Eat better, exercise more, sleep better, drink water, and cut out the garbage. 99% of obesity issues can be solved if you simply took care of your body. The fact that people need to try to find a shortcut that could literally kill you rather than just taking care of yourself is insane. Use your brain people...
I'll also note that my original post reads somewhat garbled. I tried to use the forum's hyperlink function to change the links to explanatory text, but for whatever reason it deleted my text and posted the links at the bottom.
At the end of the day, we have almost five years of trial data showing modest to major improvements in significant metrics (mortality, coronary artery disease, heart failure). How much data should a pharmaceutical product have before it can be consumed by the public?
There’s a lot of fit people who need to feel superior for being fit. So, I guess, don’t come after that?
You’ve seen the same thing with vaccines. The COVID vaccines had extremely high quality data on their safety it was never enough for the naysayers. People literally will demand the proving of a negative
Yes. If you are very fat, take it. It reduces your chances of major cardiovascular events. If it looks like your body is wasting away, perhaps it is. And stop taking it.
Yeah, 6’2” now 265 and he’s still kicking. His high weight was about 335lbs ten years ago. He hit the booze pretty hard from about 35 to 67 before he gave it up for health reasons.
He’s retired, but still involved with the family business. I think it’s healthy to keep busy with something you enjoy for longevity, and Wegovy has been good for him.
Edit: Oh, no joke, he’s not vaccinated. Got COVID at 72 and over 300lbs and was barely sick. I encouraged him to get the vax, but he is a stubborn man. Great human being, but very stubborn.
Smart man that he didn't take your advice and get the clot-shot. Amazing you take it as him getting the Wu-flu and barely being sick without the mRNA poison in his system as him being "stubborn". Whereas the intelligent people would take it as the Wu-flu wasn't even 1% as dangerous as advertised by the media.
From where I sit, one obviously-worse effect is if millions of people choose mates based on attractiveness, when those people have no control over themselves and their bodies, but are instead relying on prescription medication to curb their otherwise-gluttonous behavior. If natural selection is real that is a clear defeat for mankind.
Obese people already have more kids than attractive people, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. More sex doesn't lead to more kids when birth control or even just knowing how babies are made and having any interest besides offspring exists. Natural selection lost to the human brain a long time ago. As soon one is smart enough figure out the above, one is selected against. Unless your religion demands you procreate as much as possible
Shop for all of your Snarky and Warm Fuzzy sentiments. We have Photopolymer and Rubber Stamps. Our photopolymer is high quality, deep and made in the U.S.The rubber stamps are deeply etched, high quality rubber with indexed f...
I'll also note that my original post reads somewhat garbled. I tried to use the forum's hyperlink function to change the links to explanatory text, but for whatever reason it deleted my text and posted the links at the bottom.
At the end of the day, we have almost five years of trial data showing modest to major improvements in significant metrics (mortality, coronary artery disease, heart failure). How much data should a pharmaceutical product have before it can be consumed by the public?
First, all of the data collected by the company selling the drug should be thrown out.
Then the people buying the drug should shoulder all of the risk and cost for consuming the drug. As it stands, I shoulder the cost for other people consuming the drug, for better or worse. Perverse incentives make for perverse outcomes. If they aren't expressed as cardiac arrest statistics they'll be expressed in other ways.
Finally, you don't know the meaning of the word "we." We implies you and others for whom you have been given permission to speak, not drug manufacturers and the folks who they pay to run their studies. Stop speaking for people other than yourself when you have no permission to do so.
I'm curious, in your mind, how does drug development work? Who pays for the the initial studies if industry sponsored initial trial data isn't allowed?
What happens if you develop a disease where the treatment is too expensive? Is it okay to subsidize healthcare (either through public funding or insurance plans) only if a disease isn't the result of (or largely due to) behaviour?
If insurance or the government is subsidizng the cost of a medication, doesn't it make sense if it net reduces healthcare utilization, ultimately saving downstream costs? Or do you believe that you shouldn't be subsidizng treatments for heart attacks and strokes as well? If those people can't pay, should hospitals be turning them away?
