What do we REALLY think about the weight loss jabs?

@LifeOnEnceladus it’s very clear you’re anti the drugs and don’t wish a balanced argument, you also appear angry, which is very odd. With the stereotypical we just want a discussion, yes a discussion thay only focuses on the negatives,

its your brothers, if there is even a brother, choice if he takes these prescription medications for the purpose he is prescribed them.

fortunately for me my family was fully supportive and knowledgeable,

@Allisnotlost1 you don't need a health condition at BMI 27 for specific ethnicities. Then, these medications can be prescribed off licence to people with BMI 25 or higher. For the pharmacies that do that there are usually tighter video consult rules and they won't automatically prescribe. They also make it clear to the individual what the risks are and that there is limited or no evidence of benefits to people in the only slightly overweight category.

People obtaining medication fraudulently or obtaining fake black market drugs from illegal sellers is a different issue. There is no need to discuss benefits versus risks in those scenarios, as the risks are obviously higher and no one sensible would argue that it's a reasonable course of action.

Thanks. I didn’t even bother to check this “statistic” because it was irrelevant but that makes the post even more absurd it it’s not even correct.

This thread is clearly a waste of time for anybody seeking a rational discussion/ facts.

Of course that analysis has been done for people in those specific groups. However, with the numbers now taking these drugs it is possible to collect large scale data about interactions with various other health conditions, age, dosage, duration of dosage etc to get a clearer indication of prevalence of side effects in each group and we should be doing this every time someone presents to the NHS with side effects. This isn’t possible in much smaller clinical trials, hence new data and observations already emerging in medical journals about more patient-profile specific risks. And as discussed earlier in the thread there are unfortunately people taking them for whom they are NOT approved because of lax private prescription processes which do not require independent evidence. This has highlighted a general flaw in the private prescription process for online pharmacies for all medications and I hope will lead to safer procedures requiring the patient to download their medical record summary from the NHS app and submit it with the prescription request (or grant an electronic permission for the pharmacist to access their medical record) to verify the information provided so that the process is safer and people outside the tested range for safe prescription can’t circumvent the safety protocols.

Oh for goodness sake. This is precisely the kind of unscientific nonsense I’m referring to: “2000 people per year die from taking neurofen”.

What were their underlying health conditions? How did that cause the adverse side effects of neurofen in these specific patients? How sick were they and with what? Was it a contributing factor or did some totally healthy person with a minor injury taking it for pain relief just happen to have an allergic reaction to it? Or are we talking about people already seriously/ terminally ill/ with contrad-indicated conditions/ young babies who nobody knew were allergic to it etc etc?!

How many people in total take neurofen per year so that a proper statistical analysis of relative risk can be assessed? How do you possibly think the absolute number of deaths is relevant without comparing this to the total number taking weight loss drugs? And then you obviously cannot assess relative risk from the total number even if it was in proportion to the number taking the drug without also excluding confounding factors, age, sex, underlying medical conditions, weight, duration and quantity of dose etc., i.e. considering the profile of those taking the medication and why, alongside also obviously the total numbers doing so compared to the percentage with serious side effects in each of the stratified groups, in order to present the relative risk of different side effects for different patients with different existing risk profiles.

This is basic statistics and this is just one example of the inane and silly comments to which I have been referring with people misrepresenting things. We all know that all drugs have side effects. The point is that people with different risk profiles are now being prescribed these particular drugs on a huge scale which means data should be collected to enable an accurate and stratified assessment of risk and where the risk/ benefit balance tips based on the various factors listed above. It’s impossible to have a rational discussion either people who post this kind of irrelevant “statistic” that “2000 people per year die from taking neurofen” thinking it shows us anything useful as a comparison to the drugs being discussed. It doesn’t.

Far fewer people in the UK die from shark attacks per year in the UK (zero on average) than from car accidents (629), motorcycling accidents (386), cycling (79), drowning (250-300). Does this mean we should put sharks in all of our swimming pools, lakes and rivers because they are obviously safe and ban cars, motorbikes, bikes and swimming? No. Such a conclusion would represent either a fundamental lack of grasp of statistics or deliberate misrepresentation. I have no idea which of those is behind many of the silly posts in this thread, but it has to be one or the other or a combination of both.

Of course there’s always a risk benefit analysis, and for people who are obese the benefit will usually outweigh the risks. But some pp are angrily denying that there is a risk. And the real world that we all live in shows us that many people are obtaining private prescriptions at BMI 27 with no weight related health condition. These are facts that we can all see so denying them seems self serving and meaningless.

@LifeOnEnceladus the thing is, the MHRA in the UK and the other regulatory bodies in other countries have approved these medications for people with BMI 30, or 27+ with a weight related health condition or an ethnicity related BMI adjustment. That process looks at the benefit versus risk for different groups to decide on whether it should be approved and for what groups of people. The MHRA will continue to monitor the incidence of side effects and may change their position should real world use show a different pattern of side effects to those in the clinical trials.

Therefore, people on threads here discussing side effects should be doing so with the understanding that for those groups of people the benefit does outweigh the risks.

Personally, I think the real world usage by millions of people and the very very small rate of serious side effects shows that these drugs are at least as safe as the trial data showed, if not more so.

As said earlier 2000 people a year die from taking nurofen.

No, they don’t.

I think I’d re read the thread and do so carefully there is a lot of outdated and misinformation on here, and I’m bemused by the view point you’re taking that those correcting it are in some way willfully ignoring it.

the safety data is out there, all drugs have side effects. As said earlier 2000 people a year die from taking nurofen.

of the tens of millions on this drug globally, not one death directly linked to the drug, mass clinical studies, over 700k people, now showing no increase in pancreatitis.

and you completely ignore the very well known impacts of obesity , from heart attack, stroke, diabetes to multiple cancers,obesity is the number one cause of cancer in non smokers and number two in smokers,

yet you find the thread disturbing and focus on how greedy your brother and his wife are and the misinformation posted, not the corrections.

