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

Ozempic increases risk of debilitating eye condition: studies

sdu.dk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–107 of 107 posts

Re: Ozempic increases risk of debilitating eye condition: studies

#101

Post by TeaBrain »

jdietrich wrote: post #87
TeaBrain wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The endlessly repeated truism that "these studies don't prove causation" isn't really saying anything, as the same could be said for every long term human drug study. This line of thinking was the reasoning behind ignoring the link between cancer and tobacco products for decades, because the studies establishing that link were and are observational studies, considering that a controlled experimental study on humans e…

>This line of thinking was the reasoning behind ignoring the link between cancer and tobacco products for decades I wish people would stop repeating this falsehood. The mass consumption of tobacco only really started after 1910, with the mechanisation of cigarette manufacturing. There was a multi-decade time lag between this explosion in tobacco use and the long-term sequelae of lung cancer and cardiovascular disease…

It wasn't a perfect example, which I borrowed from my recollection of The Book of Why (Pearl, 2018), but your response is besides the point that saying "these studies don't prove causation" is saying nothing. It is the most tiring over stated pointless truism, which is so often said as a response to long term observational drug studies, despite virtually none claim to be establishing causation. This phrase "correlation is not causation" is repeated ad nauseam in response to studies simply drawing correlations, mostly in order to write them off or ignore them. It has gotten to the point where I now expect at least one person to say it as a response to every single study I see posted on the internet where a comment section exists, as if there is some internet law that obligates people to state this truism if it hasn't been stated yet.

Re: Ozempic increases risk of debilitating eye condition: studies

#102

Post by sincerecook »

cthalupa wrote: post #99
sincerecook wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are choosing to be obese by making those choices repeatedly in spite of the obvious consequences. It didn't sneak up on you out of nowhere. Calling me an asshole is beside the point, it's just a word for a person who says things that are true that people don't want to hear.

Again: If you get cancer, are you going to skip treatment because you didn't avoid every known carcinogen? Cancer is an obvious consequence of carcinogen exposure, and I would bet quite a lot of money that you are not avoiding exposure to every carcinogen you are aware of. I also doubt you're "putting in the work" to educate yourself on all of the known carcinogens, either. And no, you're not an asshole for saying th…

> Even if becoming obese wasn't a complex and multifaceted topic (and this is well established science,

That "Science" itself is fat apologist bullshit. This kind of Science is a joke, a way to legitimize the removal of personal responsibility and agency. It's activism, not Science, the same way addiction has become a mental illness or criminality an economic outcome under the guise of fake Science. The moral justification for wanting someone to "do it themselves" and have to pay for their choices is that it creates wiser, stronger people and wiser people make better societies (though it is also it's own good). What you are proposing is a society of meat bags with no agency who get bailed out of their poor choices. That makes for an obese soul.

Re: Ozempic increases risk of debilitating eye condition: studies

#103

Post by ternnoburn »

sincerecook wrote: post #96
cthalupa wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically no one chooses to be obese. It happens bit by bit over time, with small poor choice after small poor choice stacking up. Don't worry. You'll still get to feel superior about not being fat - you can just proclaim loudly that you did it without a GLP-1. Those that think like you will give you the applause you're looking for, I'm sure. And everyone else can roll their eyes and move on with their day. "Not liki…

You are choosing to be obese by making those choices repeatedly in spite of the obvious consequences. It didn't sneak up on you out of nowhere. Calling me an asshole is beside the point, it's just a word for a person who says things that are true that people don't want to hear.

This is pretty naive, tbh. Interoception varies between people, as does availability of food, vulnerability to addiction, education, etc.

It's like telling people with depression to not feel sad. There exist chemical, hormonal, and biological drives that vary wildly between humans.

Re: Ozempic increases risk of debilitating eye condition: studies

#104

Post by ternnoburn »

cthalupa wrote: post #100
pessimizer wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can never, ever stop taking it. You can't stop taking it without gaining the weight back (unless the lifestyle change sticks), but everybody stops taking it in the medium term. The side effects are horrible and stack up over time. We'll start seeing the miserable condition of very long-term users (or maybe, hopefully, their bodies will reach an equilibrium!), and we will be able to use the sacrifice of their he…

> You can't stop taking it without gaining the weight back (unless the lifestyle change sticks), but everybody stops taking it in the medium term. The side effects are horrible and stack up over time. Some people experience significant side effects. Many people do not. Tirzepatide seems to induce even fewer side effects in general than semaglutide. > We'll start seeing the miserable condition of very long-term users…

