Understanding Statistics

To assess the efficacy of a treatment or medication for a specific condition, clinical trials involving hundreds or thousands of participants are necessary. Such extensive involvement helps account for individual differences among patients. Nevertheless, it’s crucial to recognize that while statistics are vital, they can sometimes mislead those without a comprehensive understanding of the data.

For example, if a newly developed medication reduces "your risk" of experiencing a heart attack by 20%, it's tempting to believe that taking it will similarly reduce your own risk by 20%. However, this interpretation is misleading; the drug lowers the average heart attack risk by 20% across all trial participants, but your personal risk reduction may not reflect that figure.

Furthermore, if you happen to be among the unfortunate few who experience severe side effects from a vaccine, these statistics become largely irrelevant. For instance, Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) is a rare but serious neurological complication linked to the COVID-19 vaccine. A neighbor and his wife hesitated to receive the mRNA vaccine and chose the Johnson & Johnson DNA vaccine instead. Tragically, he developed GBS and passed away, even though the overall risk of developing GBS from the JNJ vaccine was reported as only seven percent. For him, the risk turned out to be one hundred percent.

Who Benefits from Medical Protocols?

Often, protocols are designed more for the convenience of healthcare providers rather than for the benefit of patients. For example, the guideline that prohibits patients from consuming anything by mouth after midnight before a procedure is intended to prevent complications during anesthesia. If the stomach is full, there's a risk of vomiting, which could lead to aspiration pneumonia—a serious and potentially fatal condition.

However, there is a substantial difference between consuming food right before a major surgery and having a glass of water a couple of hours before a minor procedure like a colonoscopy. Anesthesia societies recognize this distinction and have concluded that drinking water a few hours prior to minor operations is safe. Given that the preparation for a colonoscopy often leads to significant fluid loss from diarrhea, many patients arrive dehydrated, which can cause low blood pressure and even fainting.

Before my procedure, I inquired with my nurse anesthetist about this, and she confirmed it was safe to drink water after midnight. However, it's simpler for medical staff to enforce a blanket rule of no fluids after midnight, as schedules can often shift, complicating adherence to a two-hour cutoff.

Ultimately, the key takeaway is that individuals are unique. The human body is not a machine, which means that consistent results from medical interventions such as drugs, vaccines, or surgeries cannot be guaranteed. This variability is why medicine is often referred to as both an "art" and a "science." No amount of artificial intelligence can account for this complexity.

The Dark Side of Human Differences

The acknowledgment that "no two human beings are the same" unfortunately fuels our fascination with anecdotal evidence. When something positive or negative occurs, we tend to seek immediate causal relationships. A common example of this is the reaction to the flu vaccine.

Some individuals may experience symptoms after vaccination that resemble the flu. Since the vaccine uses dead or inactivated viruses, it cannot actually cause the flu. Nevertheless, many believe otherwise because they may develop mild fevers, runny noses, or muscle aches. These are simply side effects for some individuals.

Additionally, the misconception that "I received the flu shot but still contracted the flu" persists. Flu vaccines, like many others, do not guarantee absolute immunity from the flu. However, they do reduce the severity and symptoms when assessed in large populations. Yet, when individuals experience something good or bad, personal experiences often overshadow scientific evidence, underscoring the power of anecdotal narratives.

This tendency to favor anecdotes can lead to erroneous conclusions. Despite substantial scientific evidence indicating otherwise, some people still assert that Ivermectin is effective in preventing or treating COVID-19. This belief is perpetuated by various sources, including those who dismiss the validity of numerous studies due to alleged bias from pharmaceutical companies. While it's true that many medical journals depend on advertising from these companies, this does not negate the quality of research published, including critiques of CDC guidelines in reputable journals like the New England Journal of Medicine.

Unsettled Science

Science, by its nature, is continuously evolving. I find terms like "settled" or "consensus" to be misleading. Some of the most groundbreaking scientific advancements have come from those who challenged the status quo. For instance, the discovery of penicillin was serendipitous—Dr. Alexander Fleming stumbled upon it when he noticed that mold on a Petri dish inhibited bacterial growth.

Consider the case of stomach ulcers: two Australian researchers faced ridicule for proposing that a bacteria was responsible for many ulcers and could be treated with antibiotics. They were ultimately vindicated and awarded the Nobel Prize in 2005 for their findings.

The realm of science is particularly fluid when it comes to new diseases, such as COVID-19. During the early days of the pandemic, many individuals succumbed to ARDS (acute respiratory distress syndrome) associated with the virus. Prior to 2020, the standard approach for treating ARDS was mechanical ventilation. Ironically, for COVID-19 patients, being placed on a ventilator often worsened outcomes.

Moreover, the efficacy of universal mask mandates remains a contentious issue. Large-scale studies yield inconclusive results and are challenging to interpret. The respected Cochrane Library, an independent organization dedicated to resolving scientific controversies, has not definitively endorsed the idea that masks effectively prevent the spread of COVID-19. Notably, there are concerns that mask mandates may have caused significant harm to young children, who were at minimal risk for severe COVID-19 complications or death.

Takeaways

Human bodies are complex and do not function like machines, leading to diverse responses to illnesses, preventive measures, and treatments. Medical statistics can be deceptive, as they represent outcomes for large groups of patients rather than individual experiences. Medical and surgical protocols are often designed for the efficiency of healthcare providers, which may not always align with the best interests of patients.

Due to the variability in human reactions to treatments and diseases, anecdotal evidence often influences public opinion, particularly evident during the COVID-19 pandemic. As our understanding of the disease evolved, so too did the narrative around it, revealing that mechanical ventilation could be detrimental, and the effectiveness of universal masking remains an open question.

Thank you for taking the time to engage with this material. Your thoughts and feedback are always welcome. As a retired physician, I am passionate about science, medicine, health, sports, and nutrition.

Stay updated with my writings. Subscribe for notifications whenever David Mokotoff publishes new content. Rest assured, I will never spam you.