To wonder if there will be any fall out from skinny jabs?

[TheLemonGuide]

Everyone I know is now suddenly very slim. Okay, im exaggerating slightly, but genuinely, most of my friends who were previously overweight are all now slim thanks to skinny jabs. I am delighted for them! It seems unbelievable to think that a jab can cure this obesity crisis, but I am so pleased my friends and a couple of family members are able to live a healthier life thanks to this.

My only slight concern is, is this something that is going to be too good to be true? Do you think there will be any long term repercussions, or are we right to just celebrate this medication as a cure for something that so many have been battling for so long?

Well it's not like you do much of a job proving your points by yourself...

It's worth thinking about why it's so important to you that inaccurate claims and unevidenced beliefs go unchallenged. Can't be about making sure people get good quality information, because you're actively trying to prevent that by attempting to shut down discussion. I do find that pretty ethically dubious behaviour, yes.

Again, it's reasonable to say that these lawsuits exist and you think people should be aware of it because of the potential implications. There'd be nothing wrong with that. But you went way beyond it. The people who are pointing this out to you aren't the ones in the wrong.

"Genuinely happy for them".
Aye, so you are ! Entirely pissed off that fatties are now thin more likely

""What I find fascinating as ever is the sheer passion and anger that some on here will argue with, in support of these weight loss jabs"".

Hm, what I find more fascinating as ever is the sheer passion and anger that some on here will argue with, AGAINST these weight loss jabs.

Such rage and angst about a medication they dont take.

Good advice!

Why would anyone be pissed off because someone else who was fat is now thin?

All sorts of comments about training your muscles come to mind!

I dont know!
But these threads are full of them.

I’d assume jealousy and a feeling or superiority? But you’d have to ask them directly what their issue is. But it’s not concern, I can assure you!

They may spout “pressure on NHS” if we get one of the very very rare side effects, but I’d counter argue (if I’m allowed to, and not be deemed “defensive” and “aggressive”), that obesity is a massive drain on the NHS. So, I think is a nonsense argument.

Honestly, it’s like you’re saying that losing loads of weight, feeling more energetic and liking your body again, also improves your sex life???

It cannot be true can it? There must be some “research” to show potential lawsuits from people who get pregnant!

oh dear. It maybe better for you to step away from the thread, this is far from acceptable behaviour. It verges on hysteria.

none of us can see you, I assume if we could we’d have some insight here into your behaviour. But it’s clearly you’ve very significant issues, it’s also clear you think it’s far from great we are all healthier.

take a deep breath, step away from the thread. Calm yourself down. We all know these drugs are very safe. The global health authorities know they are safe, they are not going away, or going to be minimised, they are being exanded, with more coming to market.

i feel sad for you, as the issues have become apparent and I do hope you find some peace.

Well, I was happy enough with my sex life before... but if anyone finds it improves theirs I am pleased for you!

I’ve heard it’s another benefit!

I do think this is a really interesting question tbh. I think it's pretty clear now that the obesity epidemic is primarily a societal / environmental problem that has exposed a very large predisposed percentage of the population, including children, to conditions that make it incredibly difficult / impossible for them to attain and then maintain a healthy weight.

That the current solution to a problem Western society has very much created over the last 60 years is to offer life-long medication to affected individuals rather than actually address the underlying problem sounds really quite dystopian. The fact that the very socio-economic groups that are most vulnerable are also the least likely to be able to afford these medications even more so..

The health consequences of obesity are so significant that I think it is highly unlikely that a short-term issue will appear that substantially changes the risk-benefit decision to use these drugs either at the individual level or wider public health any time soon.

However, what usually happens when something seems to sound so fundamentally "wrong" or as backward as it does, is that an unpredictable issue appears somewhere down the line that very much exposes the folly of the human race. I suspect that will be the case with this approach.

First one:
Findings
We included 8 RCTs involving 8847 participants. The pooled average age was 46.7 years, with the majority being women (74%) and people living with obesity (96%). Of 1000 persons treated with GLP-1 RAs for 2 years, 375 (95% confidence interval 352 to 399) achieved a 10% weight loss, and 318 (296 to 339) achieved a 5% weight loss compared to those treated with placebo. Several harm outcomes were more frequent in the GLP-1 RA group, including 41 abdominal pain events per 1000 persons over 2 years (19 to 69), cholelithiasis (8, 1 to 21), constipation (118, 78 to 164), diarrhoea (100, 42 to 173), alopecia (57, 10 to 176), hypoglycaemia (17, 1 to 68), injection site reactions (4, −3 to 19), and vomiting (110, 80 to 145) among others. Achieving a 10% weight loss with GLP-1 RA therapy outweighed the cumulative harms, with a net benefit probability of 0.97 at year 1 and 0.91 at year 2. The absolute net benefit was equivalent to 104 (100 to 112) per 1000 persons achieving a 10% weight loss over 2 years without experiencing any worrisome harm. A 5% weight loss did not show a net benefit, with probabilities of 0.13 and 0.01 at year 1 and year 2, respectively. However, these benefits were sensitive to preference weights, suggesting that even a 5% weight loss could be net beneficial for individuals with less concern about harm outcomes. The net benefit for a 10% weight loss was highest for semaglutide, followed by liraglutide and tirzepatide, with 2-year probabilities of 0.96, 0.72, and 0.60, respectively.

Second one:
we reflect upon our experiences with the clinical use of these medications and delve into the nuanced challenges and risks they pose, particularly for those prone to disordered eating or those diagnosed with rare genetic diseases of obesity. We contend that effectively managing weight loss within this ‘danger zone’ necessitates (1) proactive screening and continuous monitoring for disordered eating; (2) vigilant monitoring for appetite-related maladaptive responses, including food aversion and dehydration; and (3) ongoing assessment for broader health impacts.

