Better

Met my friend L on my way home and caught him by surprise - he was absorbed in reading journal and did not notice my approaching until I tapped on his shoulder.

"Hullo! What's up in the New England?" I asked while pointing at the tiny volume that he was holding.

"Ground-breaking research. Let me read the conclusion to you: Treatment with X had robust effects on this risk factor of heart problem, had an acceptable side-effect profile, and, within the limits of the power of this study, did not result in the adverse cardiovascular effects observed with the drug." My friend finished triumphantly.

"Do you mean ... oh, do they mean the drug has a benefit ?" I was confused.

"No, it means the drug makes the numbers better, and, more importantly, is not making the patient any worse !" He said, with a twist at the angle of his lip.

"But, who cares about the numbers? I know drug Y - another drug of the same mechanism - improves the numbers, but patients who take this drug end up having more heart attack."

"Exactly," my friend reassured me, "That's why this time they have to emphasize patients taking X apparently do not die more easily as compared to placebo."

"Gosh. Why making such a big fuss for finding a drug that does not kill ?" I smiled, "But, they may have a point. If they could conduct a study with more patients, they may be able to detect a benefit."

"Mathematically you are correct," the face of my friend somehow turned grave, "But I cannot say I agree with you. The matter actually involves a much deeper water than that comes to your eyes."

(To be continued.)