Skepticism,
if you support our aims.

Pay a subscription

Support our work with a donation

Buy Healthy Skepticism T Shirts


If there is something you don't like, please tell us. If you like our work, please tell others.

Email a Friend








Cases of wilful misrepresentation are a rarity in medical advertising. For every advertisement in which nonexistent doctors are called on to testify or deliberately irrelevant references are bunched up in [fine print], you will find a hundred or more whose greatest offenses are unquestioning enthusiasm and the skill to communicate it.

The best defence the physician can muster against this kind of advertising is a healthy skepticism and a willingness, not always apparent in the past, to do his homework. He must cultivate a flair for spotting the logical loophole, the invalid clinical trial, the unreliable or meaningless testimonial, the unneeded improvement and the unlikely claim. Above all, he must develop greater resistance to the lure of the fashionable and the new.
- Pierre R. Garai (advertising executive) 1963