Oh, okay. Makes sense-they’d just be guessing. Thank you.

I know, right? If they can argue that AIs reduce recurrence by 50% (rounded off) then just double the risk number by 2 to get the risk if AIs aren't taken. I had an oncology radiologist tell me that radiation could reduce a risk "from 10% to 2%, which is an 8% reduction." I pointed out that she was confusing percent with percentage point and that a reduction of 10 to 2 was actually 80%.

And I wondered how bad her arithmetic actually is and then double-checked the study she quoted and she was flat out incorrect. I worried about the women whom she might talk into radiation by fallaciously tossing out junk stats. And the radiologist was wrong about the study she was citing too.

So I had a discussion with her superior, citing the exact same study correctly, and noting that she needed to get this right as people have the right to hope their physicians are advising them based on defensible, verifiable facts. It's hard enough having breast cancer as it is. Sheez.