4 ms·
In terms of outcome, it maybe a tolerable risk, but anything that flat out doubles the risk ratio is fairly concerning; in particular, where the mechanisms
by akira2501 2y ago
In terms of outcome, it maybe a tolerable risk, but anything that flat out doubles the risk ratio is fairly concerning; in particular, where the mechanisms are not well understood.
- yen223 2y agoWhen the numbers were small to begin with, a doubled risk ratio could just be the result of statistical noise. You are right in that the mechanisms may not be well-understood. This does warrant further study, as the paper concludes.
- whimsicalism 2y agothe studies obviously adjusted for variance when considering if their conclusions are significant, you're beating up a strawman
- operator-name 2y agoAll medications increases the risks of side effects, but they are prescribed because the benifits outweigh the downsides - even if little is known about their mechanism.
- akira2501 2y ago> but they are prescribed because the benifits outweigh the downsides Some are. Some are simply prescribed because the patient asks for them. > even if little is known about their mechanism. I wouldn't take it unless my condition was immediately life threatening and there were no other medications available. There are very few classes of treatment that fall within these parameters.
- himinlomax 2y agoI'd happily double my risk of being hit by a meteorite for $10000.
- akira2501 2y ago0.02% relative risk increase implies 2 in 10,000 will end up with the condition where they would not otherwise. Your chances of being hit by a meteorite are _at most_ 1 in 1,000,000. My happiness would not extend across several orders of magnitude like that, but perhaps, some people just need the $10k more than I would.