Retatrutide is more effective at generating weight loss and other benefits for the people who take it, but there does seem to be a cardiac safety signal.
This could potentially be important *for people who have preexisting atrial fibrillation and CVD.*
Keep in mind, only one of these events became serious and the rest just passed: "Reported cardiac arrhythmias were mild to moderate in severity with the exception of one severe adverse event."
The reason for this signal seems to be a dose-dependent increase in heart rate.
Increasing heart rate could help to explain the added benefits of the drug for weight loss.
But I have doubts. Why? Because the heart rate increase was linearly dose-dependent, but weight loss tapped out at 8mg.
For almost everyone, this should be no big deal, but if you have a history of heart problems, maybe consider using a GLP-1RA product that does not contain glucagon, like semaglutide or tirzepatide.
Those drugs reduce arrhythmia risk and cut the incidence of MACEs immediately:
The hint that this is due to glucagon and not GLP-1R or GIPR agonism comes from sources like
- Trials of those drugs, showing reduced heart rates with weight loss (same scale as with non-pharmacotherapy approaches)
- A trial of the GLP-1RA/GCGN drug Mazdutide:
To recap:
There might be a rare issue with GLP-1RA-GCGN products
It's probably nothing to worry about if you have a healthy heart, but if you have a history of heart issues, maybe look elsewhere, and as always, the default advice is: consult your doctor before starting any drug
Gerrymandering is the death of centrism in America.
The more districts are uncompetitive, the less hope there is for moderate candidates, and the less value there is in moving to the center.
Gerrymandering means a more divisive and polarized America, with poorer governance🧵
A recent paper in the American Economic Review made the value of competitive elections clear using data from America and France.
Looking at American elections, when candidates are in their primaries, they're more radical. When they compete with the other party, they moderate.
The same thing is observed in France, where the multi-round elections come with extensive moderation for some, slight moderation for others, and essentially no moderation for those who are already at the nation's center.
The World Health Organization frequently adopts irresponsible positions.
For example, they recommended against using non-sugar sweeteners (NSS)—zero-calorie stuff like aspartame.
Why?
Because of non-causal evidence. But all the causally-informative evidence said it was good!
On the one hand, you have causal evidence screaming about one direction of effects that are theoretically expected. Among this evidence, there's one bad sign, but it's marginally significant (p = 0.012) among a bajillion effects examined.
AND THEY GOT THE EFFECT SIZE WRONG.
See that highlighted 95% CI? It looks really precise, no?
If you go to the actual study, you'll see it's about switching from sugary to sugar-free hot cocoa, and the effect they report is actually 0.
Where did they get that estimate?! They don't say, but it went in their meta!
The White House just issued an executive order to end cashless bail.
Over the last decade or so, many jurisdictions have adopted a policy where criminal offenders can walk free without having to pay bail.
They then routinely go on to commit more crime. This targets that🧵
Briefly, the way bail works in the U.S. is that the court allows a pretrial defendant—someone accused of a crime—to leave jail before their trial date if they can put up cash which they'll earn back if they appear for court.
This system works reasonably well for keeping jails reasonably uncrowded and ensuring that people show up for trial.
Critics allege that this system is unfair, however, because many defendants cannot make bail. They don't have the financial means, so they're kept in detention.