I believe its important to have a healthy skepticism of the true benefit of new, expensive treatments. Clinical benefit is often small and cost-benfit arguments make a lot of sense. Thus far, GLP1RAs and SGLT2is seem to have shown a lot of beneift with great QALY / $ returns.
Finally, I was using "we" in a very well-established and common use of the word.
Looking at mouse studies on drugs for which we have patient data for tens of millions of patients...brilliant. Why not look to the clinical data, which is far more relevant than mouse data? Perhaps it's relevant that GLP drugs have indications for proven cardiac protective effects?
Mice lost 30% of their body weight in 21 days. Does that sound anything like what people experience on these drugs? The value of mouse models is limited, in particular once you have a HUGE body of human clinical data.
But evil pharma is out to get you, don't let science and reason get in your way...
Did you even read the article? It says they cannot be sure what the cause is. You and RFK are not scientists. So please listen to those of us who are.
I work in pharma and most “scientists” are common sense idiots who are so specialized they don’t understand how power influences their work and adds massive bias.Most scientists I met are idiots. Think about it- all the companies that are fake like Theranos and the hundreds of companies that go bankrupt but suck in millions- they all have “scientists” if these scientists so smart why arnt they in power? I mean hell scientists also discovered and created “global warming” which is the bigger inflated topic of human history by those in power to control the common man. now don’t get me wrong- I somewhat believe in “science” but not exactly it’s “progress” the atomic bomb and lasers and rockets isn’t progress, we still are terrible humans to each other- fixing that is more important than anything science thinks it engineers.
science is like a cult now, it’s for peoples egos or peoples greed for power and money. If you could see these C suite executives scheme up how to steal more public and private money (not just in the name of science) but literally using science and how it murks up the mind, you’d change your mind
You're clearly in sales. Someone didn't give you your bonus or perks at the national meeting and are upset that your function is dying a rapid death of irrelevance.
Doctors prescribing Ozempic should also mandate the following:
That their patients puzzle for three hours, till their puzzler is sore. Then they’ll think of something they hadn't before! "Maybe Christmas," they think, "doesn't come from a store." "Maybe Christmas...perhaps...means a little bit more!"
Compliance may be an issue, as it always is with behavioral modifications, but that single intervention has been demonstrated to increase heart size by 3x (p<0.05).
2
0
b*tch *ss p*ssies like you turn up missing more often than not
Eat better, exercise more, sleep better, drink water, and cut out the garbage. 99% of obesity issues can be solved if you simply took care of your body. The fact that people need to try to find a shortcut that could literally kill you rather than just taking care of yourself is insane. Use your brain people...
what is your logic in chiming in if you don't know anything about addiction - to display how stupid you are to everyone? a b*ch a$$ p*ssy like you'll get found missing more often than not, right? so why bother clamoring on with your nonsense
From where I sit, one obviously-worse effect is if millions of people choose mates based on attractiveness, when those people have no control over themselves and their bodies, but are instead relying on prescription medication to curb their otherwise-gluttonous behavior. If natural selection is real that is a clear defeat for mankind.
Obese people already have more kids than attractive people, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. More sex doesn't lead to more kids when birth control or even just knowing how babies are made and having any interest besides offspring exists. Natural selection lost to the human brain a long time ago. As soon one is smart enough figure out the above, one is selected against. Unless your religion demands you procreate as much as possible
I read an article once that used brain scan information to make the claim that because sugar stimulates the same parts of the brain as cocaine, it must also be a dangerous drug. Of course the logic was backwards. Amazing that a leaf which provides no life-giving energy would stimulate the brain in a similar way to a piece of ripe fruit. Your logic is similar. Clearly the "interest" in sex is due to its propensity for creating more people. It doesn't just happen to be enjoyable. It, like eating, is a necessary part of survival. That is quite obvious and not at all lost to "the human brain." And those who are "smart enough" to be selected against aren't very smart at all. Apparently, they seem to have been consistently outsmarted by people following religious directions. Just imagine saying "once folks were smart enough to figure out they could continuously eat for pleasure and do liposuction, staple their stomachs, or even go bulimic, of course they would -- that is unless they were stoic monks whose shunning of earthly pleasures is a thoughtless religious obligation -- and a thoughtless one at that!"
