Logic can often used to manipulate the truth. It is something which most manufactures do to cater to their interests. Often pharmacy companies give a magnified view of the benefits of a drug and a telescopic view of the side effects. In a clinical trial the result could be statistically significant but if you consider it in clinical terms it looks inconsequential.
Frigid women, who do not have orgasms, used a testosterone nasal gel (Tefina) before sexual encounters had an average 2.3 orgasms in a clinical trial stretching 84 days as compare to a placebo figure of 1.7.
The Toronto-based Trimel Pharmaceuticals which makes Tefina loudly proclaimed that the difference was significant with a P value of 0.0015, thus meeting the phase II trial’s primary endpoint.
Looking closely one can easily understand the jugglery; a difference of 0.6 orgasms over a period of 84 days is trivial. All these figures were stacked against a mean of 14.8 sexual encounters during the study period among women using the testosterone gel. Now this gives a very hilarious situation with the woman having to shove the stuff 25 times to achieve one extra orgasm as compared to placebo.
Starting from a baseline of 0 orgasms in the preceding 7 months as per the trial protocol, the attainment of 23 orgasms in 148 encounters meant that the product gave an orgasm less than once in six tries.
How Trimel could manage a tiny P value for such a tiny clinical difference? Well in Phase II trial 250 subjects were enrolled in 4 groups. Three groups were divided according to varying degrees of testosterone gel dosage while the fourth was placebo.