Help end medical misogyny. Sign our petition.

Help end medical misogyny.
Sign our petition.

Sign the petition

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Sky News discussion about weight loss pills this morning

231 replies

ffsarewedoingthis · 11/07/2026 07:59

They’re going through the daily papers and as per usual, three thin women are saying the same things, “there’s no long term data” (incorrect, these drugs have been in use for decades), “people who don’t need them use them” (very rare, and we don’t ban things like alcohol because kids sometimes get hold of it), “there’s a pressure to take them” (no, there’s not, if anything it’s the opposite).

AIBU to be utterly fed up of this discourse? I’m on WLI and have been for the last two years. I’ve lost ten and a half stone. It has quite literally saved my life.

Why, when they’re having these discussions, do they never discuss the fact that being obese is much much worse than any potential side effects of these drugs? Why don’t they discuss that almost every study coming out has been overwhelmingly positive, with noted positive cardiac benefits? The benefits in terms of addiction etc., are known as well.

The news trying to put people off these drugs is scary, especially when it’s three women who have obviously never experienced what it’s like to be morbidly obese and feeling like you’re suffocating in your own body.

OP posts:
AWomanOfWealthAndTaste · Yesterday 20:51

ffsarewedoingthis · Yesterday 20:37

Okay and for those who already struggle to get in at their GP? There’s 7 million people estimated to be on the jabs in the UK now. That’s an extra 7 million appointments every month

I guess it could just mean chucking a few leaflets at them or whatever, tick a box, but difficult to see how that's going to do anything.

Any proposals need to start from the position that we have an ageing population and significant staffing issues in healthcare, and it's already quite common for patients to self-report outside an WLI context. Nobody on this thread has proactively done that yet. People seldom do when they're making their proposals about extra checks and regulations.

I could pay the extra whatever per month for a face to face appointment if needed, enough to poach/redirect the necessary HCP time away from however it's being used now. As would lots of other WLI users. I'm confident in that, I'm not quite so confident that the expertise wouldn't be better used elsewhere.

Fiendishandfiery · Yesterday 21:30

ffsarewedoingthis · Yesterday 20:37

Okay and for those who already struggle to get in at their GP? There’s 7 million people estimated to be on the jabs in the UK now. That’s an extra 7 million appointments every month

It’s about 1.6 million currently in the uk. Not 7.

Fiendishandfiery · Yesterday 21:34

TY78910 · Yesterday 20:42

This, but also people who are routinely administered those drugs are under medical observation for their condition. Most people that will get these drugs will do so based on BMI alone and so nobody knows if they have something underlying that needs to be addressed / can worsen with these drugs.

I personally dont like the narrative around them on day time telly but I do have some questions.

Surely that’s the same with any prescription medication. These drugs have been in trials initially for 15 years then in real life usage for over 20 since then. And like any medication animal testing before human trials and then continual testing since the first approvals. For cardio vascular. Fatty liver, dementia, addiction, many things. They know how the drugs work and they know rhe impact on the human body. It’s nearly 40 years of data. And righr now about 50 million on globally. God knows how many since they started two decades ago.

peoppe seem to think being diabetic turns your body into some sort of different being and scientists and world health authorities. From the who on, have no idea what they are doing, it’s just bizzare.

if you’ve questions, it doesn’t mean the authorities don’t know, it just means you don’t, but you can email them and ask.

ffsarewedoingthis · Yesterday 21:34

Fiendishandfiery · Yesterday 21:30

It’s about 1.6 million currently in the uk. Not 7.

Sky said 7.

Even 1.6 million appointments a month is insanity

OP posts:
Fiendishandfiery · Yesterday 21:39

ffsarewedoingthis · Yesterday 21:34

Sky said 7.

Even 1.6 million appointments a month is insanity

Wow, ok, then I’d assume that’s correct. It’s a huge amount, but makes sense. So many are on them now. I was at a party a couple of weeks ago,and 5 people turned up , all slim. All on them. That’s on top of my 6 friends on them. And my husband and I, and my daughters partners mother.

so yeah it prob is about 7 million.

its fabulous as it means we will see a reversal in obesity rates in the uk, the nhs spends over 12 billion a year treating rhe health conditions caused by being over weight and obese. When that starts to reduce as the population gets healthy again,that money can be freed up for other things.

Fiendishandfiery · Yesterday 21:40

ffsarewedoingthis · Yesterday 21:34

Sky said 7.

