Live data from Hacker News

Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

trial.medpath.com

761–770 of 868 posts

Re: Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

#761

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah and what are those perks? Pens, t-shirts, backpacks, posters for patient rooms?

Steak dinners and briefings at the beach.

Each one of those has to be reported and the information is publicly available.

Perks for prescriptions is illegal.

If your GF is really keeping score and rewarding doctors for performance, she’s breaking anti kickback laws. All that has to happen is for prosecutor to make the connection.

I know a guy who spent 3 years in prison for something very very close to what you just described. He was just a rep and he said he was just doing what his company told him to do, but they threw him under the bus and now he’s a felon.

Re: Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

#762
post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They get paid in lower risk deductibles. If a patient demands a drug they saw on commercials, the doctor can reduce liability by prescribing it in many cases.

Wonder how the "online star-rating economy" affects US doctors.

That 100% impacts doctors. It’s well known that doctors who prescribe unnecessary antibiotics get higher ratings.

Re: Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

#763

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He could have lost all that weight and still had bread, sugar, and potatoes but instead he gave up what he clearly enjoyed. Now he gets to live out the rest of his life fighting cravings, telling himself he's not allowed to enjoy food. How utterly sad.

> Now he gets to live out the rest of his life fighting cravings, telling himself he's not allowed to enjoy food. How utterly sad. I don't understand what drives people to write such intentionally asinine comments. Do you get off on hurting others or something? There were quite a few foods I let go of when I decided to drop weight. Can't say I miss them much, certainly not to the extent to say something like "wow, i…

>There were quite a few foods I let go of when I decided to drop weight. Can't say I miss them much, certainly not to the extent to say something like "wow, i can't enjoy food anymore" or "now i'm fighting cravings all the time!!". And I legitimately have no interest in reintegrating them into my diet.

Your story has been told over and over and over. We get it. Congratulations. You win. You don't need GLP1s to sustain your weight loss. You don't experience food noise. You made all the right choices. Your brain and genetics are superior to the 30% of American adults who have been told to eat less and move more and still haven't managed to improve their health through weight loss.

Now that you've been properly congratulated for your superiority, are you interested at all in understanding the complex systems that prevent 100 million Americans from achieving the success you have? Like, any intellectual curiosity at all about a problem that causes untold suffering for almost one third of Americans? That costs literally billions in healthcare costs? About stress, anxiety, access to healthy foods, or the novel mechanisms by which a drug which was discovered through studying the venom of a Gila monster operates on the human gut and brain? Or are you only interested in re-telling the world how you don't have the problem that we're trying to solve?

Re: Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

#764

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Iirc, that pricing will change in the US as Trump will require that the price of drugs to Medicaid patients must match or be less than that of any other developed nation. Since about 1/4 of the people in the US are on medicaid, close to 90 million, that means the drug manufacturers will probably raise the price for everyone else in the US because they got to get their profits somehow... https://www.whitehouse.gov/fac…

Unfortunately, per the link, it sounds like a voluntary arrangement. Essentially they're asking drug companies nicely to stop ripping off Americans. If they're serious about this, they would introduce legislation rather than send strongly worded letters to pharma companies.

That would be pretty , unusual - Congress has shown an exceptionally strong bias to support medical industry profits over health Care through the decades.

I wonder if the bribery (campaign donations) has anything to do with it?

Re: Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

#765

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a diverse set of opinions on this site. We don't all think the same. Also, there's a distinction you're overlooking. Not trusting big pharma isn't the same thing as not trusting medicine. Big pharma will happily sell us drugs that work - it's the most profitable thing they do. You just can't trust them blindly, which is why regulation is important. In the case of vaccines, they've proven effective over a ver…

Healthy suspicion for the mRNA vaccines was not really accepted, was it?

Assuming you're talking about the COVID vaccines, I don't know if I ever saw any healthy suspicion. The signal to noise ratio dropped to zero because it was a political football.

It's a good thing I'm not dictator, 'cause I'd have every news anchor and talking head that spread confusion during that time lined up against the wall and shot.

Re: Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

#766
post #752

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It seems like you really missed the point Yeah, I guess I don't really know what your point was if it wasn't to ask why we get cancer. Maybe that's my fault? > A medication may have side effects ... beyond the initially understood ones. Tylenol has been around for a long time. When it first came out, people were probably popping it like candy until they realized the limits, and now it's pretty well understood. And…

People clutched pearls about mRNA vaccines and now the US is ending all funding for them because one of those nutjobs is running HHS, this will cause an untold amount of harm and deaths. The truth matters, but unfortunately not as much as the narrative.

What does "pearl clutching" have to do with the truth? The whole point is nobody knows what the outcome will be for people being on these things for weight loss long term.

Some people think things will be great, and we've already got everything figured out. Other people are not so optimistic. Neither side knows the future. There is no "truth" here that you have exclusive access to.

