Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Truth Seekers: Where Data Meets Reality
Tired of sensational headlines and conflicting health advice? Join Alex Barrett and Bill Morrison as they cut through the noise to uncover what scientific research actually says about the claims flooding your social media feed.
Each week, Alex and Bill tackle a different health, nutrition, or wellness claim that everyone's talking about. From "blue light ruins your sleep" to "seed oils are toxic," they dig into the actual studies, examine the methodologies, and translate the data into plain English.
No agenda. No sponsors to please. No credentials to fake. Just two people committed to finding out what's really true by going straight to the source—the research itself.
Perfect for anyone who's skeptical of influencer health advice but doesn't have time to read every scientific study themselves. New episodes drop regularly, delivering clarity in a world full of clickbait.
Question everything. Verify with data. Find the truth.
Disclaimer: Truth Seekers provides educational content based on published research. Nothing in this podcast should be considered medical, financial, or professional advice. Always consult qualified professionals for decisions affecting your health and wellbeing.
**The Ozempic Math Doesn't Add Up**
Alex: "Twenty percent reduction in heart attacks." That's what every headline said about Wegovy last year. Twenty percent. Massive, right?
Bill: One point five percent.
Alex: Sorry, what?
Bill: The actual reduction was one point five percent. Not twenty.
Alex: Hang on, that's... that's not even close to the same thing.
Bill: It's absolutely not. And this is the problem with how these GLP-1 drugs—Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro—are being talked about. The numbers in the press releases and the numbers in the actual studies are telling completely different stories.
Alex: Right, so we've all seen the hype. Celebrities on Instagram, everyone's mate apparently on it, headlines saying it's this safe, effective solution for weight loss. Even cardiovascular benefits now.
Bill: The weight loss part is real. That's not the issue. People do lose significant weight on these drugs.
Alex: But that "twenty percent" claim. Walk me through what actually happened there because I'm trying to work out how you get from one point five to twenty.
Bill: Okay, so there was this massive trial called SELECT. Novo Nordisk—the company that makes Wegovy—studied over seventeen thousand people. They wanted to see if semaglutide, that's the drug in Wegovy, reduced cardiovascular events.
Alex: Heart attacks, strokes, that sort of thing.
Bill: Exactly. And in their press release, they said the drug reduced major cardiovascular events by twenty percent. Headlines ran with that number everywhere.
Alex: Because twenty percent sounds brilliant. One in five events prevented.
Bill: But here's what the data actually showed. In the placebo group, eight percent of people had a cardiovascular event during the trial. In the Wegovy group, six point five percent did.
Alex: So that's... eight percent down to six point five percent. Which is one point five percent.
Bill: Right. That's the absolute difference. That's what actually happened to real people in the study.
Alex: But they said twenty percent.
Bill: That's the relative risk reduction. They're comparing the difference—one point five—to the original rate of eight percent. One point five is roughly twenty percent of eight. So technically true, but—
Alex: But it makes the benefit sound way bigger than it is. That's properly misleading though. When I hear "twenty percent reduction," I'm thinking one in five people benefit. Not... what's the actual number?
Bill: We can calculate what's called the number needed to treat. It's how many people need to take the drug for one person to benefit.
Alex: Go on.
Bill: Sixty-seven people would need to take Wegovy for thirty-four months—that's nearly three years—to prevent one cardiovascular event.
Alex: Sixty-seven people.
Bill: Yeah.
Alex: Twelve to sixteen thousand dollars per person per year. For one event prevented.
Bill: And that's assuming they all stay on it, which—we'll get to this—most people don't.
Alex: Okay, but hold on. I want to push back on something here because even if the benefit is smaller than advertised, it's still a benefit, yeah? For people at high risk of heart attack?
Bill: Sure, but—
Alex: No, I mean, one point five percent sounds small when you say it like that, but we're talking about preventing heart attacks. That's not nothing.
Bill: I'm not saying it's nothing. I'm saying the way it's being communicated makes people think the benefit is way larger than it actually is.
Alex: Right, but you're doing the thing where you focus on the statistical framing and I'm thinking about an actual person who doesn't have a heart attack because they took this drug. That person doesn't care if it's one point five percent or twenty percent, do they?