Even 1.6 million appointments a month is insanity

And yes of course it would be impossible, but that’s rhe point isn’t it. To make it impossible.

TY78910 · Yesterday 21:42

Fiendishandfiery · Yesterday 21:34

Surely that’s the same with any prescription medication. These drugs have been in trials initially for 15 years then in real life usage for over 20 since then. And like any medication animal testing before human trials and then continual testing since the first approvals. For cardio vascular. Fatty liver, dementia, addiction, many things. They know how the drugs work and they know rhe impact on the human body. It’s nearly 40 years of data. And righr now about 50 million on globally. God knows how many since they started two decades ago.

peoppe seem to think being diabetic turns your body into some sort of different being and scientists and world health authorities. From the who on, have no idea what they are doing, it’s just bizzare.

if you’ve questions, it doesn’t mean the authorities don’t know, it just means you don’t, but you can email them and ask.

No I get that. DH is on them, never seen a doctor. So I’m not completely distrustful. My point is generally that when you’re routinely under supervision of a doctor who would pick up on issues you might have that would make GLPs unsuitable. If you’ve not seen a doc, you might not know youve got a particular illness that these drugs shouldn’t be taken with.

ChunkyMonkey36 · Yesterday 21:45

Fiendishandfiery · Yesterday 21:40

And yes of course it would be impossible, but that’s rhe point isn’t it. To make it impossible.

Not necessarily.

If we look at the cohort of WLI users who have existing known health conditions, is there a reason they can’t be managed at their existing appointments?

For example - I was pre-diabetic in March. I now have to attend the doctors annually every year, even if at my next check I have actually dropped out of range.

Should I have gone for WLI (I haven’t), if that appointment was 6 monthly instead, I’m going anyway so could have a meds review at that appointment instead.

That would provide better diabetic risk monitoring and better “eyes on” of WLI progress/issues. And like I said, I do have to go anyway.

There’ll be many people who went on WLI with as high a BMI, or as high a risk level. They’re being monitored anyway, just add it on.

Fiendishandfiery · Yesterday 21:52

TY78910 · Yesterday 21:42

No I get that. DH is on them, never seen a doctor. So I’m not completely distrustful. My point is generally that when you’re routinely under supervision of a doctor who would pick up on issues you might have that would make GLPs unsuitable. If you’ve not seen a doc, you might not know youve got a particular illness that these drugs shouldn’t be taken with.

I’m not really with you, I don’t know any medication a doctor prescribed routinely from blood pressure to statins and they do a full health check for everything. It jisy doesn’t happen. In addition in 40 yeats not one person has died due to the drugs, their safety record is stellar.

Fiendishandfiery · Yesterday 21:56

ChunkyMonkey36 · Yesterday 21:45

Not necessarily.

If we look at the cohort of WLI users who have existing known health conditions, is there a reason they can’t be managed at their existing appointments?

For example - I was pre-diabetic in March. I now have to attend the doctors annually every year, even if at my next check I have actually dropped out of range.

Should I have gone for WLI (I haven’t), if that appointment was 6 monthly instead, I’m going anyway so could have a meds review at that appointment instead.

That would provide better diabetic risk monitoring and better “eyes on” of WLI progress/issues. And like I said, I do have to go anyway.

There’ll be many people who went on WLI with as high a BMI, or as high a risk level. They’re being monitored anyway, just add it on.

Yes because doctors don’t have the time to see 7 million people every six months, that would be over 1 million extra gp appts every month. For 54000 gps. Do the maths, people struggle to get appts as it is.

plus it is so uneccessey, people don’t need it, I certainly didn’t, the drugs are clearly very safe, and for those who do, that sort of care is available.

kate6754 · Yesterday 21:57

I do wonder if people have opinions on monitoring, regulation and access of many other drugs, or indeed any opinions at all…does anyone ever ask themselves why they have opinions on this drug more so than any other? There’s a lot of unconscious bias going on here, not based genuine science or concern found from evidence, but deep rooted misogyny and other issues around looks, and the weird relationship we have around value/worth a slimness. This weird morality we put on diet.

workshy46 · Yesterday 21:57

ffsarewedoingthis · 11/07/2026 08:19

But if they did that, why is it never mentioned in this news coverage?

Very few people are abusing it, really. It’s just another thing to try and deny people medication that saves lives.