This is why I said it's great that everyone can make that risk analysis themselves. If someone comes along and takes these meds off the market for no good reason, then there's something to complain about.

Re: Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

#767

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have an injury? Knees over toes exercises can do wonders for rehab. From a form perspective, it also helps to avoid heel-striking.

No injury I'm aware of. I've never been a runner, trying to start in my 60's. Starting with c25k plan, so it's mostly walking with short bursts of very slow running. No pain during run, but for a week afterward get pain in left kneecap whenever I go up stairs. Everything I've read about kneecap pain is not good. Not heel striking. I wear thin shoes with no padding (barefoot style) so I couldn't even if I wanted to. I…

> I wear thin shoes with no padding (barefoot style) so I couldn't even if I wanted to.

if your form is wrong, it totally could result of extra impact on knee. Its better to run with padding than do not run at all.

> It could be some kind of form issue, I guess.

few points to check:

* make sure you strike under your center of gravity and not in front of it

* even you don't do heel striking, make sure your feet is almost flat, this will engage bunch of muscles for impact ammortization.

* make sure you don't jump up and down, but more like your hips are floating forward in straight line

Re: Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

#768
post #666
post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a horrifying amount of saturated fat per day, though. This is an extreme risk for heart disease. I keep hearing this, yet after 13 years of keto my cholesterol is still 100. Being fat is much higher-risk than eating fat. I'm all for obese people taking Ozempic if they really need it, as well as thoroughly studying its long-term benefits and risks, but the fact that we're at the point of considering medical int…

> Take something like the food pyramid, and put vegetables on the bottom, put fat/dairy/coconut and protein/meat/eggs/soy/mycelium in the next level up, put fruit in the next level up, and put starches and sugars on top You might be happy to know we replaced the food pyramid years over a decade ago. With MyPlate, a visual representation of what your plate ought to look like when it's healthy. Half fruits and vegetabl…

You might be happy to know we replaced the food pyramid years over a decade ago. With MyPlate

No, not particularly. It's fine if you disagree with me, but MyPlate isn't similar to what I'm proposing.

are you a cattle rancher? There is oodles of research that saturated fat is bad for you. Full stop.

You're very confident about this. Are you a potato rancher? I've never personally seen a study which convincingly backed this claim up. What I have seen are plenty of bad studies which conflated "high-fat" with "high-calorie", or otherwise failed to isolate the effects of saturated fats.

Where's the long-term study showing that a diet with ~40%+ calories from non-UPF saturated fats, ~15% or fewer calories from carbohydrates, and an ample supply of green vegetables promotes atherosclerosis relative to a control diet with lower SFAs, higher carbs, and equal calories? Has this even been demonstrated in mice? Has reproducibility been demonstrated? Because I haven't seen it, and not for lack of trying.

But keto people love to talk about how it's all a conspiracy.

I never used the word "conspiracy". I don't doubt the government's policies in this area have been perfectly well-intentioned, but it's nevertheless a fact that we didn't have an obesity epidemic before the government began pushing guidelines that resemble the modern ones upon the 1977 conclusion of the McGovern committee.

If these guidelines and the studies used to justify them are so "obviously" great, it's funny how directly they correlate with the exact opposite of their intended effect.

Re: Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

#769

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's great because we had no other way to address this problem at a population level. Not any realistic ones, anyway. Like, I figured we were just never going to solve it, given the two possibilities were "radically re-engineer US culture such that moving to the US doesn't make previously-skinny people fatter" (with other countries heading the same direction as us needing to make similar moves, one supposes) or "find…

> It's great because we had no other way to address this problem at a population level. Not any realistic ones, anyway. um, go out and exercise? compared to your ancestors from a century ago, you live a relative life of luxury. THIS IS WHY YOU ARE FAT. Too much food in, not enough burning calories. So simple. Im sure there are people who are clinically fat, broken metabolism, but there are tens of millions of obese i…

It has more to do with the American food supply than anything else. The obesity rate skyrocketed as we started to consume food-like substances instead of food.

Strip out all the signals that let the body know it has enough, and it is easier to overeat.

Re: Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

#770

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always been naturally slim and people my whole life have been telling me I look 10-15 years younger than my actual age... the "Ozempic face" is a totally different look, it makes you look gaunt and dying.

This is just not true, and as I've stated, it's because you've always been skinny. There's no magic sauce in ozempic that makes you lose more buccal fat than other weight loss methods. That's just not real, it doesn't exist. When you go from lots of buccal fat to no buccal fat, you will look gaunt in comparison. You've always had low fat so there's no frame of reference, so nobody calls you gaunt. But, if you gained…

You're dismissing a claimed observation without evidence. I have no horse in this race but I'll comment that you appear to be attempting to claim that there's no difference between "skinny" and "crypt keeper". That's a preposterous position to take. The various terminology exists because people use it to describe real world differences. For example skinny, gangly, and gaunt aren't the same thing (although there is often significant overlap).
Post reply on HN