Are you on America’s most dangerous medicine?‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎
‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎
‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎
‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎
‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎
‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎
‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎
‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎



<[link removed]>

August 18


 



Doctor: 92 million Americans on deadly drug

Check Here →
<[link removed]>

 






Are YOU on Pharma’s $16 billion ‘Death Drug
<[link removed]>
’?

It’s the number one drug for older Americans…

Even though it has dangerous side effects no one talks about.

It’s now linked to dementia, wasting away, divorce, and even suicide.

[You may never have needed it in the first place.]

Check if you’re on it (and exactly what to do) here.
<[link removed]>


<[link removed]>
P.S. 92 million Americans are on this killer drug – check here to see if
you’re one of them.
<[link removed]>
 

 





Three Stories That Could Move Markets (Ad)
America’s #1 Gold Stock
<[link removed]>
Behind the Markets

Learn More →
<[link removed]>


NY Times: What Elon’s Building Is Stunning
<[link removed]>
InvestorPlace Media

Learn More →
<[link removed]>


Trump’s Dollar 2.0 — What You Need to Know
<[link removed]>
Porter & Co

Learn More →
<[link removed]>








CONNOR'S HEALTH NOTES

The Number That Belongs on Every Prescription

Connor Hill · InsightfulWord · August 17, 2026

Before anything else: nothing in what follows is a reason to stop taking a
prescribed medication. Stopping certain drugs abruptly — blood pressure
medication, antidepressants, antiseizure drugs, corticosteroids, anticoagulants
— can produce consequences considerably worse than anything the drug was doing.
Every question raised here is a question for a prescribing physician, and the
useful version of it is asked at an appointment rather than answered alone in a
kitchen.

With that established, there is a genuine and underexamined problem in how
medication benefit is communicated, and it has nothing to do with any
particular drug. It concerns a single arithmetic choice that determines whether
a treatment sounds transformative or trivial, and the choice is almost always
made in the direction that sounds better.

Consider a hypothetical trial. Over five years, four people in every hundred
taking a placebo have a heart attack. Among those taking the drug, three in
every hundred do. That result can be stated two entirely accurate ways.

The first: the drug reduces heart attacks by 25 percent. This is the relative
risk reduction — the difference expressed as a proportion of the original risk.

The second: the drug prevents one heart attack for every hundred people
treated for five years. This is the absolute risk reduction, one percentage
point, and its reciprocal is the number needed to treat — a hundred people,
five years, one event avoided.

Both describe the same trial. Neither is false. The first appears in nearly
every headline, press release and patient conversation; the second appears in
almost none of them, and it is the one from which a person can actually reason
about whether a medication is worth taking. The asymmetry is not
conspiratorial. Relative figures are larger, more memorable, and comparable
across trials in a way absolute figures are not. But the effect on a patient's
understanding is severe and well documented: the same trial result produces
markedly different willingness to take a drug depending on which framing is
presented, and the relative framing consistently produces more enthusiasm than
the underlying data warrants. The reason this matters more for older readers
than for anyone else is that they are prescribed more medications, for longer,
on the basis of preventive rather than symptomatic indications — which is
precisely the category where the gap between the relative headline and the
absolute reality is widest. A drug taken to relieve pain announces whether it
is working. A drug taken to prevent an event twenty years out never does.

What follows is how to convert one number into the other, why the same drug
helps different people by wildly different amounts, and what to ask at an
appointment.

Why the Same Drug Has Many Different Answers

The most important thing absolute risk reduction reveals is that a
medication's benefit is not a property of the drug. It is a property of the
drug and the patient together.

Preventive medications work by removing a fraction of an existing risk. If the
underlying risk is large, removing a quarter of it prevents a great deal. If
the underlying risk is small, removing a quarter of it prevents very little,
even though the relative figure — the 25 percent — is identical in both cases.

A person with established cardiovascular disease, diabetes and a history of
smoking carries a baseline risk many times that of a healthy person of the same
age with normal blood pressure and no family history. The same drug, with the
same relative effect, produces a number needed to treat of perhaps thirty in
the first person and several hundred in the second.

