As long as we’re on the topic (from yesterday’s observations about Wagovy), let’s take a look at another article about a similar injectable in wide use: Trulicity. 
Here is probably the most important paragraph in the article written by John Abramson: (If you don’t have time to read the article, please at least read the excerpt )
)” In my recent book, I talk about Trulicity—a diabetes drug that reduces the risk of heart disease. It was heavily advertised on TV and heavily marketed to doctors. But what wasn’t publicized or shared with doctors is Trulicity’s NNT—which stands for “number needed to treat.” The NNT tells you how many patients have to be treated, and for how long, for one patient to benefit from a drug. In the case of Trulicity, it turns out that you have to treat 327 people for approximately three years in order to prevent one non-fatal heart event. And treating just those 327 people over that time period would cost the public $2.7 million. Wouldn’t knowing these numbers make a difference to a doctor deciding whether to prescribe the drug? Or to a patient deciding whether to request the drug? And this is leaving aside the possible negative side effects—and the “number needed to harm” for each of them—which clinical trials often fail to monitor and more often fail to report in journal articles. “
Benefit versus risk friends. Know your choices! There’s a better way.
xoxo~ liz
Link to full article:
