Thread

1. krisroadruck · 1790993093 · focus · HN ↗

   Reporting on these drugs is so bad. Most of the benefits AND downsides they keep reporting are the same for any major rapid weight loss. Be it hair shedding or sleep apnea resolving. They keep acting like these are novel drug specific side effects rather than weight-loss related side effects.

   1. chis · 1790993547 · focus · HN ↗

      At this point it might legit be impossible for a side effect to be discovered that outweighs the immense health benefits of losing weight.

      It feels like people want there to be some horrible side effect to these drugs. Idk if it’s some moral objection to weight loss without discipline, or just general mistrust of big pharma.

      1. tarsinge · 1791025243 · focus · HN ↗

         I feel like the opposite, it seems like people desperately want it to be a miracle drug and are irrationally hostile to discussion or research on side effects. Kind of the same thing happened with cannabis and the downplay on mental health disorders. Given how much money is at stake maybe there is also a big marketing push.

         Edit: also regarding the moral/discipline thing, to many people me included the larger issue is absolutely not this, it’s obviously a good thing if people can improve their health. It’s that we are unhappy that the answer to food designed to be addictive and that is poisoning people is having to research a drug and having the whole population take it to protect themselves. I have a hard time celebrating such a waste of resource and a supposed market "innovation" hiding yet another government failure at regulation. When people were poisoning themselves with lead pipes, the answer was not having the whole population take a drug to manage the effects of lead poisoning. Even if there was absolutely 0 side effect I would be happy for the individuals losing weight, but unhappy with the larger picture.

         1. preg_match · 1791045897 · focus · HN ↗

            Most of the discussion around side-effects has been incredibly dishonest, and I’ve come to realize most people have an outdated or unhealthy view of drugs.

            Ultimately everything is risk calculus. Ozempic, like all drugs, has risks. When you compare ozempic versus not taking ozempic, it’s not like those risks disappear.

            Take, for example, vision loss. The risk of vision loss IS NOT “ozempic” versus “no risk”. Because the default of doing nothing is typically diabetes which causes… vision loss. So, it’s entirely possible that the risk of vision loss is much higher from not taking ozempic than taking ozempic.

            I had cancer and I had to do multiple types of chemotherapy. It damaged virtually every organ in my body. But it’s not like that risk would disappear if I didn’t do chemo, even though chemo caused the damage. Because the alternative is death. You have to weight these things, and too often people just assume that the default of “do nothing, take no drugs” is safe. It’s not.

         2. xnx · 1791127806 · focus · HN ↗

            GLP1s have been in use for 20 years. If there are unknown side effects, they are very well hidden, or very rare.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.