361–370 of 431 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there any evidence supporting the claim there is a significant overlap between the group of people who "refuse injections the government recommends" and the group of people who take "peptides"? The article is carefully crafted to evoke this impression without clearly stating it, listing only anecdotal evidence.
RFK Jr using the blue dye stuff for one thing
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The vast majority of drug candidates don’t make it to the trial stage. Much of the research has to be defensible prior to the trial and what makes them defensible is having a mechanism for action. Of course once a drug is being used off label there starts to be some empirical data which can be used for trials, and it seems that we’ll get lucky with GLP1-As.
You are entirely correct. New compounds for trials do not come out of thin air, you usually derive them from compounds you already know how and why they work. For instance, we know very well how Semaglutide works, same goes for many other peptides that are currently being studied. However, you are correct that we do not understand why they would help for ME/CFS, simply because we do not understand ME/CFS in the first…
As a fun aside, consider the effect of the birthday paradox on empiricism, as the pool of candidates grows larger the probability of a match increases substantially as potential matching candidates increases quadratically.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Rough cost for the retatrutide is $1.25/mg. Even with free healthcare that seems like a foolish place to save money when very widely used alternatives exist in the regulated market.
>when very widely used alternatives exist in the regulated market. Which ones? Semiglutide costs orders of magnitude more.
> had access to free tirzepatide
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You lost muscle because you lost around 1.54% of body weight per week, which is way too aggressive. The maximum recommended amount for losing weight while retaining muscle is around 1%. You will also most likely experience a weight rebound.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
There's a lot of definitions for both of those words. 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? Malnutri…
Sure. I don't think that that implies we have the right system currently or that we can't come up with good definitions. And again, "informed" is almost definitely already an understood term in medicine since "informed consent" is already understood.
> they generally don't understand how these drugs work, what the risk profiles, are or how dosing should be managed.
That's fine. I don't think they have to understand how they work. They have to have the risks conveyed appropriately to them. They might make a call that's ultimately harmful. Adults can do that, they should be allowed to do that.
> "immiment" is a different word than "egregious" isn't it?
Well, yes. If I had defined "egregious" as the same word, that wouldn't be very helpful.
> Malnutrition, cancer, and death are pretty egregious as well, even if they occur maybe months or years in the future, aren't they?
Not really. Things that take years to happen are a lot less serious, especially as they can be monitored for. But again, this can all be explained to the patient. I'd say the bar for "egregious" should be very, very high. When in doubt, give patients the power to choose.
> Literally, enough people are fucking this stuff up that we have pop culture references to it: "ozempic face". Losing weight this rapidly is unsafe.
That isn't compelling. How many of those people are getting ozempic from a nurse practitioner at one of these compound pharmacies? If anything, I'd bet that doctors taking the time to ensure patients are informed would lead to a reduction here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is a tension between empiricism and fundamentalism with much of medical science focusing on fundamentalism. This is a deeply unfair statement, and also a false dichotomy. Medical science is of course empiric. What you call "fundamentalism" is that compounds need to undergo a rigorous regiment of empiric testing before they are given to potentially millions of people. And no, it's not just because of Thalidomi…
Doctors have been maligning ME/CFS as psychosamatic for decades and generally still do despite a large amount of modern evidence to the contrary. If you have it it’s clearly not, you can get good and bad days that are clearly not dependent on psychological state. In addition I have it due to hEDS which is a condition that is almost never diagnosed due to aforementioned blind spots. Most doctors still think the preval…
Yes they will miss rare cases or where symptoms aren't quantifiable or where no understood biological mechanism exists. Yes you can take on research and treatment yourself with the risk associated. No a bunch of anecdotal evidence on experimental treatments do not substitute for structured research. No you won't come back here in 3 years if you develop serious side effects that would have been identified in clinical trials and tell everyone you were wrong.
> a patient who is discontinuing her statin therapy - very inadvisably, given the clinical presentation described - but is enthusiastic about “BPC-157” This feels new. I thought the methylene-blue-for-cancer types continued their medicine while taking other things as extras. Personally, I've swung over to the laissez-faire side of medicine. At the end of the day, if you're an adult, it's your body. You should be give…
There's no way you don't know that for example Steve Jobs ignored his cancer until it killed him because of absurd beliefs about "health". Surely you know about cancer patients dying because they found someone who promised them a cure rather than their doctor offering them a 60% chance through immense pain and struggle.
>Personally, I've swung over to the laissez-faire side of medicine.
We had laissez-faire medicine. It cured almost no one and killed hundreds for no reason. We HAVE laissez-faire medicine. There's almost no regulation in the "Supplements" aisle.
So why doesn't it work?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
But using the word "jab" or criticising the medical industry making you anti vaccine is the kind of thing I was talking about when I mentioned literacy.
The vibe you're getting is that I'm blaspheming. I'm saying things that probably hundreds of millions, possibly even billions of marketing dollars were spent to discourage being said.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doctors have been maligning ME/CFS as psychosamatic for decades and generally still do despite a large amount of modern evidence to the contrary. If you have it it’s clearly not, you can get good and bad days that are clearly not dependent on psychological state. In addition I have it due to hEDS which is a condition that is almost never diagnosed due to aforementioned blind spots. Most doctors still think the preval…
I don't really understand where you are going with the fundamentalist vs. empiricist holy war narrative. Medical science is very empiricist, but it is conservative. Yes they will miss rare cases or where symptoms aren't quantifiable or where no understood biological mechanism exists. Yes you can take on research and treatment yourself with the risk associated. No a bunch of anecdotal evidence on experimental treatmen…
So I’ve been doing this for over 4 years now, and commenting on this with this account for a bit less than that, so far no serious unwanted side effects other than the usual ones for semaglutide which went away. Of course that has a survivorship bias but in the forums people do often tell others what they’re about to try and we would notice if they stopped showing up.