351–360 of 431 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I appreciate why you might feel that way. It's reasonable for reasonable people to disagree, but in this case the experts we trust to decide these things decided that you were the one who presented a danger to society. I seriously doubt that you have the sort of medical credentials that would be required to get any serious person to take your word over those of the world class epidemiologists, virologists, etc who sa…
Lowe has a point, but the FDA has painted itself into a corner by (a) forcing up the costs and the various bureaucratic demands associated with clinical trials, (b) allowing drug advertising , but then forcing those comical "may cause death" disclaimers, both of which have become totally ubiquitous, and (c) inconsistently following its own rules, and in some cases flouting its own rules. At this point, broscience is…
When medicine ignores nutrition entirely, and nutrient supplements are still complete unknowns, you have to wonder who the FDA is working for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GLP-1 prescriptions are easy to get in the US. It's filling the prescription that is the problem, because insurance rarely covers it and it is beyond the disposable income of most Americans. The prescription hurdle is absolutely necessary -- these are not drugs that anyone can safely take without guidance. It's the price that needs to be fixed.
> these are not drugs that anyone can safely take without guidance. Unless that risk is egregious, informed adults should be able to accept it if they so choose.
What we might not agree with is specifically what "informed" or "egregious" might mean.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Or that the doctor has some magical insight into your getting-on beyond a couple questions they ask you in your visit? Remember to eat. That's it. Apparently we have forgotten people who died from eating disorders (previously called anorexia nervosa)? There is a VAST difference between someone who weighs 300lbs asking for GLP-1 to combat morbidity and someone who is barely 100lbs asking for a GLP-1 to take off weig…
That sounds like people making an informed decision about their body to me. Doctors don't need to be inserted into every risky decision.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
*anti untested vaccines - people should be skeptical of untested vaccines, just like peptides.
Which untested vaccines are regularly given to patients?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> these are not drugs that anyone can safely take without guidance. Unless that risk is egregious, informed adults should be able to accept it if they so choose.
I think we all agree with that statement. What we might not agree with is specifically what "informed" or "egregious" might mean.
FWIW I do not think that most people agree with this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not the exact quote lol you cut out the exact part I was referring to. > because unless a really substantial amount of engineering has gone into it, any given peptide is going get the same treatment from your digestive system as a chicken breast does, i.e. a complete teardown > Every single YouTube video and blog post I have read about peptites is exclusively about injectable supplements. Collagen peptides, gh…
> Collagen peptides, ghk-cu, and many other peptide supplements are often taken orally. And with very rare exceptions, it's as useful as watching someone workout when you want to gain muscle. Every meat we eat is awash in peptides, and to keep our body from getting hijacked by the signaling for, say a chicken, our body has to break down almost all peptides ingested orally. There are a few exceptions, notably there's…
Who cares? I never made broad claims about their efficacy, the author did.
> Oral peptides are snake oil for the most part.
The author's claim is not nuanced by "for the most part", that's why I quoted it directly.
Besides, I was merely clarifying what the other poster was likely referring to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jor.21107 Among others. If you read the paper, it's actually apparent that there's little difference between i.p. and oral administration in terms of efficacy -- both were roughly equally effective in improving MCL ligament healing. Admittedly the paper's in rats -- as are 99% of the others -- as there's no incentive for anybody to run human trials.
You should note that your study is not controlled. There are two groups, those with oral administration those with sub-q administration. There is not group without administration. This means you can't say that oral vs injected is "equally effective" because you can't assert that BPC 157 is effective at all. You can't tease out the effect size because you don't know if any or all of the MCL ligament healing was done v…
Is that true? It seems that you can say that they were equally effective without quantifying an effect. It could be the case that both are equal in that neither has an effect, which this would validate. Then you can just point to other studies to claim effectiveness of injected.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hasn't this mostly been debunked? You lose muscle mass because you lost mass overall, and whether you lost it too quickly or not is not the major factor. AFAIK maintaining muscle mass while losing fat is borderline impossible for anyone who isn't extremely fat and/or very disproportionate composition to begin with.
Not as far as I know. The ratio of fat-to-muscle loss depends on several factors, most notably the rate of weight loss (see https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34371981/ ). In fact, retatrutide is popular notably because it is known to preserve lean body mass better than other weight loss drugs.
I thought that this was not yet substantiated in human trials? There's a plausible mechanism and, I think a mouse trial, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think we all agree with that statement. What we might not agree with is specifically what "informed" or "egregious" might mean.
I actually think "informed" is almost definitely defined already. Doctors already need to provide informed consent, so I think it would borrow from that. As for "egregious", I also suspect that this is understood already in a similar vein, but perhaps not - I'd suggest that this is effectively "would near definitively cause imminent harm". FWIW I do not think that most people agree with this.
I can tell you that the conversations I've had with people who take these drugs from telehealths or from med spas -- they generally don't understand how these drugs work, what the risk profiles, are or how dosing should be managed. There's a lot of misinformation going around about all these drugs.
"immiment" is a different word than "egregious" isn't it? Malnutrition, cancer, and death are pretty egregious as well, even if they occur maybe months or years in the future, aren't they?
Literally, enough people are fucking this stuff up that we have pop culture references to it: "ozempic face". Losing weight this rapidly is unsafe. Sure, a lot of people might consent to the idea of rapidly losing weight, but there's nothing "informed" about it.