Replies to post #318744 on Bioelectronics Corp (BIEL)

[JNdouble1]

Not quite...

Lets look at the second reference first, it' easier to dismiss.

In addition, 50% of the subjects were able to reduce or eliminate analgesic medication use including those using opiate-based medications.

So, some of the 50% reduced their opioid use, i.e. less than 50 percent of the population. This does not satisfy the challenge. Note that they don't specify the amount of analgesic reduction. Since the challenge is about a "50 to 60% opioid reduction", that would require complete cessation of usage from 50 to 60% of the participants. That is not what is described in this reference. The work that this reference is about has been discussed here a number of times. It's the large UK registry study. It is interesting work, and definitely has value, but the numbers and results simply don't validate the 50 t0 60% reduction claim.


The first reference is closer, sort of. This document is a collection of materials including copies of peer reviewed publications, and some internal white paper sources. Most of it is related to wound healing and is really quite interesting. This was some of the work that got me interested in the first place. The most relevant document included in this collection is found at page 89 of the referenced document:

Rawe, I. M., Lowenstein, A., Barcelo, C. R., & Genecov, D. G. (2011). Control of postoperative pain with a wearable continuously operating pulsed radiofrequency energy device: A preliminary study. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, 36(2), 458–463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-011-9828-3

In this study, there were 10 patients in the active group, the group that used RecoveryRx, and 8 patients in the placebo group. The active group used 110 opioid pills during the study, and the placebo group used 145 pills during the study. This is a 24% decrease in opioid consumption by the active group over the course of the study.

The authors cite a 68% increase in opioid use by the placebo group. This is an example of how to use numbers and statistics to massage the message so to speak. It's the same as when your stock doubles in price, it's a 100% gain, but when it drops in half, it's a 50% decrease. The claim we are challenging is a 50% to 60% reduction in opioids. The data is still not there.

The authors also point out that one of the members of the active group used more pills than the average. With the outlier removed, the decrease in opioid use in the active group becomes 47%. This is close to the 50% threshold of the disputed claim, but not quite good enough. You can play around with numbers, and look at means and medians, but that is just looking for ways to fit your bias to the data.

The conclusion is that there is no justification for the claim of 50% to 60% reduction in opiods.