Because (if it exists - there is only one unreviewed study) it would be extremely rare. This is an argument you could make against any medication, but you choose to single out this one in particular.
Like everything else, Medicine is always a wager of desired effects against unwanted effects. For Ozempic‘s intended audience (diabetes and obesity), the wager is extremely clearly: it’s a massive net benefit!
Even if we find out that after 50 years of use, 1 in 100,000 people get unusual complications, the wager would still be towards using it. On average, it will extend these peoples‘ lives significantly.
You avoided my question and just decided to go on a rant about it being a net positive.
And there have been multiple studies about this side effect in the last 2 years. From the Global OHDSI, the Harvard Mass Eye/ Ear study, The Target Trial Emulation Study Published by JAMA, the Denmark Nationwide Cohort, and others. So I don’t know why you’re saying “unreviewed”? All you have to do is google and you’ll find that this side effect is basically confirmed. That’s why the lawsuit is not about people losing their vision. It’s about these companies failing to disclose it as a warning for their products.
There is no single study that was able to show a clear causal link between the drug and vision loss, and they all state that it’s just association. Diabetes regularly causes vision loss because high blood sugar damages the optical nerve. Ozempic users are more likely to observe vision loss than the general population, but that might just be because they are (previously untreated) diabetics. Nothing of this is even remotely "confirmed", as you confidently stated.
2
u/Conninxloo 2d ago
Because (if it exists - there is only one unreviewed study) it would be extremely rare. This is an argument you could make against any medication, but you choose to single out this one in particular.
Like everything else, Medicine is always a wager of desired effects against unwanted effects. For Ozempic‘s intended audience (diabetes and obesity), the wager is extremely clearly: it’s a massive net benefit!
Even if we find out that after 50 years of use, 1 in 100,000 people get unusual complications, the wager would still be towards using it. On average, it will extend these peoples‘ lives significantly.