Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

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.


When 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.


the studies obviously adjusted for variance when considering if their conclusions are significant, you're beating up a strawman


I'd happily double my risk of being hit by a meteorite for $10000.


0.02% 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.


All 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.


> 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.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: