I agree. It's why their excuse is "we must find a drug for this terrible situation," and somehow they always do! I call it the Pharma-Industrial Complex. They are partnered outright with those who make the food that makes us all sick.

Fantastic business model if you leave out all the suffering. And yet, they just pay fines if caught. (I still read articles whining that Vioxx was a miracle drug of some kind that saved patients from steroids. It wasn't just heart attack and strokes, it put others into kidney failure.) I read that the percentage of drugs to actually treat a condition, not the side effects, is less than 10%.

They have nothing to brag about there.

This morning Metabolic Health sent an article about GLP-1 agonists, including slowing gastric emptying.
Then later this News report of lingering side effects. Gastroparesis maybe worse than 40% loss of lean mass!
Lesson in eye-catching headline: "They took blockbuster drugs for weight loss and diabetes. Now their stomachs are paralyzed"

https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/25/heal...s-gastroparesis


https://mailchi.mp/metabolichealths...72?e=5d9982680a

This makes me think they have discovered how to mimic the effects of Weight Loss Surgery. Including the difficult side effects. If we are talking malabsorption, that can kill you.

Will this wear off? More and more, that's what I worry about with pharmacueticals. First it was Adderall (which started as a chemotherapy drug, now repurposed for stubborn acne) and then it was the baldness drug, Propecia, that drives people to suicide. All because the side effects did not stop when they stopped the drug.

Now, I see statins that way. People quit because of the side effects, which don't quit. Even worsen.

Here's the trick they use to hide it: the studies begin by weeding out the people who get side effects. Then they are done on tiny groups compared to the total population. Like Propecia claims a "mere" 1.8% report of hormone derangement, but those study groups are themselves small because they weeded out the first responders.

1.8% of the 2021 population of the US is five million, nine hundred seventy-six thousand, people who might commit suicide because this baldness drug destroyed their libido and organs.

Six million people at risk is another story, and that's with an artificially small percentage applied. Now we see the scale of the health problem when paid enthusiasts want to put statins in the drinking water. There's no way only 1.8% of users are getting side effects. I see people in a constant cycle of taking them, ditching them because of side effects, getting talked back into it by their doctor...

As so often happens, I hunt down one thing and come up with another. From this reddit link:

https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarc...inasteride_war/



It's part of a discussion of Propecia and side effects. My take is that people don't realize how much they lean on the drugs if they are sick so they defend pharma like it's going to live up to the commercials.

While my reality is that I'm going to be twice as wary moving forward, because the older we get, the harder a drug hits us. Yet dosing never seems to acknowledge that.

I would worry a lot about taking these weight loss drugs, since now I'm going to guard my own GABA receptors. Especially when there is a workable, and much more effective, alternative for metabolic syndrome and all the chronic diseases it sparks.

Above, I wrote how there's evidence we can "burn out" or otherwise damage our receptors for vital body functions. So, it is likely to happen with the receptors targeted with these weight loss drugs. Expect more of this obviously hot commodity.

Specifically from the linked article: They took blockbuster drugs for weight loss and diabetes. Now their stomachs are paralyzed



This particular phenomenon is how I became so steroid avoidant now. People would take a steroid which precipitates an immediate worsening in their condition. Sometimes, that inflammation the steroid is prescribed for is caused by an infection, which gets out of control from the immune suppression of the steroids. Now, the latest studies on knees is about not using steroid injections for pain; it accelerates the damage and speeds up the condition.

I've concluded that inflammation that is brute force knocked down should probably be reserved for life-threatening conditions. I now avoid immune suppression in all its forms. And there are more than we realize.

This video by Dr. Berry, who is a personal favorite, outlines the risks of Ozempic.



He expertly outlines the scope of the experiment which is now going on in front of us. What he says fits in with what I've heard for years now: the drug testing process is only being done for approvals. Once the medication is "loosed into the wild" doctors are supposed to step in and report side effects and patient feedback. Maybe back in the day that happened, but now, doctors are allotted 15 minutes to check off all their boxes. They aren't being trained to report side effects, either, because that takes time to nail down, it's a separate thing they or someone who works for them has to do, etc.

So what really happens is people aren't heard and drugs continue to circulate even with serious issues mounting up. But it's not noticed officially, and there's plausible deniability about what happens.

If it's Too Long; Didn't Watch for you, the parts that struck me was how the testing took place with a micro-dose daily, but the current plan is a ramped up dose every week. In another video below, Dr. Ekberg discusses how this normally takes a short time in the body, but the med hangs around for a week...

Another disturbing item is how it shrinks, but multiplies, the fat cells. Which kind of traps a person into staying on it, as weight regain will literally... multiply. There's even precedent for such happening as it's a "rare" side effect of cosmetic fat freezing. Which has been known to create permanent fat deposits. That's a scary sentence!

To quote Dr. Berry, on a medical truism I agree with, "You don't want be the first doctor, or the last doctor, to prescribe a medication."

Here's that Dr. Sten Ekberg video.

You must know this before taking weight loss meds

Personal injury attorneys are quick to react to that "Their stomachs are paralyzed" headline.

Woman sues drug makers of Ozempic and Mounjaro over severe gastrointestinal issues



https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/03/busi...ounjoro-lawsuit

I would be interested if they get as far as evidence recovery. But delayed emptying is a feature of the drug. If she had an existing condition the one to sue would be her doctor.

Like I noted in another thread about the same topic, the first class action lawsuit for these new weight loss drugs is right around the corner. Looks like the makings of one right here. The attorneys are smart enough to wait until many more can report the same health issues. Gives the pharmaceutical companies enough time to make a bundle to afford the inevitable settlement, which will be a fraction of the overall revenue made from these poisons.

With the FDA so undermined by years of neglect, suing them is ALL we can do.

Apparently there's been some study of the health benefits now.

This has made the major news outlets, but the study itself has not been peer reviewed yet.

Wegovy Trial Shows Incredible Results for Heart Health




It'll be interesting to see what peer review eventually says about it.

I would imagine that just like JLx said, " how can major weight loss such as 70 lbs not be of benefit? Just dragging around less body mass relieves some strain on the heart."

But then is it working to reduce heart attacks and strokes better than simply losing weight, getting your blood sugar under control, and lowering your BP?

True, but this is the statement that troubles me, which you correctly put in bold:

And this statement:

Since there is no full RCT document to review ("Novo Nordisk has only published the-top line summary of its findings"), I'm going to presume that the 20 percent is based on relative risk as opposed to absolute risk, as this is how the pharmaceuticals present their best statistics. I'm now looking forward to reviewing the trial, but as mentioned several times on this forum, pharmaceuticals do not publish adverse event data with no legal requirement for them to do so. I'm concerned that those taking these drugs today for weight loss and in the future for heart health are the "lab mice" who will ultimately prove the effectiveness and tease out the side effects of these drugs. What a world where humans are lab rats who can perish, but the financials are too healthy to stop the machine. What's a little payoff that's a fraction of overall revenue?

The current rumblings:

gravely concern me. But, the momentum has started as the current "off label" application for heart disease, regardless of how much statistical distortion is involved, is off to the races . . . . The article is written for the machine, however, as invoking the word "ethical" in the context of the pharmaceutical business is the ultimate oxymoron.

I was assuming that the 20% decrease in risk is based purely on lab values:

Excess weight is associated with increased chance of heart attack and stroke. Lose weight and that risk factor is decreased when you lose weight on these drugs.

High BP is also a risk factor for heart attack and stroke, and losing weight also tends to lower BP, so that risk factor is decreased when you lose weight on these drugs.

Same with blood sugar. It said that the participants were not diabetics, but the bar has been set pretty high before diabetes is finally diagnosed. If they were pre-diabetics or even had only slightly higher than normal blood sugar readings, then losing weight could take them out of those categories.


___________

One thing that really concerns me is that the way the ones I know on them are acting, they seem to think that once they lose the weight (on what is a rather low fat, relatively low carb but also low protein diet), they will be able to keep it off just by sticking to the foods they ate to lose the weight.

But how are they going to do that?

On person taking them was stressed for several weeks over a health issue, started eating junk again, and regained some weight - in spite of being on a weight loss drug that suppresses appetite, as well as suppressing interest in food.

The other person is stressing over getting a refill on the drug, because demand is so high that pharmacies are estimating not being able to fill additional Rx's for a month or two.

At the same time, for one individual the appetite suppression seems to be wearing off at least a day before the next dose is due, and I'm hearing things like "thank goodness I take the next dose tomorrow". To me the return of a ravenous appetite on day 6 of each dose would be a huge red flag warning that the appetite suppression from this drug is fragile.

Still - both individuals seem to fully expect to lose all the weight necessary and then go off of the drug permanently - but somehow still be able to stick to the calorie levels they've been eating with the help of a drug that causes a nearly complete loss of interest in food - that somehow the way that the drug affects interest in food will be a permanent change.

Unless they go back on the drug every time they start to regain weight, I don't expect to see a good long term result. (And that's before even considering the potential for serious side effects)

From what I've seen from abundant videos, it's just another dodge to keep them from actually engaging with what they eat, and how it makes them feel. Watching people flirt with their blood sugar while being deeply into denial about how much they eat, and how fleeting the feelings of satiation and enjoyment really are. There are several prominent examples; the deeper a person is into fast/convenience foods, the worse it is for their health.

But somehow, a piece of meat, breaded and fried and then served in more bread with a sugary sauce, is now thought of as part of a meal which includes deep fried starch, a sugary drink, and then a dessert? The dessert part they agonize over, when it's just a different flavor of sugar to the body.

What's the difference between the fries and the pie, I ask?

There's increasing evidence, like a recent study comparing the Victorian and modern eating habits in Britain. There was a lot of animal foods being eaten, with organs keeping even the poor well-fed compared with us now.

The introduction of processed foods around 1900 created a wave of obesity and chronic illness. This is when the poor start getting fat and sick and demented from pellagra. Medieval Italy suffered from waves of malnutrition dementia, because they switched to corn without preparing it the way peoples of the new world did, using ash to unlock the niacin.

The creation of fortified grains was born, but it's only enough to keep us from filling warehouses with acutely suffering people. Now, it's slower and chronic, but people just aren't getting enough Bs and protein this way.

My own experience has convinced me that my real food tastes as good as my "treats" used to, especially when I don't have to repeat the whole thing an hour or two later. When people talk about how their indifference to food feels like a "miracle" they don't know they can do that themselves.

With the drug, they don't improve their diet. Somehow, I think this drug turns off the oversized appetite which promotes overeating and cravings. But we can all do that by eating real food.

UPF-4 level foods increase the appetite centers. It's been designed as an addictive drug over decades, and it provides so little nutrition it has to be an adaptation. A kind of "we have nothing but dirt to eat, so let's eat a lot of it" directive from our brains. Maybe, so we will like eating dirt.

Losing 70 lbs sounds great, but if 40% of that weight is lean body mass, which includes muscles, and the heart is a muscle, is it so great? The ones with gastroparesis that are constantly vomiting are basically involuntary bulimics. This throws off electrolytes and can cause heart attacks.

I saw Sharon Osbourne totter out on Bill Maher looking like an old person with sarcopenia, then she was thrilled to describe her weight loss on Ozempic