This is a weird comment. We focus on suicidal thoughts because suicidal thoughts are scary to people in a way that vomiting or a rash or blurred vision is not, because the former makes people consider a potentially life ending outcome, while the latter do not. Whether or not you agree with the relative ranking of these concerns, it ought to be easy to understand why.
And the rate of suicidal ideation per reported adverse event is irrelevant as something to compare unless you've also confirmed that the rate of adverse event reports is comparable between the two drugs. Have you? If so, why are you citing the rate per adverse event case rather than the rate relative to number of users, or doses?
Even so, even if they are in fact comparable, we're focusing on these drugs because they're fairly new and have seen an explosive increase in use, just like we've focused on other drugs when they've seen the same explosive increase in use. That people are extra interested in any potentially serious effects of a fairly new drug should not be surprising at all. Why does it surprise you?
Don't worry, I could have made it a much weirder comment. You know what else was reported in similar numbers as suicidal ideation, for Ozempic? Death. I'm pretty sure that's a whole lot scarier than thinking about death! That's a definitely life ending outcome! Incidentally, in a way really emblematic of how useful adverse event reports are, Wegovy has a single case of a gunshot wound, and I don't think the new exciting drug caused that.
Yes, I do play tricks with the aspirin comparison, but only to show just how wacky the original article is. If you think my two numbers are hard to compare, presumably you also agree that using a random case count with literally no context is effectively meaningless.
Furthermore, I think journalists doing statistics must be destroyed.
I’m pretty sure the nausea side effects of Ozempic/Wegovy is very widely reported and is included in nearly every article that talks about those drugs.
I think it should be pretty obvious why one would talk about suicidal ideation as opposed to nausea, blurry vision, etc.
And this might be one of the first articles I’ve come across talking about the suicidal ideation. The vast majority tend to focus on the other side effects.
My point was that the data doesn't seem point at suicidal ideation in any particular way. Adverse event reports contain literally every outcome in connection with every drug, you need a strong trend to claim that you aren't just seeing report noise. (But you're right that a newly discovered side-effect would be more interesting than a well known one.)
vidarh|2 years ago
And the rate of suicidal ideation per reported adverse event is irrelevant as something to compare unless you've also confirmed that the rate of adverse event reports is comparable between the two drugs. Have you? If so, why are you citing the rate per adverse event case rather than the rate relative to number of users, or doses?
Even so, even if they are in fact comparable, we're focusing on these drugs because they're fairly new and have seen an explosive increase in use, just like we've focused on other drugs when they've seen the same explosive increase in use. That people are extra interested in any potentially serious effects of a fairly new drug should not be surprising at all. Why does it surprise you?
arc-in-space|2 years ago
Yes, I do play tricks with the aspirin comparison, but only to show just how wacky the original article is. If you think my two numbers are hard to compare, presumably you also agree that using a random case count with literally no context is effectively meaningless.
Furthermore, I think journalists doing statistics must be destroyed.
addicted|2 years ago
I think it should be pretty obvious why one would talk about suicidal ideation as opposed to nausea, blurry vision, etc.
And this might be one of the first articles I’ve come across talking about the suicidal ideation. The vast majority tend to focus on the other side effects.
arc-in-space|2 years ago