9 ms·

I'm thinking that ozempic and zepbound will have something to say about this. When ozempic becomes available as a generic (2032) it's going to be available for

I'm thinking that ozempic and zepbound will have something to say about this. When ozempic becomes available as a generic (2032) it's going to be available for $10 a dose and a huge amount of people will be taking it.

Muromec 2y ago
Wait, doing amphetamines for weight loss is cool again and has no drawbacks of it's own?
- llm_trw 2y ago
  Welcome to the 80s part 2. Hope you enjoy the ride.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    Ozempic et al are nothing like amphetamines. They definitely have side-effects but we have far, far more evidence that the benefits are outweighed than we did for stimulants in the 80s.
    - llm_trw 2y ago
      Every decade or two I hear this about some wonder drug only for them to turn out just as bad as what they were replacing. The opioid epidemic being the latest one.
      - ywvcbk 2y ago
        Do you pay more attention to those and ignore the actual success stories? The opioids thing is hardly comparable. Everybody clearly knew the risks (for the past 100+ years) and chose to ignore them. This is an almost entirely new type of drugs.
        llm_trw 2y ago
        Do you pay attention to the people who win at Russian roulette more than those who lose? OxyContin was marketed to be the safe alternative to all opioids that came before it, impossible to become addicted to and extremely difficult to overdose from. This was a lie. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6140023/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6140023/
        ywvcbk 2y ago
        > Do you pay attention to the people who win at Russian roulette more than those who lose? Well.. no since you cant really win anything. With pharmaceuticals on the other I hand I think 1 Oxycontin/etc. like “situation” would be a reasonable price to pay for let’s say 4 major successes. You were talking about decades. Surely you noticed the advancements in treating cancer, HIV and a multitude of other conditions since the 90s? > This was a lie. Sure. But it’s on the same level as saying that filtered cigarettes don’t cause cancer. If a doctor actually believes that he’s just too dumb to be a doctor… (although I assume most safety claims were relative to other opioids and not in absolute terms?) Are there any signs that the situation with Semaglutides is that similar? Yes they are new and not well understood drugs (well not really but sort of..) and it’s not inconceivable that their longterm cost might end up outweighing the benefits but I don’t really see any signs of an actual conspiracy yet.
- NemoNobody 2y ago
  I don't think ozempic is amphetamines.
- EasyMark 2y ago
  Ozempic isn’t anywhere near the amphetamine class of weight control prescriptions, where are you getting your misinformation from?
- tuatoru 2y ago
  Honest puzzlement: how is it possible to be so underinformed when google, duckduckgo and wikipedia are right there? Are they blocked some places where hacker news isn't?
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
    You live in a world where willful stupidity is far from rare. Yes, I know that we should assume incompetence before malevolence, but that was an earlier era. A mixture of the two is the new norm.
MichaelZuo 2y ago
How do you know they don’t have side effects that would reduce max life expectancy?
- generalizations 2y ago
  Entirely possible they do - but those effects would probably manifest in some fashion earlier than actual death. We'll have at least 7 years to see if we can spot them. But, even if they do exist, they will probably be small (given we haven't found them so far), and the positive effect on life expectancy via weight loss is huge. i.e. the benefits of the weight loss almost certainly outweigh any side effects that are likely to manifest.
- positr0n 2y ago
  People have been taking them for decades for other reasons, so if they had side effects reducing max life expectancy worse than being overweight surely we'd know by now.
  - hackernewds 2y ago
    have they? why are they only gaining prominence now?
    - ben_w 2y ago
      Because they have been made available for weight loss. Viagra's original purpose was for heart conditions, that purpose didn't make the headlines (or spam folders) either.
      - tuatoru 2y ago
        Almost. Pulmonary hypertension, high blood pressure in the arteries of the lungs. Pretty close to the heart.
        ben_w 2y ago
yodsanklai 2y ago
I'm not quite sure this will address the root issues. Obesity is linked with very unhealthy diet. Ozempic isn't going to address that.
- aetherson 2y ago
  It does at least potentially address that. Ozempic's mechanism of action is not "ramp up your metabolism" or "make you absorb fewer calories from food." It's "make the desire to eat less intense, making it easier to remain on a diet plan." That diet plan could be, "eat exactly the same things but less of them," but it will often be, "cut out unhealthy snacks" or whatever.
  - gruez 2y ago
    >It's "make the desire to eat less intense, making it easier to remain on a diet plan." That diet plan could be, "eat exactly the same things but less of them," but it will often be, "cut out unhealthy snacks" or whatever. If people can't be convinced to eat carrots over chips, what makes you think they're going to suddenly eat carrots over chips after eating medication that makes them want to eat less?
    - hoseja 2y ago
      Because that's literally what Ozempic does.
      - gruez 2y ago
        I'm not sure how making someone less hungry magically makes them want to eat carrots over chips. Is the reason why they're eating chips because they're so hungry and so pressed for time that they're reaching for the highest calorie food? Or do they eat whatever's the most delicious? If it's the latter, I doubt being less hungry is going to make them choose healthier options over more delicious ones.
        siver_john 2y ago