Can you point to some forums? I'm considering a GLP-1 agonist because I have an impaired ability to feel fullness, and as a consequence I eat all the time (mostly healthy stuff, plants). Want to hear more about others experiences and maybe make some connections with people who aren't going to moralize over "you are wired differently and are therefore a bad person"

Re: Ozempic increases risk of debilitating eye condition: studies

#105

Post by cthalupa »

sincerecook wrote: post #102
cthalupa wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again: If you get cancer, are you going to skip treatment because you didn't avoid every known carcinogen? Cancer is an obvious consequence of carcinogen exposure, and I would bet quite a lot of money that you are not avoiding exposure to every carcinogen you are aware of. I also doubt you're "putting in the work" to educate yourself on all of the known carcinogens, either. And no, you're not an asshole for saying th…

> Even if becoming obese wasn't a complex and multifaceted topic (and this is well established science, That "Science" itself is fat apologist bullshit. This kind of Science is a joke, a way to legitimize the removal of personal responsibility and agency. It's activism, not Science, the same way addiction has become a mental illness or criminality an economic outcome under the guise of fake Science. The moral justifi…

Why do you think science has any obligation to track with your own personal morals, is concerned with agency, or has anything at all to do with "souls?" Science is about understanding the how and why of things, on a factual basis. It has no responsibility to align to your worldview.

I also notice you continue to refuse to engage on the very applicable analogy of carcinogens, cancer, and receiving treatment. I can only imagine it's because you know you would seek treatment if your life depended on it, despite the need for it being influenced by your actions.

Regardless, I hope you never need to be in a situation where you have to choose between compromising the morals you're espousing now and getting treatment, and if you ever are, I hope you realize how foolish these ideals are, and that you get the treatment you need.

Re: Ozempic increases risk of debilitating eye condition: studies

#106

Post by cthalupa »

ternnoburn wrote: post #104
cthalupa wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can't stop taking it without gaining the weight back (unless the lifestyle change sticks), but everybody stops taking it in the medium term. The side effects are horrible and stack up over time. Some people experience significant side effects. Many people do not. Tirzepatide seems to induce even fewer side effects in general than semaglutide. > We'll start seeing the miserable condition of very long-term users…

Can you point to some forums? I'm considering a GLP-1 agonist because I have an impaired ability to feel fullness, and as a consequence I eat all the time (mostly healthy stuff, plants). Want to hear more about others experiences and maybe make some connections with people who aren't going to moralize over "you are wired differently and are therefore a bad person"

Sure. glp1forum.com

Re: Ozempic increases risk of debilitating eye condition: studies

#107

Post by sincerecook »

cthalupa wrote: post #105
sincerecook wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even if becoming obese wasn't a complex and multifaceted topic (and this is well established science, That "Science" itself is fat apologist bullshit. This kind of Science is a joke, a way to legitimize the removal of personal responsibility and agency. It's activism, not Science, the same way addiction has become a mental illness or criminality an economic outcome under the guise of fake Science. The moral justifi…

Why do you think science has any obligation to track with your own personal morals, is concerned with agency, or has anything at all to do with "souls?" Science is about understanding the how and why of things, on a factual basis. It has no responsibility to align to your worldview. I also notice you continue to refuse to engage on the very applicable analogy of carcinogens, cancer, and receiving treatment. I can onl…

I didn't say that it does have an obligation to do any of that. If anything it's the opposite, I think Science should abstain from turning moral issues into materialistic "facts" which is what they are attempting to do by turning everything that used to be a character or moral issue into a biological or physiological issue so that now every criminal, misfit and glutton is actually a victim of mental illness or addiction (and addiction is a physical, biological phenomenon) where conveniently all agency and personal responsibility is removed and no one can be blamed or impugned for anything and no one is ever at fault. I don't know what is even supposed to be left of a person when bad choices are not even choices anymore, as if only good choices are real choices and we can go around patting ourselves on the back forever. It's just so pathetic and absurd. If you need to tell yourself that being fat, dumb or lazy is not your fault, go ahead, I'm sure they'll discover a biological basis for laziness soon enough and we can all call ourselves differently motivated or whatever stupid euphemism they'll come up with and breathe a sigh of relief. At the end of the day you're just lying to yourself.
Post reply on HN