Does your doctor really understand the research? This question is worth answering. Consider this. Unless your doctor has actually taken courses in research or statistics, the answer is probably no.

The average doc gets about 80% of their information about new therapies from big pharmacy. The profit margin for patented drugs in this country is large enough to offend most reasonable people. According to Sharon L. Davis, Federal Budget Analysts with the U.S. Department of Commerce the average price for Norvasc is $188.29, store cost is $0.14, which is a mark up of about 134,493%. The point is, there is a huge financial incentive to break the rules and present a less than truthful picture when a research study is published. Indeed, prosecution for falsifying data is all too common, but there are many ways to cloud the truth that are perfectly legal.

In most published research, the probability that the data is accidental is written as P (probability)=N. If N is greater than .05 (5%), the statistics do not strongly support the ideas that the study is trying to prove. Put another way, there should be 95% chance or better that the data is not accidental or the result of some influence outside the purpose of the study.

Keep in mind, the bottom line when considering any treatment is this. Do the benefits outweigh the risks? An ethical, well informed doctor should be able to help a patient answer this question. With chronic, degenerative illness on the rise and prescribed drug interactions responsible for 1 out of 4 hospital visits, it seems doubtful that this standard is being met.

A useful statistic to know is the number needed to treat(NNT). This describes how many people must be treated for one person to benefit. The NNT is not usually given up front in a published research study, but simple math will yield this statistic. Let’s use Lipitor, a popular cholesterol reducing drug, as an example. The research shows that for every 100 middle aged men with heart disease who took Lipitor for over 3 years, one heart attack was prevented, if compared to the same population group who took a sugar pill for over 3 years. The rest of the population showed no reduction in heart attacks. That translates to a NNT of 100. Compare this to the NNT of antibiotics used to treat H. Pylori( the bacteria that causes ulcers). The NNT is 1:1 (for every 11 people who take the drug, 10 are cured)! This benefit is observed across general population, not just middle-aged men. It is true that Lipitor lowers heart attacks by 36%. Instead of 3 heart attacks per 100 with taking sugar pills, you get 2 per 100 with taking Lipitor. Two is about 36% (OK 33.3) less than three (NNT still 100).

This is about the same risk reduction for heart attacks you get with fish oil. Fish oil does not have the risk of liver damage, muscle and joint pain you get with Lipitor. Thankfully, some enlightened doctors are first recommending fish oil, niacin (vitamin B3), red yeast rice, and other less toxic therapies, before prescribing statin drugs such as Lipitor. The profit margin on these natural therapies is a fraction of the profit made on patented statin drugs. Follow the money and it's easy to understand why the benefit versus risk to the patient is often misrepresented .

Let's look at another dynamic at work in the research world. There is a fierce turf war over market share between the pharmaceutical and vitamin industries. You may ask, what market do these two industries have in common? It is true that pharmaceuticals can do things that vitamins, minerals, and herbs can't. The reverse is also true, but there is a lot of common ground in between. Although both industries benefit from research that supports their products and may benefit from research that discredits their rival; the drug companies enjoy financial resources that are hundreds of times larger that those of the vitamin industry.

There have been several news stories recently on research that questions the effectiveness and safety of vitamin and herbal therapies. Many of these studies seem to contradict 30 years of previous research. Often vitamin studies that are funded by big pharmacy use inferior products. It's not surprising when inferior results are obtained.

When choosing a multi-vitamin, look for the quality of minerals and the percent of daily value of the vitamins. Does it contain calcium carbonate and magnesium oxide? These are the cheapest and most poorly absorbed minerals available. Does it contain only 100% daily value? The daily value is based on outdated research. A quality vitamin contains several hundred percent of the daily value.

In a perfect world, a patient should rely on their doctor to interpret the research and suggest the right treatment. Considering all the forces at work, patients would be wise to ask a few basic questions. What are the risks versus the benefits of the treatment? What is the NNT? What are the alternative therapies? Who paid for the research studies? What do they stand to gain from the results? What is the probability factor? If your doctor can't answer these questions, you should try to find the answers yourself and then get a second opinion.