Let’s say there’s a disease called Globmoklo, it kills millions of people every year. A marker in the blood Glob-B randomly assigned show that people with a marker very low, rarely gets Globmoklo, up to 80% reduction. Since the Globmoklo disease is so common, it’s a high likelihood you will get the disease too, especially if you live longer than others, and the disease grows cumulatively over time. Some scientists have built drugs that reduce Glob-B. They find that it lowers rates of Globmoklo as expected, albeit not as much because the duration is shorter than those who naturally by randomization have lower Glob-B for a long-time, their entire lives. The drugs that reduce Glob-B become very popular, and meta analysis of randomized controlled trials show their efficacy in even reducing all-cause mortality in the elderly depending on the rate of Glob-B reduction. Experts believe that if you reduce Glob-B enough, and for a long time, you will not get Globmoklo. It seems reasonable as there is only a ~20%p catch up to near 100% reduction.
The Glob-B drugs show very few side effects. Only a few percent, to 10 percent get muscle aches, which stop after people take the drugs. These side effects are established in gold standard randomized controlled trials. Some with almost 20,000 participants with a double-blind design. Some do get blood sugar problems, which go away after stopping. Very impactful side effects are very rare.
However there are mixed results in association studies of Glob-B reducing drugs when it comes to cognition, and other things. There are a lot of skeptics about Glob-B reducing drugs, they like to post the association studies which show a negative association, not any positive ones. Even though Glob-B reducing drugs are off-patent, and available in generic forms, and very cheaply. They can think it’s just a big pharma conspiracy theory, while millions are still dying from Globmoklo. Many because they aren’t treated sooner. Most start treatment when they already have advanced disease, or will have so soon. And it’s based on 10-year risks rather than 30-year risks or lifetime risks of the disease.
You are the person posting those negative association studies, deeming them to be risky, saying it is so risky and not worth the reward, albeit for those with relatively low Glob-B levels. While others are questioning the association studies, and look at the situation holistically and in mind of the massive studies and level of evidence behind them.
Are you able to stop focusing on the “side effects”, the negative part of association studies of Glob-B reducing drugs, and see the bigger picture? You seem to be intensely focused on a very small part of the picture.
