An emergency department visit, described afterwards Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did.
Two things I would like separated before anyone answers on emergency department visit, because they get bundled and then argued about as one thing.
The first is descriptive: what has actually been observed, by whom, and how. The second is causal: why. I am asking about the first only.
Medullary thyroid carcinoma is the reason these compounds are contraindicated in people with personal or family history of MTC or multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2. Rodent toxicology showed a signal; human evidence of causation is absent but caution is appropriate.
Not the whole picture, but the part of it I can speak to.
The arithmetic in the opening post is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
A request rather than an answer: could whoever has the primary source for emergency department visit post it? I have seen the claim three times this month and each version had lost a qualifier.
Two claims get bundled together under emergency department visit and they need separating. The descriptive one — this is what was observed — is usually well supported. The causal one — this is why — usually is not.
Almost every disagreement in threads like this one dissolves once you say which of the two you are making.
Post #5 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
What would change my mind on emergency department visit is a second dataset collected by someone with no stake in the first. Until then I hold it loosely and I would rather say so than pretend to more.
Injection-site reactions that spread over a day or come with systemic symptoms are a different observation from ordinary local reactions.
Take it as a starting point and not as a specification.
Post #5 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
Emergency department visit has been discussed here with more heat than it deserves, mostly because two definitions have been in play the whole time.
Reporting here and reporting to a national scheme are not alternatives. The second is what feeds safety surveillance.
It cost nothing to check and would have cost something not to.
Picking up post #10: that is the part I would want checked first.
Having read the whole emergency department visit thread before replying: the question in the first post has not actually been answered yet, and three of us have answered a nearby one instead.
On post #13 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
An honest declaration on emergency department visit: I have a prior here and it is strong enough that you should weight what I say downward. Stating it rather than hiding it.
Gallbladder symptoms during rapid weight loss are described in this class and are also associated with rapid weight loss generally. Both can be true.
A partial answer, offered because a partial answer beats none.
On post #16 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Emergency department visit looks different depending on whether you are reading the primary literature or the summaries of it, and the difference is not in our favour.
Nothing here is medical advice, and in this subcategory the phrase is doing more work than in any other on the site.
I had written a reply contradicting post #16 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
The strongest argument against my own position on emergency department visit, stated as well as I can state it, since nobody else has yet.
The useful distinction on emergency department visit is between what was measured and what was inferred from it. Both end up in the same sentence and only one of them has error bars.
Picking up post #21: that is the part I would want checked first.
The published trial rates come from supervised populations on defined schedules and are not comparable to rates derived from who chooses to post.
I had written a reply contradicting post #21 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
Source for the emergency department visit figure, since it was asked for. It is in the discussion rather than the abstract, which is why the version circulating is stronger than the paper is.
Reading the surrounding paragraph is worth the two minutes. The authors are more careful than their summarisers.
Speaking only to emergency department visit as I have actually seen it, rather than as it is usually described: the effect is real, it is smaller than the thread suggests, and the variance between people is larger than the effect.
Worth separating two things that post #21 runs together.
Nothing here is medical advice, and in this subcategory the phrase is doing more work than in any other on the site.
This follows post #25 rather than contradicting it.
I would rather this thread reach "we do not know" about emergency department visit than reach a confident answer that nobody can support when asked.
I changed my mind about emergency department visit after someone here asked me for the source and I could not produce one. That is worth saying out loud because it is the ordinary way it happens.
Injection-site reactions that spread over a day or come with systemic symptoms are a different observation from ordinary local reactions.
One case, stated as one case.
Reading rather than answering, but this is the post I would point somebody at.
Where the emergency department visit reasoning breaks down for me is the step from the group result to the individual case. That step is almost never argued for.