Bill: Okay, that's fair. But the cost-benefit calculation changes dramatically depending on which number you're working with. If you think twenty percent of people benefit, you make different decisions than if you know it's one in sixty-seven.
Alex: Mmm.
Bill: And here's the thing—the SELECT trial didn't study average people trying to lose weight. Every single person in that study had established cardiovascular disease. They'd already had a heart attack, or stroke, or they had diagnosed heart disease. And they were obese or overweight.
Alex: So they were high-risk to begin with.
Bill: Very high-risk. That eight percent rate of cardiovascular events over three years? That's way higher than you'd see in someone without existing heart disease.
Alex: Okay, so hang on. The drug is being prescribed to people who don't have heart disease.
Bill: Right. The cardiovascular benefits have only been proven in people who already have cardiovascular problems. We have no randomized trials showing these benefits in healthier people just trying to lose weight.
Alex: But that's exactly how it's being marketed. I've seen adverts, articles, people talking about it like it's protective for anyone who takes it.
Bill: That's the gap. The study population and the marketing population are completely different.
Alex: Wait, didn't we talk about this before? The Wegovy thing? I feel like we've covered this.
Bill: The cardiovascular claims?
Alex: Yeah, something about how they don't actually know why it works for the heart. Or... am I making that up?
Bill: No, you're right. The mechanisms thing. We did that in January, I think.
Alex: Right, okay. So we're coming at the same trial from a different angle.
Bill: Yeah, this is more about the statistical sleight of hand in how the benefits get reported.
Alex: Which, when I was in journalism, this is exactly what you'd see. A press release would highlight the most exciting number, and that becomes the headline. No one checked what it actually meant in context.
Bill: And to be fair to the researchers, the study paper does report both numbers. But Novo Nordisk's press release led with the twenty percent. That's what got picked up.
Alex: Because it sounds better. Which brings me to the other bit of this—who's actually getting prescribed these drugs? Because the claim I kept seeing was that they're going to "healthy people for lifestyle weight loss." Is that true?
Bill: So there was a big study published this year looking at real-world prescriptions. Over four thousand people prescribed tirzepatide—that's Mounjaro or Zepbound—without diabetes.
Alex: Not the diabetic patients these were originally designed for.
Bill: Right. Off-label prescribing. But here's what they found: seventy-three point eight percent of those people had at least one obesity-related complication. Hypertension, high cholesterol, kidney disease.
Alex: So not exactly "healthy people."
Bill: Not by a medical definition, no. Most had chronic conditions. The average BMI was thirty-seven, which is well into the obesity range. These weren't people trying to lose a bit of weight for a holiday.
Alex: But the framing was "cosmetic weight loss" in all the coverage.
Bill: Yeah. And to be clear, there is indication creep happening. Doctors are prescribing diabetes formulations like Mounjaro off-label instead of the FDA-approved weight loss versions like Zepbound. But it's not typically going to people with zero health concerns.
Alex: Although we don't actually know if it's safe for truly healthy people, do we?
Bill: We don't. There are no randomized controlled trials in healthy populations. The longest trials we have are two to four years, and they're all in people with obesity or diabetes.
Alex: How long were the trials? Two years?
Bill: Two to four years.
Alex: Right.
Bill: The WHO commissioned a big review last year, and they explicitly said evidence on long-term safety is "limited or uncertain."
Alex: Which makes calling it a "safe, effective solution" quite a claim.
Bill: Right. And then there's the "solution" part, which is where this really falls apart.
Alex: The discontinuation rates.
Bill: The discontinuation rates. In clinical trials, where people are monitored closely and everything's free, participants tend to stick with it. But in the real world, it's a different story.
Alex: How bad are we talking?
Bill: A Cleveland Clinic study found only nineteen percent of people were still taking the medication after one year.
Alex: Jesus. So eighty percent quit?
Bill: Eighty-one percent, yeah. Other studies found between fifty and sixty-four percent of non-diabetic patients stopped within a year.
Alex: That's more than half quitting even in the better studies.
Bill: And when people stop, the weight comes back. A systematic review published this year found that people regain about two-thirds of the weight they lost within a year of stopping.
Alex: Two-thirds. So if you lost thirty pounds, you're gaining twenty back.
Bill: And it comes back faster than with behavioral weight loss programs. About point three kilograms per month faster.
