Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GLP-1 drugs linked to lower death rates in colon cancer patients

today.ucsd.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 211 posts

Re: GLP-1 drugs linked to lower death rates in colon cancer patients

#171

Post by CoastalCoder »

bossyTeacher wrote: post #79
bicx wrote: post #2

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.

Given all the potential money, if they are issues, I expect it to go down like tobacco companies back in the days actively suppressing undesirable research by harassing researchers, influencing peer review journals or/and funding research casting doubt on the benefits of this drug. Chances are that any negative effects won't be obvious until it's too late. Look at microplastics, they have been around for just over a…

I agree. I think it's unlikely that negative effects can go unnoticed for very long, but in the short term I'm only like 97% sure we're getting the full story.

That said, it's probably certain enough for me to be open enough to using them now, if my doctor recommends it.

Re: GLP-1 drugs linked to lower death rates in colon cancer patients

#172

Post by glp1guide »

bicx wrote: post #2

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.

Basically, the gastro-intestinal side effects are the biggest issue, along with CVS (not the store) and possibly eye problems.

That said, the negative side effects look to be incredibly rare and manageable (including via stopping treatment) -- and the positives are quite tremendous.

It's not a magic drug, but it is the first of it's kind with such a skew to the positive on side effects.

Re: GLP-1 drugs linked to lower death rates in colon cancer patients

#173

Post by glp1guide »

pedalpete wrote: post #65
andy_ppp wrote: post #56

If you eat less your stomach/whole body gets time to relax and repair?

My understanding is that it slows the digestive process, so there isn't more "empty time to repair or relax". But my thinking there may be naive.

At this point most experts lean more heavily on the effect of GLP1s in the brain rather than delayed gastric emptying -- it's more of a brain drug than anything else which is why it works so well.

Re: GLP-1 drugs linked to lower death rates in colon cancer patients

#174

Post by glp1guide »

ck2 wrote: post #15

no GLP-1 generics until 2030 lots of people will miss out on benefits, like oh preventing death our drug system is weird

Like others have mentioned, liraglutide already exists as a generic! It's not as good as Semaglutide or Tirzepatide, but.

Also, a lot of people are still getting compounded GLP1, to the chagrin of Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk.

Separately, 2026 is about to completely change the pricing of this stuff, not even taking into account the Trump administration's recent efforts. The price of injected GLP1 is going to implode due to patents lapsing in Canada and other places -- and for the pill forms that come out soon it looks like the Trump administration is keen on keeping prices for that low as well.

Re: GLP-1 drugs linked to lower death rates in colon cancer patients

#175

Post by pretzellogician »

kube-system wrote: post #74
k_roy wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Protecting it before generic is fine, but the pricing doesn't make sense. 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.

They have direct discount programs where they sell at ~ half price.

True, but also still absurdly high. Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly cost roughly $500 monthly... but the price is almost the same regardless of the dosage (from say 0.5mg to 2.4mg).

Re: GLP-1 drugs linked to lower death rates in colon cancer patients

#176

Post by [deleted] »

azinman2 wrote: post #33
robbomacrae wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There have been some. I've heard about eyesight related issues. A quick google found this article [0] where results showed that people using GLP-1 drugs were 68.6 times more likely to develop certain types of vision problems. [0]: https://www.aao.org/newsroom/news-releases/detail/do-glp-1-d...

This is also an extremely rare vision problem. So absolute numbers are very tiny. The absolute numbers for diabetes, weight related problems, etc far dwarf this.

[deleted]

Re: GLP-1 drugs linked to lower death rates in colon cancer patients

#177

Post by Der_Einzige »

bicx wrote: post #2

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.

This kind of “it’s too good so it must be bad” thinking is a cancer in our species.

Re: GLP-1 drugs linked to lower death rates in colon cancer patients

#178

Post by Der_Einzige »

lm28469 wrote: post #31
bitwize wrote: post #3

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.

You’re the lazy one.

Re: GLP-1 drugs linked to lower death rates in colon cancer patients

#179

Post by hollerith »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #177
bicx wrote: post #2

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.

This kind of “it’s too good so it must be bad” thinking is a cancer in our species.

I agree. A better response is, "maybe GLP-1 drugs are really great or maybe the drug companies, which spend most of their time and money trying to manipulate opinion (i.e., by bribing researchers and clinicians, which is not illegal) are at it again."

Re: GLP-1 drugs linked to lower death rates in colon cancer patients

#180

Post by hollerith »

ecshafer wrote: post #10
bicx wrote: post #2

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.

GLP-1s have been peescribed for like 20 years, but have been limited more to diabetics and extreme cases. So there is pretty good data. Not to say there isnt going to be side effects in some population sample, but we need to compare that with obesity and diabetes (which is a very bad disease).

SSRIs have been prescribed for 37 years, and society is just starting to understand that under current prescribing protocols, they do more harm than good.

Also, isn't the dose used to treat obesity 3 times higher than the dose used over those 20 years to treat diabetes?

Post reply on HN