61–70 of 211 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Haven't you been reading Hackernews for the past 10 years? Sugar has been implicated in pretty much every major late-life disease, and the closest thing to a cure before GLP-1 agonists was fasting.
That's such a lazy and unimaginative take that basically skips 99.999% of human history during which sugar wasn't a problem at all.
I do not like the framing. GLP-1 drugs help people lose weight, and it is the weight loss that lowers death rates in colon cancer[1]. This is making it sound like the drug itself is reducing cancer. [1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12672-025-03902-4
It’s observational. They are saying they see correlation.
Your suggested mechanism is plausible, and likely, of course, but that might only be part of the effect.
I think it’s still valuable findings and can help direct further studies.
Maybe I'm just an aging cynic, but I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop when it comes to GLP-1s. There have been so many claims of positive benefits that it almost seems too good to be true. With them being so expensive, the producers have every incentive to upsell using any study they can get their hands or money on. If it's all upside, then I'm happy to be wrong.
no GLP-1 generics until 2030 lots of people will miss out on benefits, like oh preventing death our drug system is weird
Private people invested a lot of money to develop this and get it through testing. Allowing them to reap the benefits from their investment for a limited time is just fine. It's not people couldn't also: Diet, exercise, choose veggies, eat more fiber, etc
Is it ethical for me to pay someone to murder you? Does it matter if it costs me a large amount of money or not?
If you eat less your stomach/whole body gets time to relax and repair?
But my thinking there may be naive.
no GLP-1 generics until 2030 lots of people will miss out on benefits, like oh preventing death our drug system is weird
Private people invested a lot of money to develop this and get it through testing. Allowing them to reap the benefits from their investment for a limited time is just fine. It's not people couldn't also: Diet, exercise, choose veggies, eat more fiber, etc
If it's $1000 per month cost per person when it's the name brand, how many people are on it? At this point just the diabetics and people with really good insurance?
Wouldn't they make a hell of a lot more money selling it for $100 during their protected period to 1000x the people.
I am on GLP-1 (very low dose), and I’ve found that it seems to help me moderate my alcohol consumption as well. Maybe some thing like that could also be contributing to the effect.
I am on GLP-1 (very low dose), and I’ve found that it seems to help me moderate my alcohol consumption as well. Maybe some thing like that could also be contributing to the effect.
Is there evidence for addiction tendencies in general? Or is it something specific to alcohol?
To me, it’s anecdotal, of course, but I have same sense of being in control over alcohol intake as food intake.
Basically makes it much easier for me to avoid binging.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Haven't you been reading Hackernews for the past 10 years? Sugar has been implicated in pretty much every major late-life disease, and the closest thing to a cure before GLP-1 agonists was fasting.
That's such a lazy and unimaginative take that basically skips 99.999% of human history during which sugar wasn't a problem at all.
Maybe I'm just an aging cynic, but I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop when it comes to GLP-1s. There have been so many claims of positive benefits that it almost seems too good to be true. With them being so expensive, the producers have every incentive to upsell using any study they can get their hands or money on. If it's all upside, then I'm happy to be wrong.
Same. I think that pharmaceutical industry is lot more bleak now than it was when Fen-Phen became popular. GLP-1 usage is largely off-label as far as I know, but I wouldn't trust them even if it wasn't. There is a mountain of precedent for these companies to choose profit over health, and for our government(s) to aid them in covering up evidence of negative effects on the latter for the sake of the former.