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

Yes, I thought we were right.

And yet, even knowing about those very bad reactions NOW, people don’t twice about using those meds….

I mean, it’s pretty obvious that as time goes, we will uncover more about WLI. Some negative. And some positive. There are talks that MJ could help with addiction and Alzheimer’s for example. That’s pretty big. I dint think anyone thinks there the safest medication ever, have no side effects and certainly no side effects we dint know about yet.

What I really don’t agree with is the scaremongering tone of the OP.
And the example that doesn’t actually reflect what is a potentially real issue - that we dint know yet all there is to know about those meds.

But then… it’s also the case with antidepressants or statins that are both at the center of huge controversy. And yet, in those cases, the ‘main stream’ attitude is to say there great/life saving etc….

Which basically takes us back to … it’s a personal choice. Stop judging.

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

Why can't posters discuss elsewhere - for example, here - their thoughts and opinions and questions and even their misgivings about this massive trend?

Well, yes of course. But we're all meant to 'Be Kind' nowadays and not state the bleeding obvious, sadly.

OK so if the aim of the post is not to stop people taking WLI what end point do you think should come to this thread?

As others have stated many other drugs are either know to have far more severe side effects or are just as new as this class of drugs but I have never seen a single thread about concern over my new blood pressure mess.

I have posed the question numerous times as to why society or posters on this thread thinks obesity shouldn't be treated juat in case of side effect?

Where has anyone said anything remotely like that?

PS: Your entire post is incredibly condescending and patronising.

But GLP-1a aren’t new - they’ve been used since 2005 so that’s 20 years worth of data.

Actually it's called constructive feedback and really not dissimilar to advice we give to students when teaching them to debate.

If you feel anything else I have said is condescending please let me know.

Here are some tips on how to debate and common mistakes taken from the first post after googling

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/things-you-should-never-say-do-during-argument-hicks-i0k-plus-

One of the points made is highlighting that sarcasm is not a useful tool and part of debate is actually being open to listening to the other side of the argument.

I agree with aspects of concern regarding prescribing criteria and have agreed that new more uncommon side effects are possible amd likely with an increase population. However I have also highlighted that this drug has been tested for decades in millions of people so from a drug development point of view is one of the safer options.

I have posed the question numerous times as to why society or posters on this thread thinks obesity shouldn't be treated juat in case of side effect?
Things like headaches and erectile dysfunction which are not life threatening and have only a mild impact on quality of life should be treated. Obesity which has a huge impact on both lifespan and quality of life should not. Why?

Speaking to someone in a condescending manner doesn't really make your point and is not really a part of what would be considered healthy debate which is what those on this thread are repeatly requesting.

Oh, the irony.

It’s a bit hard to know what to say. ‘Yes, you’re right, more side effects are likely to come to light the more people use them’? That’s the beginning and end of the thread really. Given that predicting what these might be and how severe they are is beyond pretty much anyone at this point, certainly MN posters who are wedded to Daily Mail ‘science’ articles that get things wrong, there’s not actually a lot more to say. So starting these threads is very repetitive.

Yeah, that’s not how this works - anyone is free to respond to any post.

And no - you don’t just rock up to a pharmacy and get viagra simply because ‘you’re a man’. It is most certainly not suitable for all men (you can’t have it if you’ve got heart problems or have had a stroke, for example). And yet, it’s still available without a face to face consultation. Where’s everyone’s worry for those men who may be getting viagra when it’s not suitable for them?

If we all conceded that a hypothetical side effect that may or may not emerge in decades means we shouldn't take the risk, can anyone offer a non pharmalogical answer to the worldwide obesity pandemic?

I am very partial to prevention but requires a sociatal change, banning or taxing the fuck out of UPF, making car travel difficult / impossible within city's and increasing active travel. Increase in access to sports and sports faculties specifically in lower socioeconomic areas. This would target childhood obesity where it is most prevalent.

But any attempt to implement these changes would face massive backlash. I say that as someone who had the LTN removed from their neighbourhood because of backlash.

This was the comment I was replying to.
"I respect your opinion but I don't think the morning after pill or viagra has the same potentially serious side effects for people using them who don't actually need them."
I was just letting that poster know that viagra in particular has some pretty serious side effects.

Speaking to someone in a condescending manner doesn't really make your point and is not really a part of what would be considered healthy debate which is what those on this thread are repeatly requesting.

In terms of novel side effects emerging after decades of use in millions of people I agree this is a concern with any compound. The good thing about repuspoing an existing medication is we have years of this data.which is what has happened with GLP1 agonists.

If it was a new compound that was being used to treat my high blood pressure that was repurposed and would add 10 years to my life would you have the same concern?

Is alot of this thread down to the fact that we don't really perceive obesity to be a disease and more a failing of the individual. There fore as a failing of the individual we don't need a medical intervention?

Firstly, I wasn't responding to you. And secondly, it is obvious that when the main criteria for viagra is simply being a man, then there is no need to monitor prescribing in that way.

GLP-1 agonists are not suitable for everybody on the planet.

The point of the reference to viagra was that it was also available without a face to face consultation (without any consternation from the general public), despite its serious side effects.

Gosh… do try to keep up.

Gosh, a weak browse of the wiki entry on viagra/siildenafil would have told you that these serious effects were not uncovered during clinical trials and only appeared once the drug was used by multimillions during post-marketing surveillance... Now what does that remind me of?

I am really intrigued as to why you think the morning after pill and viagra are safer?

Here's the nhs website on sildenafil ( the drug often sold as viagra). If you scroll to the bottom there are a description of the 1 in 1000 complications that require you to call an ambulance immediately.
https://www.nhs.uk/medicines/sildenafil-viagra/side-effects-of-sildenafil/

Alot of this comes down to a perception of what we think deserves to be treated. We treat a headache with Ibuprofen ( kills thousands of people a year), we treat erectile dysfunction with viagra ( kills thousands with the nhs website linking reasons to immediately get emergency care).

So I am interested why these drugs are perceived as dangerous but not the others mentioned. Is it perhaps that obesity is not perceived as a real disease that requires effective treatment?

Debate requires a question. What is your question?

I am happy to provide answers and have a debate

Ok @janeavrilavril I was asking in relation to a consult to access weight loss injections, not in general. Could you maybe reply without being so weird and rude to me? Ta.

And yet people like myself are 100% relying on those video consultations.
Because when you’re housebound, being able to see someone from your home, is life saving. Let alone being able to see a specialist privately (that is usually far away). I have counselling and see my cardiologist like that. And my cardiologist is even able to do most of the tests he needs that way too.

But carry on thinking that online consultation are not sensible in ANY situation…. Ableist thinking at its finest.

@janeavrilavril

"video consults are not sensible for any condition, never have been and a dreadful legacy of covid. People do pay hundreds of pounds per month"

Can you say why video consults are not sensible?

There may be a handful of people who are unable to do price comparisons or who are very wealthy who pay hundreds per month. But the very large majority are paying between 100 and 200 pounds per month. Every single person who is on the support threads on this site who has discussed costs is paying in the range I quote. Because that's what it costs. You don't have to take my word for it, you can easily look up the price comparison sites yourself if you want to independently check it.

video consults are not sensible for any condition, never have been and a dreadful legacy of covid. People do pay hundreds of pounds per month, again the usual egocentric bias and cult like thinking.