to think more negative effects will come out from Ozempic use?

I’ve seen quite a lot of posts on this thread setting out pretty clear medical facts though around the current understanding of the drugs. I haven’t seen a single poster who wanted an open and free discussion of whatever the real point of this thread is meant to be really engage with those. If an argument is about persuading someone with an opposite viewpoint, how much of that is happening (with proper facts, not Daily Mail stories) from those with concerns? It’s like arguing with mist.

People saying there’s no discussion to be had or they can’t see what there is to debate have missed the fact that a proper discussion wasn’t allowed to develop.It immediately turned into a mud flinging exercise where anyone who even mentioned concerns was personally attacked to the extent that most left the thread quickly.

If people post things you believe are wrong, the point of a debate is to explain why you think they’re wrong and if your points are persuasive enough maybe they will change their opinion. In reality, no one knows the answer to the question posed - whether more negative effects will come to light in future- so everyone should feel entitled to express an opinion.

I haven't shouted you down I have disagreed with you while providing scintific links to the actual effects of the drug.

Why is the concern about these drugs only presented when this drug was rolled out to an obese population and not to the millions of diabetics on it?

There is a stigmatisation of obesity in our society weather you admit it or not. This has now been extended to WLI and is incredibly prevent on threads like this that are as I said designed to be provocative.

So the follow through argument to the "concern" in this thread is we shouldn't be using them for this purpose. It ignore the fact that obesity is a disease that has a massive detrimental effect on the body of those individuals. Instead of acknowledging that we view obesity as purely a cosmetic issue rather then a medical one we use terms like concern. It is a form of microagression as when I follow through the argument to don't use them you won't outright admit that that's your motivation.

So you’re posing a different question to the one at the top of this thread? Which is in itself relating to abuse of Mounjaro.

I have successfully lost a lot of weight on MJ with zero side effects and was at a weight that saw me easily within the prescription guidelines, but I know I’m not the only person in my situation who entirely agrees with you that it’s too easy to get round the current online prescribing practices. It’s moderated on here so less of it goes on but the rest of social media is full of people swapping tips on it. I would love to see it cracked down on. In practical terms it’s very hard to do and even in-person checks would rely on how on the ball the assessors were.

But this should be a different thread with a different title. Starting off a thread with a post about someone with an eating disorder abusing the drug and having a pre-existing condition doesn’t set the tone for a genuinely useful discussion.

Being fat caused me more problems than mounjaro ever did, hip and knee replacements, a DVT, high blood pressure.
Losing weight was the best thing I ever did.

Aw bless … your sixth form college team.

You’re just repeating the same points over & over again. I would love it if you could move away from mentioning “the feelz” on almost every post to me especially as I never said anything about “the feelz” so it’s a bit bizarre.

It’s not my debate because I didn’t start the thread but I did think the title worthy of a response… apparently that isn’t allowed without expecting to be attacked? The vast majority of the discussion on this thread certainly hasn’t been about trying to “frighten away” the people who could most benefit from using Mounjaro. Speaking for myself I have explicitly stated that for obese people I think the benefits outweigh the risks. I’m more concerned about people starting it who aren’t actually obese or very overweight so it’s good that private pharmacies have been forced to tighten up their practices.

I think to a degree but that’s often a response to people posting things that are downright wrong. I think people who take WL medication legitimately largely are aware that, again like all drugs, there are some potential rare serious side effects. And obviously more may come to light. But the debate on threads about them is often very ill-informed on the ‘anti’ side.

And on this thread I’m still struggling to see what the discussion is? Not meaning to be provocative but yes, more side effects may emerge, of course, but based on current research and medical information the drugs are perfectly safe for the vast majority of users when prescribed and supplied by a legitimate pharmacy. All other arguments about their safety are talking about abuse of the drug, which is a different discussion.

It is very clear that only pro-WLI comments are allowable. I think, on a discussion forum, we should be allowed to discuss the pros and cons. But any thread on this topic that I have noticed is heavily policed, and shouted down.

I never said I found it upsetting I said it was provocative and designed to spread fear and misunderstanding about a life saving medication in a way that is not about other similar drugs.

So I will call out a poster who is spreading fear with no scientific backing responding with the actual medical information pertaining to the drug.

Or do you perceive that only people who agree with you and the OP have the right to post?

As I said what follow through do you expect from warning others about the ' dangers' of this particular drug?

If you find any faintly negative commentary on WLI so upsetting and inflammatory, surely it would be more sensible to hide the thread.

Every thread on this topic (outside the WLI injections board, with its 2,600 other threads, presumably mostly all pro-WLI, I gather) is so heavily policed.

Because this thread is designed to be deliberately provocative.

A. It confuses the legitimate use of the drug and the illegitimate abuse of this drug.
B. It talks about the side effects of drugs like they are novel to this class of drugs.

Both point a and b have been adressed in detail.

We are now onto well we just don't know.

So follow through that argument. If the drugs are in really dangerous ( despite the decades of research on them), far more so then other compounds on the market then surely we shouldt take them?

Why are people banging on about "debating" and giving pointers on poor "debating" technique? This is not a debate. It is a discussion thread on AIBU.

I'm still waiting for someone to get back to me about my earlier point:

There are 52 pages worth of threads on the WLI board. That's approximately 2,600 threads.

Why can't the odd post on another board discuss things that aren't entirely pom-pom shaking cheerleading for this brand or another?