Muromec 2y ago

Wait, doing amphetamines for weight loss is cool again and has no drawbacks of it's own?

llm_trw 2y ago
Welcome to the 80s part 2. Hope you enjoy the ride.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  Ozempic et al are nothing like amphetamines. They definitely have side-effects but we have far, far more evidence that the benefits are outweighed than we did for stimulants in the 80s.
  - llm_trw 2y ago
    Every decade or two I hear this about some wonder drug only for them to turn out just as bad as what they were replacing. The opioid epidemic being the latest one.
    - ywvcbk 2y ago
      Do you pay more attention to those and ignore the actual success stories? The opioids thing is hardly comparable. Everybody clearly knew the risks (for the past 100+ years) and chose to ignore them. This is an almost entirely new type of drugs.
      - llm_trw 2y ago
        Do you pay attention to the people who win at Russian roulette more than those who lose? OxyContin was marketed to be the safe alternative to all opioids that came before it, impossible to become addicted to and extremely difficult to overdose from. This was a lie. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6140023/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6140023/
        ywvcbk 2y ago
        > Do you pay attention to the people who win at Russian roulette more than those who lose? Well.. no since you cant really win anything. With pharmaceuticals on the other I hand I think 1 Oxycontin/etc. like “situation” would be a reasonable price to pay for let’s say 4 major successes. You were talking about decades. Surely you noticed the advancements in treating cancer, HIV and a multitude of other conditions since the 90s? > This was a lie. Sure. But it’s on the same level as saying that filtered cigarettes don’t cause cancer. If a doctor actually believes that he’s just too dumb to be a doctor… (although I assume most safety claims were relative to other opioids and not in absolute terms?) Are there any signs that the situation with Semaglutides is that similar? Yes they are new and not well understood drugs (well not really but sort of..) and it’s not inconceivable that their longterm cost might end up outweighing the benefits but I don’t really see any signs of an actual conspiracy yet.
NemoNobody 2y ago
I don't think ozempic is amphetamines.
EasyMark 2y ago
Ozempic isn’t anywhere near the amphetamine class of weight control prescriptions, where are you getting your misinformation from?
tuatoru 2y ago
Honest puzzlement: how is it possible to be so underinformed when google, duckduckgo and wikipedia are right there? Are they blocked some places where hacker news isn't?
- NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
  You live in a world where willful stupidity is far from rare. Yes, I know that we should assume incompetence before malevolence, but that was an earlier era. A mixture of the two is the new norm.

MichaelZuo 2y ago

How do you know they don’t have side effects that would reduce max life expectancy?

generalizations 2y ago
Entirely possible they do - but those effects would probably manifest in some fashion earlier than actual death. We'll have at least 7 years to see if we can spot them. But, even if they do exist, they will probably be small (given we haven't found them so far), and the positive effect on life expectancy via weight loss is huge. i.e. the benefits of the weight loss almost certainly outweigh any side effects that are likely to manifest.
positr0n 2y ago
People have been taking them for decades for other reasons, so if they had side effects reducing max life expectancy worse than being overweight surely we'd know by now.
- hackernewds 2y ago
  have they? why are they only gaining prominence now?
  - ben_w 2y ago
    Because they have been made available for weight loss. Viagra's original purpose was for heart conditions, that purpose didn't make the headlines (or spam folders) either.
    - tuatoru 2y ago
      Almost. Pulmonary hypertension, high blood pressure in the arteries of the lungs. Pretty close to the heart.
      - ben_w 2y ago

yodsanklai 2y ago

I'm not quite sure this will address the root issues. Obesity is linked with very unhealthy diet. Ozempic isn't going to address that.

aetherson 2y ago
It does at least potentially address that. Ozempic's mechanism of action is not "ramp up your metabolism" or "make you absorb fewer calories from food." It's "make the desire to eat less intense, making it easier to remain on a diet plan." That diet plan could be, "eat exactly the same things but less of them," but it will often be, "cut out unhealthy snacks" or whatever.
- gruez 2y ago
  >It's "make the desire to eat less intense, making it easier to remain on a diet plan." That diet plan could be, "eat exactly the same things but less of them," but it will often be, "cut out unhealthy snacks" or whatever. If people can't be convinced to eat carrots over chips, what makes you think they're going to suddenly eat carrots over chips after eating medication that makes them want to eat less?
  - hoseja 2y ago
    Because that's literally what Ozempic does.
    - gruez 2y ago
      I'm not sure how making someone less hungry magically makes them want to eat carrots over chips. Is the reason why they're eating chips because they're so hungry and so pressed for time that they're reaching for the highest calorie food? Or do they eat whatever's the most delicious? If it's the latter, I doubt being less hungry is going to make them choose healthier options over more delicious ones.
      - siver_john 2y ago