I’ve seen both sides - obese people who had had life long weight issues benefitting massively from them and people with 10 pounds to lose now looking like walking skeletons- they look horrendous and seem addicted to the scales going down. Previously being naturally slim (me) was something to envy and aspire to probably and now with these drugs it’s achievable to everyone and people don’t like that. I personally think they are life changing to many and think they are fantastic but more and more I’m seeing people who really don’t need to lose weight and if they do a few pounds using them and I’m not sure that’s good - there’s a price to be paid for everything. If you are obese it’s worth it as the benefits outweigh the risks , if not I’m not so sure

Fiendishandfiery · Yesterday 21:59

kate6754 · Yesterday 21:57

I do wonder if people have opinions on monitoring, regulation and access of many other drugs, or indeed any opinions at all…does anyone ever ask themselves why they have opinions on this drug more so than any other? There’s a lot of unconscious bias going on here, not based genuine science or concern found from evidence, but deep rooted misogyny and other issues around looks, and the weird relationship we have around value/worth a slimness. This weird morality we put on diet.

Yes, I mean some of it is sheer madness, I mean the safety record of the drug is clear to see, of course people don’t need to traipse along to their doctors twice a year, no one is down slimming world demanding it,

it’s a weird morality about fat people being thin, a deep seated envy, why do they get to do it “easy” and a profound resentment over it.

Fiendishandfiery · Yesterday 21:59

kate6754 · Yesterday 21:57

I do wonder if people have opinions on monitoring, regulation and access of many other drugs, or indeed any opinions at all…does anyone ever ask themselves why they have opinions on this drug more so than any other? There’s a lot of unconscious bias going on here, not based genuine science or concern found from evidence, but deep rooted misogyny and other issues around looks, and the weird relationship we have around value/worth a slimness. This weird morality we put on diet.

And it’s wonen in the main, women who can’t access the drugs.

Whorulestheroost1 · Yesterday 22:02

It’s is mainly fake concern for health wrapped up in judgement for fat people because being fat is the most shameful thing you can be and fair game to any criticism.

ChunkyMonkey36 · Yesterday 22:05

I can see we’re trotting out the usuals.

“Envy” : Nope. Can afford them, but losing weight without so can’t justify the outlay.

”Faux concern” : Nope. I watched a colleague starve herself using WLI as a prop to do so. Real concerns.

“Can’t access” : Nope. Can, and haven’t.

I just genuinely don’t believe that something that is used to achieve malnutrition by some people, is gained deceitfully by other people who wouldn’t get their initial dose without lying, and can cause serious health concerns if misused (which it is by some) shouldn’t have better safeguarding in place to make sure that can’t happen, or is at least monitored.

ffsarewedoingthis · Yesterday 22:06

ChunkyMonkey36 · Yesterday 21:45

Not necessarily.

If we look at the cohort of WLI users who have existing known health conditions, is there a reason they can’t be managed at their existing appointments?

For example - I was pre-diabetic in March. I now have to attend the doctors annually every year, even if at my next check I have actually dropped out of range.

Should I have gone for WLI (I haven’t), if that appointment was 6 monthly instead, I’m going anyway so could have a meds review at that appointment instead.

That would provide better diabetic risk monitoring and better “eyes on” of WLI progress/issues. And like I said, I do have to go anyway.

There’ll be many people who went on WLI with as high a BMI, or as high a risk level. They’re being monitored anyway, just add it on.

I’m not being monitored. Managed to catch it just in time for me to seemingly have no lasting effects. Perfect bloods in January for something unrelated to my weight.

So under these proposals I’d have to hope for a GP appointment at the same time every month (impossible), and if not have my medication disrupted?

OP posts:
Peoplearebloodyidiots · Yesterday 22:07

Ozgirl76 · 11/07/2026 08:07

Yes but look around normal high streets - this is not happening to normal women. Why on earth would we let a few celebrities with eating disorders influence how normal women access life saving medicine?

Being morbidly obese or even obese and needing drugs to combat this isn't normal

Fiendishandfiery · Yesterday 22:09

Whorulestheroost1 · Yesterday 22:02

It’s is mainly fake concern for health wrapped up in judgement for fat people because being fat is the most shameful thing you can be and fair game to any criticism.

