tendency
GLP-1 Enthusiast

Not sure if this has been brought up already but PSA: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/mar/10/wegovy-sudden-sight-loss-ozempic-study-semaglutide





My wife is on Dr prescribed tirzepatide for her diabetes. (Dont even get me started on how hard I had to fight to get the insurance to cover it)lessthanhalf said:I did find the study , apparently I was wrong and ozempic does go up to 2mg. Interesting that no effect was seen for tirzepatide. Sorting out what is statistical noise from data on those scales in those types of retrospective studies is hard, there will no doubt be may more studies on the same question.


I just learned that being born is 100% linked to dying............sorry................lol.................tendency said:Not sure if this has been brought up already but PSA: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/mar/10/wegovy-sudden-sight-loss-ozempic-study-semaglutide

For diabetics, annual or twice yearly diabetes eye exams are usual in the US. Not linked to glp/gip use.Rezn8 said:My wife is on Dr prescribed tirzepatide for her diabetes. (Dont even get me started on how hard I had to fight to get the insurance to cover it)
They doctors are actively monitoring her eyes for any signs of these eyesight issues. She has follow-up eyesight appointments twice a year.
It may simply be that because they saw ozempic causing eye issues, they are assuming tirzepatide may do the same, but they are definitely watching for it


They're saying that the Wegovy v. Ozempic numbers are likely a statistical artifact. In fact, the FAERS data all this comes has extreme limitations:quoted said:Although Wegovy produced fewer ION reports than Ozempic, its lower overall reporting yielded a higher ROR. Disproportionality reflects relative reporting rather than incidence and may be influenced by exposure, indication or media attention...This supports the suggestion that Wegovy’s stronger disproportionality signal reflects higher reporting intensity rather than volume.
They can't tell actual risk ratio from the data they've got, can't tell how much is media driven, can't tell whether it's concentrated in diabetics, can't tell whether it's a more or less severe form...in fact, they can't tell much.quoted said:As FAERS lacks denominator data, we could not determine true incidence or assess whether reports
clustered following regulatory recognition. It also lacks comorbidity data (eg, diabetes) for adjustment and does not capture disease severity, laterality or other granular phenotypic characteristics.




This is typically my take as well when I see articles like this. Risks from GLP use are not in a vacuum, they ought to be compared to the risks of obesity (in the least - you could also add the risks of yo-yo diets, bro science weight loss, etc.). In the vast majority of cases, the risks of GLP use are exceptionally less than obesity itself.CathyGoesFar said:BTW, if 10,000 people were obese there are likely to be 70-100 extra cases of cancer due to obesity and 7-20 are likely to be fatal. The possible risk to eyesight is something to consider but it needs to be put into perspective. Alarmist headlines like in that article can hurt a lot of people.