It's just factual that there are some problems occurring for some users. For - as I have been told on this thread - "rational" and "well-informed" people, I am surprised that they are so put out about any faintly negative commentary, around facts they would be aware of if they actually were well-informed.

Thank you, yes we were very successful. But not Oxbridge, just my sixth form college team. But that doesn't lessen the fact you cannot successfully debate something about which you know little about.

I've used 'the feelz' because I think it most accurately describes the amorphous nature of your 'debate' which just doesn't consist of anything useful or informed.

Yes, of course Mounjaro has the potential to be dangerous if used incorrectly or by a person it's not clinically intended for. But so does paracetamol, cough syrup or even Strepsils. In enough quantity pure spring water can be dangerous and poison you.

But it's equally dangerous and poisonous to scaremonger in such ways that the very people, who could most benefit from using Mounjaro, are frightened away by reading uninformed dross.

Oh I think it was but as you put things politely @SilenceInside Im happy to agree to disagree amicably.

The point about the debating team was clearly not intended as a claim to authority in debating but simply to make the point that when attempting to debate it's necessary to have some knowledge of the subject matter. And to understand what you know and what you don't know.

Well you & Araminta are both looking for a row based on previous comments and I’m just finding some of the comments funny now particularly the reference to being on a college debating team. I’m wondering was it Oxford or Cambridge?

@Twiglets1 you said in your last but one post that 'So I’m not really interested in anything you’ve got to say because you just want a row.'

Then you respond on your next post, to the same poster within 15mins 'Ooh well if you were on your college debating team you must be great at it!
Especially the way you keep repeating yourself about “the feelz” which makes you sound very mature 😂'.

Just wondering who's looking for a row here?

Ooh well if you were on your college debating team you must be great at it!

Especially the way you keep repeating yourself about “the feelz” which makes you sound very mature 😂

Actually no I don't want a row and last time I checked I haven't had any of my posts deleted. I have stated time and again that I am very keen to discuss the uses of Mounjaro etc al. But I am only interested in a proper discussion with people who have informed knowledge about this drug and/or personal, direct experience of using it.

I do not see any point in vague observations that are based on nothing more than how it makes you 'feelz'. I was on my college's debating team and, trust me, you cannot debate when the other side is so uninformed.

I actually have a huge issue with the way science is portrayed in the media. Invariably it is one sided which headings that are " captive" ie. Click bait. A good example of this was the link between the MMR and autism. These were headline news flashed on the front page of every paper. The retraction of the scientific papers and the subsequent thousands of papers that disagreed with Wakefield were buried in the middle of the newspapers. The media contributed hugely to the modern refusal of vaccines which is causing the return of diseases like measles putting those unable to get vaccines for medical reasons at greater risk.

Of course there are deaths with people on the drug. There are millions of people taking this drug. The drug does not stop death but unless you go through every case the extent to which the drug played a role is not clear.
If a patient with cancer dies while taking chemo do we say that the chemo killed them or the cancer?

Most of the deaths from MJ were in patients with diabetes where there were clearly other contributing factors.

The link to pancreatitis is a interesting one. It was highlighted in clinical trials as a potential serious side effect however this is where the more long term studies are usefull. In the more recent data sets the link to pancreatitis is not seen.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-024-03412-w/figures/5
This longitudinal study mentioned looks at a quatern of a million patients and found no increase risk.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32720500/
This paper is a metanalysis so it takes the data from all the papers compares an effect, so in this case pancreatitis, and sees if there is an increase in incidence when on the drug. There is none.

What does cause pancreatitis is obesity.

I know that the way the word “ignorant “ has been used in this thread has been synonymous with stupid.

And that you’ve been one of the people most interested in provoking an argument rather than engaging in a proper discussion for example accusing me of “wittering on” and lacking the ability for critical analysis plus the rude things you said about the pharmacist who was perfectly polite in sharing her point of view. So I’m not really interested in anything you’ve got to say because you just want a row.

You can mention them. The point you might be trying to make using these two points might be judgemental, although it's unclear if you're making a point with them.

In response to the reports of deaths of people who were taking these medications, it's not surprising to me that if hundreds of thousands of people are taking them, that some will die whilst taking them. You absolutely cannot use this reported data as evidence that those deaths were caused by the medication they were taking. You don't know cause of death, or contributory cause of death in any of those cases. You would need to do some significant analysis with a lot more information to draw any meaningful conclusions as to whether GLP-1s were causing these deaths at a rate higher than you would expect at the general population level.

The case of the nurse who died has already been mentioned on this thread, two days ago.

In the meantime, there are reports like this recent one:

"Around 82 people have died after using weight-loss and diabetes jabs such as Ozempic and Mounjaro. Up to the end of January, 22 died after taking meds for weight loss, and another 60 for Type 2 diabetes, according to the official Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)."

And then there's this poor woman:

Approved weight-loss drug contributed to UK nurse’s death, report says | Health | The Guardian

Is the press allowed to mention such things, or is that "judging"?

You do know that the definition of 'ignorant' is to be unaware and to lack knowledge, don't you? It doesn't mean 'stupid'.

Several posters on this thread have clearly demonstrated that they lack knowledge of Mounjaro and are totally unaware of how it is used and prescribed.

I know how the thread went earlier on, a post being weird and rude towards me was deleted. I just report stuff that breaks the talk guidelines and continue discussing what doesn't.