Health

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Lipitor: Reduces Bad Cholesterol, But…

We have all seen the Lipitor commercials with Dr. Robert Jarvik (he is not licensed to practice medicine in any state, but went to medical school) touting the cholesterol lowering benefits of that drug.

In fact, the company claims it will lower bad cholesterol by 39-60%:

lipitor3960.jpg

The average consumer reading this rightfully thinks this is a good thing for your health. The question, though, is what is the real significance of lowering bad cholesterol.

Another Lipitor ad helps explain this too:

lipitor2.jpg

So, for people at risk, taking Lipitor lowers your chances of having a heart attack by 36%. This certainly sounds like a big benefit for most people considering taking this drug, until you look at the fine print:

*MOUSE PRINT:

lipitordisclose.jpg

The company apparently conducted a test whereby high risk people were divided into two groups,  one of which got Lipitor, and the other got a placebo. Out of every 100 subjects tested, only three people who in essence took nothing to lower their cholesterol suffered heart attacks. On the other hand, two out of 100 Lipitor takers had a heart attack. The difference, according to the study, is that for every 100 people who take Lipitor, only one additional person will be spared a heart attack compared to those who do nothing.

So despite the big percentage claims made in advertising — 39% to 60% reduction in bad cholesterol, and 36% reduction in risk of heart attacks — if the risk the pill is reducing is very small to start with, very few people will actually be spared that heart attack by taking Lipitor (but the company will make a lot of money in the process).

Of course, for the one person in a hundred who is spared, the pill is priceless.

For more information on the math used in drug advertising, read this Business Week story.

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

CBS’ “Kid Nation” Contract: We’re Not Responsible If Your Kid Dies

Kid Nation logoThis fall, CBS is debuting a new reality series called Kid Nation. In it, 40 kids aged eight to 15 go off to a remote, deserted location to have a Survivor-like adventure for 40 days without adult supervision.

Controversy has sprung up about injuries some of the kids sustained, and the one-sided nature (in CBS’ favor) of a 22-page release that parents had to sign as a condition of their kids’ participation in the show should they be selected. (Here is the New York Times story.)

Mouse Print* has found and reviewed what is purported to be a copy of that release. The producers and CBS left nothing to chance in protecting themselves, while getting parents to give up their rights in protecting their children.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Kid Nation 1

Translation: I accept the risk if a wolf eats my kid, if he drowns during a competition, or any other terrible thing happens.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Kid Nation 2

Translation: If my kid dies, CBS and the producers are not responsible.

Some other provisions of the agreement include (1) that the producers can film the children 24 hours a day anywhere (but not in the bathroom if they are really doing their business in there); (2) that the kids will not have sex with the producers,  and if they have sex with other participants they will not hold the producers liable for STDs or pregnancy; (3) that neither the parents nor the kids will reveal anything about the show for three years, and if they do, they will pay CBS $5 million as liquidated damages; and (4) they will not sue CBS or the producers for anything but instead will take any disputes to arbitration.

It seems there must have been no shortage of stage mothers and fathers who were willing to bite the bullet and sign away their rights as the price for their kid to become a television star. This is no doubt the reason that CBS and the producers could get away with such a one-sided agreement.

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Aquafina: Unearths Its Source

AquafinaFor years, Americans have been buying bottled water for convenience, improved taste, and its perceived health benefits compared to tap water. We spend more on bottled water per gallon than we do on gasoline.

The biggest selling brand of bottled water is Aquafina made by Pepsico. From the look of the bottle with snow capped mountains, one would think the source of the water is some lovely, quiet stream or underground springs in the Alps. Not so.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Aquafina pws

Tucked at the bottom of the label of some bottles of Aquafina (others have no disclosure) are the words “Bottled At The Source P.W.S.”  Most people would have no idea what P.W.S. stands for, and that was probably the way Pepsi wanted it.

It actually means “Public Water Supply,” in other words, tap water. That’s right Aquafina gets its water from the tap, puts it through a seven-step purification process, pumps it into bottles that some say harm the environment, and charges you a fortune.

With some prodding from a consumer group, Pepsico announced last Friday it was going to come clean on the Aquafina label and say what P.W.S. stands for. Coke on the other, the maker of Dasani bottled water, has had no similar change of heart about disclosing that its purified water comes from the tap too.

None of this is meant to speak ill of tap water, that repeated tests have shown is generally safe and tasty to drink in most communities. In fact, expert wine tasters did a blind taste test of tap water from cities around the country, and recently named the tap water from Salt Lake City, Boston, and Columbia, SC as the best tasting.