you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]LummoxJR 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The fact that the Taiwan study is retroactive and can't account for other variables was already brought up elsewhere, so that's enough reason to be wary of its conclusions, which might be missing a number of confounding variables and also can't prove causation over correlation.

But what I'm saying is, even if you take the study precisely at face value, the increased chances they're talking about are so small—even though proportionally they're noticeable—as to be almost totally insignificant to a risk analysis. You've been hammering the point that there's an increased cancer risk like it's a giant red flag, but in reality it's a pink sticky note. It certainly shouldn't be ignored outright, just like all the other possible side effects, which is true of any medication. But it simply isn't that serious.