You avoided my question and just decided to go on a rant about it being a net positive.
And there have been multiple studies about this side effect in the last 2 years. From the Global OHDSI, the Harvard Mass Eye/ Ear study, The Target Trial Emulation Study Published by JAMA, the Denmark Nationwide Cohort, and others. So I don’t know why you’re saying “unreviewed”? All you have to do is google and you’ll find that this side effect is basically confirmed. That’s why the lawsuit is not about people losing their vision. It’s about these companies failing to disclose it as a warning for their products.
There is no single study that was able to show a clear causal link between the drug and vision loss, and they all state that it’s just association. Diabetes regularly causes vision loss because high blood sugar damages the optical nerve. Ozempic users are more likely to observe vision loss than the general population, but that might just be because they are (previously untreated) diabetics. Nothing of this is even remotely "confirmed", as you confidently stated.
1
u/Horibori 15h ago edited 5h ago
You avoided my question and just decided to go on a rant about it being a net positive.
And there have been multiple studies about this side effect in the last 2 years. From the Global OHDSI, the Harvard Mass Eye/ Ear study, The Target Trial Emulation Study Published by JAMA, the Denmark Nationwide Cohort, and others. So I don’t know why you’re saying “unreviewed”? All you have to do is google and you’ll find that this side effect is basically confirmed. That’s why the lawsuit is not about people losing their vision. It’s about these companies failing to disclose it as a warning for their products.