jzeno
Member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2017
- Messages
- 543
One study says aspiring will kill you (I'm exaggerating) and another says it will cure almost everything (again, exaggeration). Why is this?
Is it simply a case of 'follow the money'? I understand there is a huge incentive for pharmaceutical companies to convince people not to use aspirin because it's either ineffective or even dangerous and alternatively convince them to use their proprietary drug which only their doctor can prescribe.
Or is it more complicated then that?
Please excuse my ignorance on this matter; I'm new to understanding the scientific details in invidivual studies and I don't understand the minute differences in the studies as well as Ray and others on this forum do--haidut, et al--which can have a huge impact on results and also conclusions.
For example, there are tons of examples on this forum detailing all the benefits of aspirin--Ray has written a few articles on aspirin, too.
Then why is that at the same time articles like these appear? With daily low-dose aspirin use, risks may outweigh benefits, new research says
They site 3 studies in this article:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1800722
"...randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial — considered the gold standard for clinical trials."
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1805819
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1803955
So, if I trust this news source it would lead me to believe that aspirin is in fact either not effective or possibly even dangerous. But, I don't think that's the whole story (from my intuition and also from the conflicting research currently available).
Why then do these studies come to these conclusions (aspirin is either ineffective or dangerous) while some research comes to conclusions which suggest the opposite?
@haidut, care to weigh in?
Please explain why we see such conflicting data in clinical studies.
Thank you all for taking the time to break this down for me and provide your opinion
Is it simply a case of 'follow the money'? I understand there is a huge incentive for pharmaceutical companies to convince people not to use aspirin because it's either ineffective or even dangerous and alternatively convince them to use their proprietary drug which only their doctor can prescribe.
Or is it more complicated then that?
Please excuse my ignorance on this matter; I'm new to understanding the scientific details in invidivual studies and I don't understand the minute differences in the studies as well as Ray and others on this forum do--haidut, et al--which can have a huge impact on results and also conclusions.
For example, there are tons of examples on this forum detailing all the benefits of aspirin--Ray has written a few articles on aspirin, too.
Then why is that at the same time articles like these appear? With daily low-dose aspirin use, risks may outweigh benefits, new research says
They site 3 studies in this article:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1800722
"...randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial — considered the gold standard for clinical trials."
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1805819
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1803955
So, if I trust this news source it would lead me to believe that aspirin is in fact either not effective or possibly even dangerous. But, I don't think that's the whole story (from my intuition and also from the conflicting research currently available).
Why then do these studies come to these conclusions (aspirin is either ineffective or dangerous) while some research comes to conclusions which suggest the opposite?
@haidut, care to weigh in?
Please explain why we see such conflicting data in clinical studies.
Thank you all for taking the time to break this down for me and provide your opinion