Wait till Ozempic and the other ones are around for a few years and see what happens to people that took them. Remember back in the day when drugs REALLY had to be tested for YEARS???
Wait till Ozempic and the other ones are around for a few years and see what happens to people that took them. Remember back in the day when drugs REALLY had to be tested for YEARS???
It's impressive how readily this med has been adopted. The immediate side effects sound awful, and we don't really know exactly all that it does. I think we're going to see a train wreck a few years down the road.
It is frightening how readily this drug has taken off. I was disappointed to see Dr. Mandrola's post on his Stop and Think website where he basically sang the praises of Ozempic. He named the SELECT trial of this drug the best article of 2023 and the biggest story in medicine in the past ten years. In case you didn't see it the select trial looked at over 16.000 patients with a history of cardiovascular disease and randomly assigned them to the drug group or placebo and followed them for about 3 years. The end points were death from cardiovascular disease, nonfatal heart attacks, and nonfatal stroke. At the end of the trial the incidence for the drug group was 6.5% vs 8% for the controls. There were a lot of dropouts---about 16% for the drug group and about 8% for controls. When these are subtracted out the difference between the two is 7.7% and 8.6% respectively. Dr. Mandrol seems to have great faith in p values and confidence intervals as accurate gauges of statistical significance. Having read my book, you probably know that I disagree with this view. My advice to anyone reading journal articles is to disregard the statistical nonsense and just make a judgement using common sense to tell you if the differences are of any practical significance. In my opinion differences of 0.9%-1.5% in this case are meaningless. I am going on just the abstract for this study because the link given showed only that and I don't have access to the complete article. But I was also bothered by the fact that total (all cause) mortality was not listed as an end point. If it is not included in the full article, then I suspect they are hiding something.
Agree. Physicians practicing outside the insurance model are offering low-dose compounded Ozempic. This is popular in women's wellness clinics now, in addition to compounded hormone pellets.
Wait till Ozempic and the other ones are around for a few years and see what happens to people that took them. Remember back in the day when drugs REALLY had to be tested for YEARS???
It's impressive how readily this med has been adopted. The immediate side effects sound awful, and we don't really know exactly all that it does. I think we're going to see a train wreck a few years down the road.
It is frightening how readily this drug has taken off. I was disappointed to see Dr. Mandrola's post on his Stop and Think website where he basically sang the praises of Ozempic. He named the SELECT trial of this drug the best article of 2023 and the biggest story in medicine in the past ten years. In case you didn't see it the select trial looked at over 16.000 patients with a history of cardiovascular disease and randomly assigned them to the drug group or placebo and followed them for about 3 years. The end points were death from cardiovascular disease, nonfatal heart attacks, and nonfatal stroke. At the end of the trial the incidence for the drug group was 6.5% vs 8% for the controls. There were a lot of dropouts---about 16% for the drug group and about 8% for controls. When these are subtracted out the difference between the two is 7.7% and 8.6% respectively. Dr. Mandrol seems to have great faith in p values and confidence intervals as accurate gauges of statistical significance. Having read my book, you probably know that I disagree with this view. My advice to anyone reading journal articles is to disregard the statistical nonsense and just make a judgement using common sense to tell you if the differences are of any practical significance. In my opinion differences of 0.9%-1.5% in this case are meaningless. I am going on just the abstract for this study because the link given showed only that and I don't have access to the complete article. But I was also bothered by the fact that total (all cause) mortality was not listed as an end point. If it is not included in the full article, then I suspect they are hiding something.
Sci-Hub has most full texts for free.
Thanks for the tip. Being old and rather low on the tech scale I had no idea it was possible.
Agree. Physicians practicing outside the insurance model are offering low-dose compounded Ozempic. This is popular in women's wellness clinics now, in addition to compounded hormone pellets.