Since We Are Talking About Being CorrectedIn the interest of accuracy, I'll correct myself on something I was talking about a few days ago.
A few days ago I was criticizing the PSCK9 touting companies for the fact that their RRR was (probably) lower than our RRR (reletive risk reduction of course).
Toinv261 was kind enough to politely let me know privately that (not his words - mine), I was not making any sense with that point. He was more polite that I am being here. The reason is that the risks are reletive and the groups being targeted in the studies are different.
Duh!!!
When I thought it through, this of course makes perfect sense. Apples and oranges were being compared by me, even though in both cases it was MACE they were trying to lower. That's the part that through me off - I focused on the commonality of MACE and assumed the groups were the same. (The groups in the study were obviously not the same, since they each had a very different level of MACE events...)
Of course, this honest but silly misake only shows my lack of a science background, so I'm sorry to have to correct myself here. But I value accuracy over protecting my ego. (Sorry ego!)
I guess this is a good reminder for us non-scientific, non-mathmetician types to be very careful with this stuff. It's easy to make mistakes and come to the wrong conclusion! And always good to get good advice from those who know more. Thanks Toinv261!
GLTA