Alex: Wait, point three per month faster, or point three total?
Bill: Per month. So it's accelerated regain compared to other methods.
Alex: Huh. So you're paying twelve to sixteen thousand dollars a year for something that only works while you're taking it, and most people can't stay on it.
Bill: That's the reality, yeah. It's not a solution in the way most people think of solutions. It's a chronic treatment that requires indefinite use.
Alex: And the side effects aren't exactly minor, are they? I've heard people talk about constant nausea, vomiting, all sorts of digestive problems.
Bill: One survey found eighty-four percent of users experienced side effects.
Alex: Eighty-four percent?
Bill: Yeah. Most are gastrointestinal—nausea, diarrhea. Some people develop gastroparesis, which is basically stomach paralysis. There are concerns about gallbladder disease, pancreatitis.
Alex: That's quite a list for something being sold as safe.
Bill: Well, it's safe relative to the risks of obesity in people who are already obese with comorbidities. That's a very different calculation than for someone who's generally healthy.
Alex: And we keep coming back to that. The studies are in sick people. The benefits are proven in sick people. But the marketing makes it sound universal.
Bill: That's the core issue. Eli Lilly, the company that makes Mounjaro, actually put out a statement last year saying these drugs "are meant for serious diseases, not cosmetic weight loss." Even they're trying to walk back the hype a bit.
Alex: After it's already everywhere, of course.
Bill: The FDA sent them a warning letter about overstating safety and minimizing risks. So even regulators are concerned about how this is being communicated.
Alex: What gets me is that the weight loss itself is real. People do lose—what was it, fourteen to seventeen percent of their body weight in trials?
Bill: Yeah, that's about right. Fourteen to seventeen percent.
Alex: That's significant.
Bill: It is. For someone with obesity and related health problems, that can be genuinely helpful.
Alex: But calling it a solution when most people can't afford to stay on it, or can't tolerate the side effects, or just stop taking it for whatever reason, and then gain the weight back... that's not a solution. That's a very expensive temporary intervention.
Bill: And the cardiovascular benefits that are being used to justify broader prescribing? Only proven in a specific high-risk population. Not in the typical person seeking weight loss.
Alex: Actually, going back to what I was saying earlier—I do think I was being a bit unfair. The one point five percent thing.
Bill: How so?
Alex: I mean, I still think for someone with existing heart disease, that benefit might matter. But you're right that the way it's communicated is the problem. If everyone thinks it's twenty percent, then people without heart disease think they're getting this massive protective effect when we don't actually have evidence for that.
Bill: Right. And when you're paying sixteen thousand dollars a year, you need to know what you're actually getting.
Alex: Yeah, okay. Fair.
Bill: This is reminding me of when I was doing A/B testing at my old job. We'd get a result that showed, like, a fifteen percent relative improvement in click-through rate, and the marketing team would run with it. But when you looked at the absolute numbers, it was like point two percent more people clicking. Technically accurate, but completely different implications.
Alex: Did you push back on that?
Bill: Sometimes. Not as much as I should have. Which is part of why I got out of that work, honestly.
Alex: Right. Anyway, what were we—oh, the takeaway. What should people actually make of this? Because I don't want to say "these drugs are terrible, no one should take them." That's not what the evidence shows either.
Bill: Right. The evidence shows they can be effective for weight loss in people with obesity, especially if they have related health conditions. The cardiovascular benefits are real if you already have cardiovascular disease.
Alex: But watch out for that relative versus absolute risk trick. Twenty percent relative could be one point five percent absolute.
Bill: Always ask: what's the actual difference in outcomes? How many people need to be treated for one person to benefit? Those are the numbers that matter.
Alex: And if someone's pitching this as a simple solution, ask what happens when you stop taking it. Because if the answer is "everything reverses," it's not really solving the underlying issue.
Bill: We don't have long-term safety data beyond a few years. We don't have studies in healthy populations. And we definitely don't have evidence that the cardiovascular benefits apply to everyone taking these drugs.
Alex: The gap between the marketing and the evidence is massive. And that gap is where people make decisions based on incomplete information.
Bill: Which is exactly why we need to look at what the studies actually show, not just what the press releases say.
Alex: Those two things are apparently very different.
Bill: Very different.