That the current solution to a problem Western society has very much created over the last 60 years is to offer life-long medication to affected individuals rather than actually address the underlying problem sounds really quite dystopian.

What would your solution be @Whoknows101 ?

@Whoknows101 it might sound dystopian, and I agree that the preferable scenario would be to change society to be not so thoroughly obesogenic. However, as an individual, I don't find it at all dystopian that I can access a medication that resolves a life long medical issue that I have. That sounds quite normal to me rather than dystopian. Plus, I'd have died either from old age or obesity related disease or both before society would ever change enough for it to affect me as an individual.

What would you solution be then?

I also don’t find it dystopian that a medial cure has been found for a disease, nor do I agree it is environmental or societal. If it was the drugs wouldn’t work, as we can push through. Their very success proves it is biological. That many people have underlying metabolic issues.

the drugs have been used in humans for approx 40 years. It is highly unlikely, although still possible. Some big gotcha will appear now.

I don't know. I'm not a public health expert, nor a politician, so I do not know what is required, or feasible to achieve. That wasn't really my point.

What I do know is that there wasn't an Obesity epidemic 60 years ago, and there is now, so looking at what has changed & trying to reverse that would sound like a sensible start. Because it isn't our genetics, our underlying metabolism or our collective willpower .

I think that’s a bit “victim complex” to be honest, or at least bit arrogant to assume everyone is jealous of people who lose weight. What makes you think strangers care enough about your loss to be jealous of it?

The people you’re talking to are likely either still fat, and therefore don’t need to feel superior about anything, or they’ve lost weight without WLI so they’re not jealous of yours.

Aye, so you are ! Entirely pissed off that fatties are now thin more likely

Oh look, it's another poster who needs to believe that us lifelong "thin" people are annoyed that overweight people can become thin.

Breaking news to you - I don't care what your starting position was or your finishing position. I repeat what I said: I am genuinely happy for you.

And good lord - I have not displayed ANY rage or angst.

none.

Don't use emotional words to try and paint me as unreasonable, when I have not used any myself other than positivity.

I have calmly put forward a few arguments and then watched as the predictable onset of emotional language was sprayed at me.

This reply of yours, and others, is more proof to me that people on this thread want to vehemently shut down anyone who tries to raise any argument other than "the jabs are the best thing ever and we wouldn't have had an option otherwise because we tried everything".

I don't think it sounds so fundamentally "wrong" or as backward, the idea that some people struggle to maintain their weight in an environment where high calorie food is hyper-abundant, and activity can be minimal and so end up obese. A medication existing to enable them to maintain a calorie deficit for long enough in that environment to lose significant weight sounds reasonable not wrong or backwards. Otherwise you're asking people to achieve something that we know is almost impossible, and worse, telling them that they are lazy, weak willed, stupid etc for not managing it.

It's also not wrong or backwards given that obesity is so very damaging for people. I cannot afford to wait another 60 plus years for society to shift, if it ever does. There's no drive to make that shift from wider society at all, as much as people like to complain about obesity, no one wants to push through sufficient change to address it.

It is clearly biology, as said, every single person knows you can push through if you wish on the drugs and eat more or unhealthy , and no one is forced to take them, you can never start, or stop when you wish. This says it’s not society or environment

if it’s about any has obesity increased in 60 years. Nearly doubled. It’s a complex set of circumstances. On one side there has been a shift to high cal upf, on the other we have fast urbanisation and technology enhancements, meaning we move less. Employment is more sedentary, personal computers and streaming services are now common place. Our biology also impacts. More anti depressants etc now prescribed rather than people left to suffer. Our genes have evolved making over eating more common and harder to resist. Transportation now due to urbanisation sees less walking or cycling.

we can’t go back over half a century, we simply can’t. This is not let’s go back to the 1960s. This is we have evolved, how do we solve an issue that arose due to that evolution.

Well, it might be our genetics.

It's only about a century or so since even the richest human societies were able to feed basically everyone as much food as they wanted. There wasn't much use for collective willpower before then. We don't actually have any examples of such societies being able to function without growing obesity rates except when a lot of adults take an appetite suppressant drug, be it nicotine or WLIs. The only society that has been able to start reversing obesity rates outside of disaster scenarios is the US in 2024.

Some of the things that have changed between now and the 60s that probably influenced obesity rates are changes for the overall good, like much lower smoking rates and better heating. Some of them are changes for the overall bad, like Frankenfoods and greater car dependency (particularly bad for kids since it limits their playing space). I agree we should try and reverse the latter, but we shouldn't try and reverse the former.

We do need to bear in mind it's totally possible that the only way to stop a significant percentage of humans becoming obese in societies of plenty is drugs.

To be fair @JacquesHarlow your first post on this thread was to call people aggressive and defensive which is not quite the same as calmly putting forward a few arguments.

I agree with you that it is biological in the sense that it's pretty obvious that there is a large proportion of the population that have a significant physiological propensity to obesity in the "right" conditions. Which is why many individuals are now left with no choice but to medicate themselves because they have no other option.

Where we seem to disagree is that I think it's equally obvious that the conditions that have revealed this propensity and caused the current epidemic are predominantly socio-economic / environmental in nature. Such as the vast, unrestricted supply of unhealthy food advertised & cheaply available to us from a young age, for example.

I completely, 110% agree with everything you have written.

What is dystopian and backward to me is that we have, as a society, managed to put individuals in this very situation.