If your argument is that mate selection is not based on attractiveness for the purposes of child-rearing but rather based primarily on the value of another for recreational sex, then I agree that was a growing trend in the 20th century, and has stayed strong into the 21st. There were many commercial benefits of shifting society in this direction, and a lot of folks (including pharmaceutical pushers) have made tremendous money from the change.
However it is a loosing game. It ends in high divorce rates, unhappy people, and children without proper families. Which is to say it is a blatantly destructive cultural phenomenon. And absent the continuous commercial value of it to a small part of the population, it would correct relatively quickly. Though the speed at which it corrects will depend on the incentives met by such people and whether or not they will feel the full force of their foolishness and in so doing can see their unhappiness and the failure of their children to succeed in society as a function chiefly of their own poor decisions.
Of course none of that has much bearing on the point I was making -- which is that in a marketplace for mates where attractiveness (broadly construed, and not as you perhaps think of it in terms of commercial vanity) one wants good information so that the marketplace allocates mates based on the intersection of preferences and facts rather than fictions. At least that way the people who are trying to play the game properly and constructively will be better equipped to see signal through noise. And like it or not, health and command over one's body (not the kind that comes from selfishly fleecing other healthier folks in your insurance pool for $900 injections) is among the more meaningful indicators of attractiveness.
Eat better, exercise more, sleep better, drink water, and cut out the garbage. 99% of obesity issues can be solved if you simply took care of your body. The fact that people need to try to find a shortcut that could literally kill you rather than just taking care of yourself is insane. Use your brain people...
what is your logic in chiming in if you don't know anything about addiction - to display how stupid you are to everyone? a b*ch a$ p*ssy like you'll get found missing more often than not, right? so why bother clamoring on with your nonsense
The defense of self-destructive behavior on the grounds that it can be given a medicalized name is hardly a strong defense.
What's next? Classifying pedophiles as suffering from "child love syndrome" and then the folks who want them exiled become somehow ignorant and discriminatory? Actually, I think it is being tried.
Classifying undesirable behavior as a medical ailment is great for making other people pay for it and suffer it instead of letting the cost fall squarely on the shoulders of the person doing the behavior.
Why the outrage and veiled threats? Did a medical authority classify you or someone you love for their own selfish billing purposes?
Doctors prescribing Ozempic should also mandate the following:
That their patients puzzle for three hours, till their puzzler is sore. Then they’ll think of something they hadn't before! "Maybe Christmas," they think, "doesn't come from a store." "Maybe Christmas...perhaps...means a little bit more!"
Compliance may be an issue, as it always is with behavioral modifications, but that single intervention has been demonstrated to increase heart size by 3x (p<0.05).
Clever.
0
0
b*tch *ss p*ssies like you turn up missing more often than not
what is your logic in chiming in if you don't know anything about addiction - to display how stupid you are to everyone? a b*ch a$ p*ssy like you'll get found missing more often than not, right? so why bother clamoring on with your nonsense
The defense of self-destructive behavior on the grounds that it can be given a medicalized name is hardly a strong defense.
What's next? Classifying pedophiles as suffering from "child love syndrome" and then the folks who want them exiled become somehow ignorant and discriminatory? Actually, I think it is being tried.
Classifying undesirable behavior as a medical ailment is great for making other people pay for it and suffer it instead of letting the cost fall squarely on the shoulders of the person doing the behavior.
Why the outrage and veiled threats? Did a medical authority classify you or someone you love for their own selfish billing purposes?
are you stupid or do you not understand what the word pedophile means? there is a difference between having desires and acting on them, no?
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.