We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
this is in my opinion a significant limitation of this study because what you're basically doing is saying we're only going to consider the patients who were on Metformin stayed on Metformin and never progressed through it and we're going to compare those to people who were not having type 2 diabetes
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
that was the first time I went back and said wait a minute this information this this informative censoring thing is that's a little fishy and I think we weren't looking at a true group of real type 2 diabetics
I think there were a lot of holes in the banister study um and I think they center around methodology something called informative censoring where the patients who were in The metformin diabetes arm um were sensored out of the analysis that demonstrated A reduced mortality if they were lost to followup um if they died or uh pardon me um if they um or if they had a medication change so — and usually a medication change on someone who's only taking metformin is meaning that the disease is progressing so you're adding another medication so the problem with that is uh I think obvious when you realize that you were censoring out people who were sicker and you were actually selecting for the healthiest possible people not to mention the fact that um you're also you know not doing this in a randomized fashion
the Banister paper had too many methodologic flaws to be valid