Scientific literacy is important. The contributions to that meta-study were predominantly looking at 1-2 year outcomes, with a few outliers, which gives means it draws little insight with regard to what might apply from long-term (or lifetime!) use.
The abstract of the paper itself concludes "However, due to the low incidence of these diseases, these findings need to be examined further." suggesting that the authors didn't even find their own work to be conclusive about the short/medium-term risks at the scale of widespread use, let alone the long-term risks that they weren't even analyzing.
Straw man. Nobody claimed these studies prove GLP-1 agonists are totally safe. Just that they don't show "severe unknown incidents like thyroid and pancreatic cancer" [1].
> suggesting that the authors didn't even find their own work to be conclusive about the short/medium-term risks at the scale of widespread use, let alone the long-term risks that they weren't even analyzing
Sure. That's a straightforward reading of the paper. Again, nobody argued these aren't thesre. Just that present data don't sustain it as a serious problem.
The abstract of the paper itself concludes "However, due to the low incidence of these diseases, these findings need to be examined further." suggesting that the authors didn't even find their own work to be conclusive about the short/medium-term risks at the scale of widespread use, let alone the long-term risks that they weren't even analyzing.