61–70 of 107 posts
It drives me nuts when these things say stuff like "doubles your risk" w/o giving the original risk. Risk doubling from 5% to 10% is not in the same universe as risk doubling from .02% to .04%, which I believe is the actual risk in this case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't untreated diabetes also cause blindness in some people? definitely seems better to take it than not.
It does. High blood sugar levels are hard on every system in the body. One thing about semaglutide is that it can lower blood sugar levels past normal, too. One of my diabetic friends had to lower her dose of Ozempic precisely for this reason. In general, it wouldn't surprise me if pathologies that involve ischemia could be exacerbated by a treatment that lowers energy supply as well.
Important to note that this side effect is still very rare and that we still use drugs with similarly serious and rare side effects. The authors of the study do not recommend abandoning these drugs, rather we should understand and manage the risks.
Doesn't untreated diabetes also cause blindness in some people? definitely seems better to take it than not.
If you have debilitating diabetes that has failed to respond to changes in exercise and diet. If your taking the drug as some type of "weight loss short cut" you should possibly reconsider that position.
It drives me nuts when these things say stuff like "doubles your risk" w/o giving the original risk. Risk doubling from 5% to 10% is not in the same universe as risk doubling from .02% to .04%, which I believe is the actual risk in this case.
In terms of outcome, it maybe a tolerable risk, but anything that flat out doubles the risk ratio is fairly concerning; in particular, where the mechanisms are not well understood.
You are right in that the mechanisms may not be well-understood. This does warrant further study, as the paper concludes.
If you literally cannot stop yourself from being obese any other way, then Ozempic and similar may be a good choice. But the side effects are large. You can never, ever stop taking it. We don't know what being on it for decades causes. There are anecdotes that it numbs you out emotionally. There are no shortcuts in life. There is always a tradeoff.
Human civilization is built on the creation of shortcuts. Insulin is a shortcut for T1 diabetics to avoid death.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Civilization is built on long term sustainable practice, shortcuts in response to the lack of such practices is how civilizations burn down. Obviously T1 diabetics need to take medication because there's not much else they can do whatever side effects that has, but the topic is obviously relevant and posted here because these drugs are currently being used/abused for weight loss. Given that sustainable, side effect f…
> Given that sustainable, side effect free ways to lose weight exist (with many additional benefits) Just because it exists doesn't mean it's statistically applicable to a population of people. I've yet to see real evidence that on a population scale, sustainable and side effect free ways to lose weight exists at a statistically significant level. If you're 100+ lbs overweight and you lose it all without any medical…
https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/global-obesity-rates/
It’s a policy intervention from the mid 2000s onwards and I kinda doubt the policy is “mandatory Ozempic injections”.
It drives me nuts when these things say stuff like "doubles your risk" w/o giving the original risk. Risk doubling from 5% to 10% is not in the same universe as risk doubling from .02% to .04%, which I believe is the actual risk in this case.
In terms of outcome, it maybe a tolerable risk, but anything that flat out doubles the risk ratio is fairly concerning; in particular, where the mechanisms are not well understood.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In terms of outcome, it maybe a tolerable risk, but anything that flat out doubles the risk ratio is fairly concerning; in particular, where the mechanisms are not well understood.
When the numbers were small to begin with, a doubled risk ratio could just be the result of statistical noise. You are right in that the mechanisms may not be well-understood. This does warrant further study, as the paper concludes.
It drives me nuts when these things say stuff like "doubles your risk" w/o giving the original risk. Risk doubling from 5% to 10% is not in the same universe as risk doubling from .02% to .04%, which I believe is the actual risk in this case.
> During 1,915,120 person-years of observation, 218 persons developed NAION. Semaglutide 51 exposure associated with a higher incidence rate (0·228 vs 0·093 per 1000 person-years, p> In this cohort study conducted in Denmark and Norway, use of semaglutide was associated with an increased risk of NAION; the pooled hazard ratio was 2.81 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.67 to 4.75) and the incidence rate difference (absolute risk increase) was +1.41 (95% CI +0.53 to +2.29) NAION events per 10,000 person-years. The finding was consistent across sensitivity and supplementary analysis.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Diet alone is 100% guaranteed to cause you to lose weight. It really is as easy as counting calories. It is a scientific fact. It is physically impossible to gain, or maintain weight, if you cut caloric intake sufficiently.
Yes, and abstaining from alcohol is guaranteed to stop alcoholism! It is a scientific fact. It is physically impossible to be an alcoholic if you cut alcohol intake sufficiently. It's so simple, really. (See the problem here?)