Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GLP-1s are being linked to fewer serious infections, including TB

gizmodo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 90 posts

Re: GLP-1s are being linked to fewer serious infections, including TB

#71

Post by clickety_clack »

j4yav wrote: post #60
clickety_clack wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By its fundamental design, an observational study cannot account for everything. That is the critique and it is a valid one.

That's true, and it's also one of those factoids that everybody already knows but certain people can't help themselves from bringing up every time it's even tenuously relevant.

It might be common sense if you work with statistics, but most people don’t, and the only way they would know these things is if someone says them.

Regardless, it was the top comment so people clearly think it was valuable enough to vote for.

Re: GLP-1s are being linked to fewer serious infections, including TB

#72

Post by j4yav »

clickety_clack wrote: post #71
j4yav wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's true, and it's also one of those factoids that everybody already knows but certain people can't help themselves from bringing up every time it's even tenuously relevant.

It might be common sense if you work with statistics, but most people don’t, and the only way they would know these things is if someone says them. Regardless, it was the top comment so people clearly think it was valuable enough to vote for.

[dead]

Re: GLP-1s are being linked to fewer serious infections, including TB

#73

Post by cestith »

bbeonx wrote: post #49

i can kinda get how a glp-1 can be a miracle drug for weight: if we assume that simple molecular fixes to problems will eventually be found by evolution, then when we change our environment rapidly (e.g., with cheap bountiful calories) then this presents an opportunity for a miracle drug, since evolution will take some time to find the fix. but for something like reducing disease infection, i find it a lot harder to…

I'm not a doctor or biologist, but remember that bacteria is a far simpler organism with a much shorter individual lifespan than a human. Depending on the species and their environment, they might divide every 12 minutes or every 24 hours. A new human generation will be more 15 to 35 years. Their reproduction is also simpler. Genes are inherited or mutated mostly at the time of reproduction. Selection is mostly therefore over the course of generations.

These things together mean their microevolution is on a different timescale than ours.

Re: GLP-1s are being linked to fewer serious infections, including TB

#75

Post by amanaplanacanal »

rglover wrote: post #50

> Using a large database of (deidentified) medical records, the researchers compared the outcomes of people taking a GLP-1 for their type 2 diabetes to people taking other common diabetes drugs between 2017 and 2025. GLP-1 users were significantly less likely to be diagnosed with TB for up to a five-year span, they found. This is incredibly manipulative. So, we're going to ignore all other factors that may have playe…

You read reporting about a study, made assumptions that it was bad, and posted your opinion without actually reading the study to see whether the scientists involved were smart enough to try to rule out other factors.

I've done this myself, but we should do better.

Re: GLP-1s are being linked to fewer serious infections, including TB

#76

Post by jawilson2 »

clickety_clack wrote: post #42
wvenable wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the commenter read the study and found that they did not, in fact, account for that then it would be valid to point it out here. Otherwise, it's just a waste of our time.

By its fundamental design, an observational study cannot account for everything. That is the critique and it is a valid one.

This was published in Nature, I'm pretty sure the reviewers understand and account for that. HN and reasonably educated people always think this is some huge gotcha, second only to "CORRELATION != CAUSATION!!!!"

Re: GLP-1s are being linked to fewer serious infections, including TB

#77

Post by faangguyindia »

inglor_cz wrote: post #59
faangguyindia wrote: post #28

[flagged]

"GLP medications blunt your appetite so you eat less, but you still end up feeling completely drained because your body lacks fuel." How many people report that? Not that many, AFAIK. "GLP drugs cannot distinguish between nutrient-dense meals and the junk food binges you are trying to avoid." This again goes against what people report - aversion to junk food so strong that McDonalds et al. consider this a potential t…

If GLPs were that effective, why would these people need such a guide?https://www.reddit.com/r/tirzepatidecompound/comments/1omfgx...

Re: GLP-1s are being linked to fewer serious infections, including TB

#78

Post by joshstrange »

Question for people using GLP-1s: Do you plan to stay on them indefinitely? Are you concerned about gaining back the weight if you ever stop taking them?

I've had success with weight loss through diet and exercise (exclusive and inclusive at different points) but had trouble keeping it off. GLP-1s are attractive for sure but I cannot make up my mind on if it's worth the risks (both known and unknown). I know everything has risks, including lots of risks about being overweight and maybe keeping the weight off is an easier problem for a healthier version of myself after using a GLP-1. I don't know.

Re: GLP-1s are being linked to fewer serious infections, including TB

#79

Post by wvenable »

clickety_clack wrote: post #71
j4yav wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's true, and it's also one of those factoids that everybody already knows but certain people can't help themselves from bringing up every time it's even tenuously relevant.

It might be common sense if you work with statistics, but most people don’t, and the only way they would know these things is if someone says them. Regardless, it was the top comment so people clearly think it was valuable enough to vote for.

The fact that it was the top comment only shows that people agreed or liked it, not that it was actually valuable, accurate, or useful. Popularity and value aren't the same thing, correlation is not causation, etc, etc...

Re: GLP-1s are being linked to fewer serious infections, including TB

#80

Post by rglover »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #75
rglover wrote: post #50

> Using a large database of (deidentified) medical records, the researchers compared the outcomes of people taking a GLP-1 for their type 2 diabetes to people taking other common diabetes drugs between 2017 and 2025. GLP-1 users were significantly less likely to be diagnosed with TB for up to a five-year span, they found. This is incredibly manipulative. So, we're going to ignore all other factors that may have playe…

You read reporting about a study, made assumptions that it was bad, and posted your opinion without actually reading the study to see whether the scientists involved were smart enough to try to rule out other factors. I've done this myself, but we should do better.

I read a news report on the study that was linked, yes. But my issue isn't with the researchers/their process, it's with how this is presented in the headline vs. what the actual reason was backing the claim.

There's nothing to "do better" about; you just don't like my opinion (and that's perfectly fine).

Post reply on HN