> Many of the biologics are also quite new, and the long term effects of taking them are not well understood.
It's interesting that this has become a talking point now for basically any new therapy. As soon as something new and promising comes out, we "don't understand the long-term effects" -- but this discounts (1) the years and years of research and development that go into them (2) the decades of research and development that has gone into the underlying platforms (3) the trials that have happened and (4) the known and understood negative effects of the disease being treated.
The FDA tends not to yolo new therapies.
We see this with GLP-1's all the time. They have side-effects, what will happen later, etc -- as though obesity doesn't have side-effects, and predispose you to every disease known to man?
I feel like this all started during the COVID vaccine hysteria, but maybe it was always there and I wasn't paying attention? I feel like a decade ago when a new treatment for a chronic disease came out people threw themselves at it.
I guess maybe as a concrete follow-up question: how many years would it take before you felt comfortable with it, and why that number specifically? 10? 20? 30?
I'm not trying to discourage the use of these drugs. In fact, I would absolutely use them if I required them- their potential benefits outweigh the risks. But I also must admit that I would still feel more than a bit nervous about it.
I also should point out that "long term effects of taking them are not well understood" isn't my personal opinion per se, it's something I've read in the literature about these drugs, including relatively recent research (I wish I had a good source that summarizes this point, but I don't have one on hand). Concern about long term effects is real and legitimate, and pre-dates concern about COVID-19 vaccines (another instance where I believe the benefit far outweighs the risk, for the record). There must always be a balance between spending time testing vs. getting a pharmaceutical deployed. It would be absurd to imply that we're not making a tradeoff here.
It's interesting that this has become a talking point now for basically any new therapy. As soon as something new and promising comes out, we "don't understand the long-term effects" -- but this discounts (1) the years and years of research and development that go into them (2) the decades of research and development that has gone into the underlying platforms (3) the trials that have happened and (4) the known and understood negative effects of the disease being treated.
The FDA tends not to yolo new therapies.
We see this with GLP-1's all the time. They have side-effects, what will happen later, etc -- as though obesity doesn't have side-effects, and predispose you to every disease known to man?
I feel like this all started during the COVID vaccine hysteria, but maybe it was always there and I wasn't paying attention? I feel like a decade ago when a new treatment for a chronic disease came out people threw themselves at it.
I guess maybe as a concrete follow-up question: how many years would it take before you felt comfortable with it, and why that number specifically? 10? 20? 30?