This is why blanket statements about whether a class of medication is worth
taking are close to meaningless. The honest answer to whether a preventive drug
is worthwhile is a question in return: worthwhile for whom, at what baseline
risk, over what horizon.

It is also why the risk calculators that clinicians use exist. Their function
is to estimate an individual's baseline risk from age, sex, blood pressure,
cholesterol, diabetes status and smoking, so that the relative effect from the
trials can be applied to a number that describes the actual person in the room
rather than the trial population's average.


The Harms Have the Same Arithmetic

Everything above applies identically to side effects, and this is the half
that fear-based content systematically distorts.

A side effect can be described relatively — a drug doubles the rate of some
adverse outcome — or absolutely, as the number of additional people harmed per
hundred or per thousand treated. A doubling sounds alarming. A doubling of an
event that occurs in one person per ten thousand per year produces one
additional case per ten thousand per year, which is a different proposition
entirely.

The same framing choice is available in both directions, and it is exploited
in both directions. Marketing material for a drug tends to present benefits
relatively and harms absolutely. Material attacking a drug does precisely the
reverse.

The corrective is the same in either case. When any claim about a medication
arrives, the question is what the absolute numbers are: how many people out of
how many, over how long. If that information is not supplied, the claim has not
been made in a form that permits evaluation, regardless of which direction it
points.


🩹 Health Stat of the Day

1 in 100

In a treatment reducing an event rate from four per hundred to three per
hundred over five years, the relative risk reduction is 25 percent and the
absolute risk reduction is one percentage point — a number needed to treat of
100. Both figures describe the identical result; only the first is normally
reported. Source: standard clinical epidemiology; see AHRQ and USPSTF materials
on communicating absolute and relative risk.


Support or oppose: should absolute risk be required in drug communication?

Regulators require a great deal of information on drug labels and in
advertising, but do not generally require that benefit be expressed in absolute
terms alongside relative terms. Supporters of a requirement argue that relative
figures systematically overstate benefit to patients, that the absolute number
is trivial to compute from the same trial, and that informed consent is not
meaningful without it. Opponents answer that absolute risk varies by patient so
a single figure would mislead in its own way, and that clinicians rather than
labels should do this translation. Should the absolute number be mandatory?Hit
reply — one line is enough.


Where Fear Content Uses the Same Trick

There is a symmetry worth naming plainly, because it is the reason this piece
is about arithmetic rather than about any drug.

Content designed to frighten people away from a medication uses the identical
statistical latitude that marketing uses to attract them. It reports the
relative increase in a harm without the baseline. It cites the aggregate number
of people taking a drug — a figure driven by how common the underlying
condition is — as though prevalence were itself evidence of over-prescription.
It lists adverse outcomes that appear in the literature without distinguishing
established causation from reported association, and without indicating
frequency.

The tell is consistent: a claim that supplies a percentage without a
denominator, or a list of harms without rates, has been constructed to produce
an impression rather than to support a decision.

A second tell is the absence of the counterfactual. Every medication decision
has two arms, and the risk of not treating is as real as the risk of treating.
Material that discusses only one arm is not analysis, whichever arm it
discusses.


What the appointment version actually looks like

Four questions convert this from a general principle into something usable,
and they take about ninety seconds to ask. First: what is my risk of this
outcome over the next five or ten years without the medication? That number
comes from a calculator the clinician already uses. Second: what does the
medication change that number to? The difference between those two answers is
the absolute benefit. Third: how many people like me would need to take this
for one to avoid the outcome? That is the same information stated in the form
most people find intuitive. Fourth: what are the common side effects, at what
rate, and which are reversible on stopping? A clinician who is asked these
questions will generally welcome them, because they are the questions the
underlying evidence is organized to answer — and because a patient who
understands the size of the benefit is considerably more likely to keep taking
the medication.


The Trial Population Is Not the Patient

There is a further gap between trial arithmetic and individual benefit that
even the absolute numbers do not close, and it deserves stating because it cuts
against overconfidence in both directions.