I think it’s partly that, yes, but I also think jealous and resentment. Jealous as they can’t afford them or are contraindicated, or can’t access as their weight is too low, or resentful that they lost the weight the hard way and now think others get it easy and can maintain on them when they struggle.

it is nearly all women, attacking other women, trying to put them off, wanting to be negative, none of them want to balance the discussion with the positives, tand it’s women who cannot access the drugs or proclaim they don’t want them doing it.

its not men, attacking men, or attacking women for them, it’s nearly all women to other women, taking real issue with the fact these meds are now available, safe and highly successful.

so many women are fucked uo about weight, dressing it up as faux concern fools no one.

Fiendishandfiery · Yesterday 22:11

ChunkyMonkey36 · Yesterday 22:05

I can see we’re trotting out the usuals.

“Envy” : Nope. Can afford them, but losing weight without so can’t justify the outlay.

”Faux concern” : Nope. I watched a colleague starve herself using WLI as a prop to do so. Real concerns.

“Can’t access” : Nope. Can, and haven’t.

I just genuinely don’t believe that something that is used to achieve malnutrition by some people, is gained deceitfully by other people who wouldn’t get their initial dose without lying, and can cause serious health concerns if misused (which it is by some) shouldn’t have better safeguarding in place to make sure that can’t happen, or is at least monitored.

I recognise your user name you’re all over these boards with your concern, screaming at everyone won’t someone think of the anorexics.😂

Fiendishandfiery · Yesterday 22:12

Peoplearebloodyidiots · Yesterday 22:07

Being morbidly obese or even obese and needing drugs to combat this isn't normal

Yes yes it is, it’s the new normal,because nearly two thirds of the adult population was over weight or obese, it was a growing problem, not a shrinking one, a problem that costs us over 12 billion a year and rising.

so yes, needing drugs is the new normal, because nothing else worked.

kate6754 · Yesterday 22:15

ChunkyMonkey36 · Yesterday 22:05

I can see we’re trotting out the usuals.

“Envy” : Nope. Can afford them, but losing weight without so can’t justify the outlay.

”Faux concern” : Nope. I watched a colleague starve herself using WLI as a prop to do so. Real concerns.

“Can’t access” : Nope. Can, and haven’t.

I just genuinely don’t believe that something that is used to achieve malnutrition by some people, is gained deceitfully by other people who wouldn’t get their initial dose without lying, and can cause serious health concerns if misused (which it is by some) shouldn’t have better safeguarding in place to make sure that can’t happen, or is at least monitored.

The way you’re weighing it up though is SO skewed you must see that? It’s one of the biggest health revelations in our lifetime, we have this incredible tool to now treat and manage one of the biggest health crises in the world, obesity, and you genuinely think the comparatively small number of people ‘harmed’ (in your opinion) by it somehow outweighs the fundamental health shift we’re seeing.

It simply does not have the level of risk you’re pretending it has. I know it would make so many people feel better if it was this hugely dangerous thing, to punish the fatties, but the truth is it’s a very powerful, very low risk drug that is working, and making more people’s lives better than it is harming.

ChunkyMonkey36 · Yesterday 22:20

Fiendishandfiery · Yesterday 22:11

I recognise your user name you’re all over these boards with your concern, screaming at everyone won’t someone think of the anorexics.😂

I mean.

Someone probably should “think of the anorexics,” and also probably not laugh at them.

Not entirely sure why that needed saying.

Also, not screaming. And this is AIBU. The WLI boards are.. over there.

ffsarewedoingthis · Yesterday 22:21

ChunkyMonkey36 · Yesterday 22:20

I mean.

Someone probably should “think of the anorexics,” and also probably not laugh at them.

Not entirely sure why that needed saying.

Also, not screaming. And this is AIBU. The WLI boards are.. over there.

Yes, someone should - and they have. It’s a lot harder to get WLI than when I started two years ago.

OP posts:
ChunkyMonkey36 · Yesterday 22:21

kate6754 · Yesterday 22:15

The way you’re weighing it up though is SO skewed you must see that? It’s one of the biggest health revelations in our lifetime, we have this incredible tool to now treat and manage one of the biggest health crises in the world, obesity, and you genuinely think the comparatively small number of people ‘harmed’ (in your opinion) by it somehow outweighs the fundamental health shift we’re seeing.

It simply does not have the level of risk you’re pretending it has. I know it would make so many people feel better if it was this hugely dangerous thing, to punish the fatties, but the truth is it’s a very powerful, very low risk drug that is working, and making more people’s lives better than it is harming.

Love, I am a fatty.

I don’t think anyone needs punishing for it. I think they should be less able to harm themselves using a drug they’re given by showing someone an old/fake picture.

It’s really not that controversial.