The negative ANSA-RAD trial, when contrasted with the positive STAMPEDE trial, demonstrates that patient selection is paramount in adjuvant therapy. The difference in outcomes was driven by risk definition, not the drug. This reinforces that "negative" trials are clinically vital for defining which patient populations do not benefit, preventing widespread overtreatment.

Research from Duncan Watts shows the bigger societal issue isn't fabricated facts (misinformation), but rather taking true data points and drawing misleading conclusions (misinterpretation). This happens 41 times more often and is a more insidious problem for decision-makers.

Using specific, non-round numbers in claims makes them seem more accurate and credible. Consumers subconsciously associate precision with expertise, whereas round numbers can feel like casual estimations. This effect was demonstrated in a study where a deodorant claim of '47% reduction' was rated as more credible than '50% reduction'.

When debating immunotherapy risks, clinicians separate manageable side effects from truly life-altering events. Hypothyroidism requiring a daily pill is deemed acceptable, whereas toxicities like diabetes or myocarditis (each ~1% risk) are viewed as major concerns that heavily weigh on the risk-benefit scale for early-stage disease.

In survivors over 50, an increased risk of secondary cancers is specifically associated with prior radiation treatment received 30+ years ago. The study found no similar association with chemotherapy exposures, highlighting the exceptionally long-term and distinct risks of radiation. This underscores the importance of modern efforts to reduce or eliminate its use.

DNA Complete's model of providing raw genomic risk scores tied to individual scientific papers, without context or curation, can be dangerously misleading. A user might see a low-risk result for a disease that is irrelevant to their ethnicity, highlighting the critical need for proper data interpretation in consumer health.

Public perception of nuclear power is skewed by highly visible but rare disasters. A data-driven risk analysis reveals it is one of the safest energy sources. Fossil fuels, through constant air pollution, cause millions of deaths annually, making them orders of magnitude more dangerous.

In the CREST trial, the FDA's critique heavily emphasized an overall survival hazard ratio above one. Though statistically insignificant and based on immature data, this single figure created a powerful suggestion of potential harm that overshadowed the positive primary endpoint and likely contributed to the panel's divided vote.

Stating data like '30 grams of saturated fat' is ineffective because it lacks context. To create impact, translate abstract numbers into concrete, relatable comparisons. The message became powerful when reframed as 'more fat than a breakfast, lunch, and dinner of greasy foods combined,' which prompted public outrage and industry change.