Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Ernest N. Curtis's avatar

Isn't this just another pharmaceutical con job? As a skeptical cardiologist myself, one of my firm rules is to never give figures of relative risk reduction. They are only used to sell drugs or other treatments that show such small real risk reductions that no one with any common sense would take them seriously. Granted that is logistically difficult (if not impossible) to determine risk in a disorder such as atherosclerosis that is gradually progressive with age but punctuated by acute complications (infarctions). Few drugs or studies of risk factor reduction modalities show any significant effect beyond that shown for baby aspirin (also not of any practical significance). In my opinion, we have no idea how to prevent complications of this ubiquitous process of atherosclerosis and should concentrate on improvements in treating them when they arise. There is no harm in recommending changes in "lifestyle" factors that one believes may be helpful but I draw the line at giving medications which are not only expensive but may be harmful.

Expand full comment
Regina's avatar

I have a concern about "weight loss." I have heard discussion that a significant amount of weight loss from semaglutide is muscle loss, which I believe we would largely agree is a bad thing. Is this tracked in any of the studies being referenced? For context, I am a cancer survivor, and during chemo, I gained 22 lbs of edema on top of what had been an athletic body (active duty military). All of the information I was given about "weight gain during chemo" was actually about fat gain, and it was completely unhelpful. "Weight" can be gained or lost as fat, muscle, or fluids (at the least) and there needs to be distinctions made for healthy weight loss.

Expand full comment
34 more comments...

No posts