How expensive are GLP-1s again?
As low as $69/month through the compounding pharmacies.
Which pharmacy is that?
GLP-1s are being linked to fewer serious infections, including TB
41–50 of 88 posts
Re: GLP-1s are being linked to fewer serious infections, including TB
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would you prefer that people accept claims uncritically? It’s a valid critique of the results.
If the commenter read the study and found that they did not, in fact, account for that then it would be valid to point it out here. Otherwise, it's just a waste of our time.
By its fundamental design, an observational study cannot account for everything. That is the critique and it is a valid one.
Re: GLP-1s are being linked to fewer serious infections, including TB
#43Kind of kidding, but can we just put GLP-1s in the water supply already? So many benefits!
Re: GLP-1s are being linked to fewer serious infections, including TB
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the commenter read the study and found that they did not, in fact, account for that then it would be valid to point it out here. Otherwise, it's just a waste of our time.
By its fundamental design, an observational study cannot account for everything. That is the critique and it is a valid one.
Most observational studies do in fact account for the first thing a random HN poster can come up with 5 seconds after reading the title. So there is very little value in such a comment.
Re: GLP-1s are being linked to fewer serious infections, including TB
#45How expensive are GLP-1s again?
Depends on how much assurance you need that you're actually injecting what you think you’re injecting. If you’re okay with just being probably sure, the price is a lot lower.
Yup, plus my GLP-1 dealer promises that if it kills me, I won’t have to pay. Really no downside.
Re: GLP-1s are being linked to fewer serious infections, including TB
#46Re: GLP-1s are being linked to fewer serious infections, including TB
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your maintenance calories would rise as you gained weight. I don't think you're getting 20kg out of a fixed +100. I'm suspicious of a lot of your claims, but this really jumped out.
It's a 100 surplus. By definition it is +100 over maintenance
Last sentence doesn't make sense if this is what OP meant. "Once your maintenance drops, running a tiny surplus of just 100 ..." You don't need to drop your maintenance calories, with or without GLPs, to gain weight as you eat at a surplus.
Re: GLP-1s are being linked to fewer serious infections, including TB
#48Maybe being overweight is bad for the immune system
Re: GLP-1s are being linked to fewer serious infections, including TB
#49i can kinda get how a glp-1 can be a miracle drug for weight: if we assume that simple molecular fixes to problems will eventually be found by evolution, then when we change our environment rapidly (e.g., with cheap bountiful calories) then this presents an opportunity for a miracle drug, since evolution will take some time to find the fix.
but for something like reducing disease infection, i find it a lot harder to understand why we don't create this naturally unless there is some equal-but-opposite cost that we'd incur, or if there is not actually as big of a benefit as we believe (or if this is all just colinear with the weight loss stuff).
note: i have no background in any of this and have no idea what i'm talking about
Re: GLP-1s are being linked to fewer serious infections, including TB
#50> Using a large database of (deidentified) medical records, the researchers compared the outcomes of people taking a GLP-1 for their type 2 diabetes to people taking other common diabetes drugs between 2017 and 2025. GLP-1 users were significantly less likely to be diagnosed with TB for up to a five-year span, they found.
This is incredibly manipulative. So, we're going to ignore all other factors that may have played into this and just assume it was due directly to GLP-1 use?