Randomized trials enrol participants who meet entry criteria and consent to
participate. That population is systematically younger, healthier, less
burdened with other conditions, and taking fewer other medications than the
population to whom the drug is later prescribed. Trials frequently exclude
people with significant kidney impairment, advanced age, limited life
expectancy, or several simultaneous chronic conditions — which describes a
substantial share of the people who end up taking the drug.

The consequence runs in both directions and neither is reassuring. Benefit may
be smaller in the real population, because competing causes of death reduce the
opportunity for any single prevention to matter, and because adherence outside
a trial is lower than inside one. Harm may be larger, because interactions with
other medications and reduced clearance in older kidneys are precisely what the
exclusion criteria removed from the study.

The horizon compounds it. Preventive medications typically require years to
deliver their benefit, because the benefit is the avoidance of an event that
would have happened later. A person whose remaining life expectancy is shorter
than the trial's follow-up period is being offered the harms on the drug's
timescale and the benefits on a timescale they may not reach. That is a
legitimate clinical consideration, it is discussed openly in geriatrics, and it
almost never comes up in a general appointment.

None of this means the trials do not apply. It means the absolute numbers they
produce are a starting estimate for a specific person rather than a finished
answer, and that the adjustment is a conversation rather than a calculation.


The Part That Is Genuinely Contested

None of this argues that all criticism of prescribing patterns is
manufactured. Some of it is well founded, and it is worth distinguishing the
serious version from the sensational one.

The serious critique concerns thresholds. Guidelines define who should be
offered preventive treatment, and lowering a threshold expands the treated
population into progressively lower-risk people for whom the absolute benefit
is progressively smaller while the side effect rate stays roughly constant. At
some point those lines cross. Where exactly they cross is a genuine matter of
expert disagreement, resolved differently by different guideline bodies in
different countries, and it is a legitimate subject of debate.

The serious critique also concerns duration. Many preventive medications are
started with an implicit assumption of permanence, and the balance of benefit
and harm can shift as a person ages, accumulates other conditions, and adds
other prescriptions. Periodic reconsideration is good practice and does not
happen as often as it should.

What distinguishes that critique from the sensational version is that it
operates on absolute numbers, specifies which patients it concerns, and
produces a recommendation to reassess rather than to abandon. It also tends to
appear in medical journals and guideline committees rather than in a video,
which is where a reader can check it.

The arithmetic at the center of all of it is the same. Four in a hundred
became three in a hundred. Whether that is a 25 percent improvement or a
one-point improvement depends entirely on who is doing the telling, and the
second version is the one from which a decision can be made.


The bill, not the debate

Most communication about medication — from manufacturers, from health
coverage, and from content built to alarm — reports benefits and harms in
whichever form produces the intended reaction, and both directions use the same
latitude. The information required to decide is a baseline risk and an absolute
change, and it exists for every drug in wide use. For the medications in your
own cabinet, do you know what your risk was before, and what it is supposed to
be now?Connor Hill reads every reply.


Sources checked: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force — recommendation
statements and the absolute-benefit framework used in grading preventive
interventions
<[link removed]> ·
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality —The SHARE Approach to shared
decision making and communicating risk
<[link removed]>
·U.S. Food and Drug Administration — Benefit-Risk Assessment for New Drug and
Biological Products, guidance for industry
<[link removed]>
·National Institutes of Health, National Library of Medicine — number needed
to treat, MedlinePlus and PubMed clinical epidemiology resources
<[link removed]> · Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
— cardiovascular disease risk factors and risk estimation
<[link removed]> · U.S. Food and Drug
Administration — prescription drug labeling requirements and patient information

<[link removed]>


Connor Hill · InsightfulWord





You’re receiving this email from Insightful Word (IW), a brand of TerraTrance
Technologies, LLC.

Our mailing address: 200 Broadway Blvd NEAlbuquerque, NM 87102



Have a question or need assistance? Reply directly to this email or contact us
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>



The content of this email may not be copied, reproduced, forwarded, shared, or
distributed without the prior written consent of TerraTrance Technologies, LLC.

Privacy Policy <[link removed]>
Terms & Conditions <[link removed]>
Unsubscribe
<[link removed]>



© 2026 Insightful Word (IW). All Rights Reserved.