Some of these posts are just insane. Average calorie intake for an adult woman should be 1600-1900 per day when not trying to lose weight. And obviously not at the higher end of that unless you happen to be very tall, very active, or a very young adult with a fast metabolism. The idea it would be hard to “restrict” yourself to 2-2.5 times the normal intake is bizarre.

I am quite disturbed by this thread.

I’m lucky that weight has never been an issue for me so I’ve never been on a diet or not eat what I want to or had to be concerned about this. However, my brother is very overweight and hugely overeats. He and his wife so and encourage each other that this is normal, eating three or four times normal adult portions. I am very worried about his health and I know he’s considering these drugs as a way to deal with it, despite having made good progress with losing weight when he has actually cut his portion sizes down (even if not to standard levels) and done more exercise. So it is very worrying to hear of the potentially lifechanging side effects. Even if they’re rare, obviously it’s better to not risk it unless it is absolutely medically necessary and I think that’s where the boundary should lie in terms of prescribing being permitted as for all medications: widescale data on usage compared to side effects and the personal and financial healthcare and economic costs of those needs to be collected so that the appropriate boundary can be determined regarding at what level of weight/ BMI the risks outweigh the costs, like with all other medications. Now that so many people are taking them it should be possible to collect largescale data to establish where that borderline at which the cost/ benefit tips is located and draw the line there.

I am very disturbed that, as someone who has obviously had no reason to look into this in detail previously, I have seen on this thread very partisan views posted rather than rational, scientific ones. Even those who are taking this medication and claim have claimed they have “researched this in detail” seem to be ignoring medical evidence others have posted which contradicts their narrative that the risks are minimal/ zero, so their posts don’t seem motivated by science and objectivity rather wanted to “defend” their position, especially when accommpanied by insults to others who have asked perfectly legitimate questions/ expressed concerns and even backed these up with scientific studies from the BMJ earlier this year and others.

It’s undoubtedly the case that these drugs are amazing for many people and help many of the morbidly obese who have very limited other options, or even just those who are in the obese category, on average it seems like the benefits outweigh the risks for most. But for those who are simply overweight, it looks like there are significant benefits AND significant risks so it is legitimate to question whether it’s a sensible idea when ultimately the effectiveness of the drugs for weight loss by suppressing appetite proves that in cases where there is NOT an underlying separate metabolic issue etc simply by eating less without the drugs, and that this WOULD result in weight loss for those overweight people without other conditions/ medications which negatively impact their weight.

I had hoped this would be an informative discussion with sensible and nuanced points made backed up by facts but sadly it seemed to descend into cherry picking of data supporting posters’ established viewpoints, many insulting others and claiming they are jealous (!?!?) of people who are using the drugs to lose weight (even if they are people like me who are naturally slim and just concerned for a family member and looking for unbiased information and discussion!), anecdata which tells nobody anything, inane comments that “medication has side effects” when obviously the important point is the prevalence and severity of those for different groups of patients in comparison to the benefits for each group of patients, etc.

I agree.

All medication has side effects.

The thing with weight and obesity is that society has turned it into a moral issue. Those who can control their weight on their own are seen as fundamentally better, more moral people. Those who struggle their weight are lazy, lack willpower and are morally inferior. Therefore why should they have help?

Why do people get so worked up about this, arguing so passionately about a drug they don't need themselves and berating people who do need it?

The argument against statins exists but I don't think I've ever seen a 24 page thread on that.

I would find it really hard to eat as much as 4000 calories a day and I’m overweight and love food. Unless I was an Olympic athlete surely that’s not a normal intake for most people.

I can’t believe how aggressive you are and yet how outraged when you get the same energy back. But here we are.

Your statement was incorrect. Fat people are at greater risk, rapid weight loss/cycling appears to be less of a risk.

Could be, it’s ambiguous. If the poster was less antagonistic I’d be more inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt and/or they’d be willing to clarify.

Good god, I can’t beleive I am actually engaging with you. I said Weight gain and loss leads to gall stones. I don’t see anyone posting about fat people having an increased risk.

and you attacked me and said I was wrong. You then said you’d read up and weight loss didn’t lead to gallstones.

I am not going to respond to you again. I wouldn’t in real life so I will not on here.

I may be wrong, but I read the post as saying fat people do have an increased risk but people are less likely to comment on that risk. Ie a remark on double standards.

You said: ‘I don’t see anyone posting about fat people having an increased risk.’

So yes, you were wrong. ‘Fat’ people do have an increased risk.

Exactly, I said weighr loss and gain was a risk for gallstones, you furiously told me I was wrong, now I’m right?

Amazing loss! 😍

I assumed as much.

I used to eat two chocolate eclairs as an after lunch dessert, and I still wasn’t hitting 4000 calories.

That’s an absolutely insane number, regardless of how much your food signals are off.

I’d never heard this figure and just looked it up. Average daily intake was 2000 cals, men in manual jobs 2900. Agree very doable to stay below that, especially in the more commonly sedentary lives we live now, with cars, and appliances to spin the washing etc.

That doesn’t mean it’s difficult to stay below it.

Crucially, I don’t work in a mine, or walk everywhere because I don’t have a car… etc etc.

I’m sure calorie intake was higher years ago, when budgets and food availability allowed, but that’s no reason to struggle with not eating 4k calories now - 76 years later.

Average in what time period? 24 hours? 7 days?