Obesity practitioner view on Ozempic, Wegovy etc

Status
Not open for further replies.
Eddy Edson

Eddy Edson

Well-Known Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 2
Medical Director of Sequence talking about their experience with the new weight loss meds in the clinic. (Sequence is the US telehealth obesity practice bought by Weight Watchers the other week.)

 
Wonder how much of the $132m WW paid went to Nadolsky?
 
bulkbiker said:
At least Dr B's shakes don't cause harm
Click to expand...
Yes, unregulated supplements are always safer than drugs which have been through years of multi-phase multi-centre clinical trials which are designed only to enrich Big Pharma and their Alien Lizard People overlords.

You can see that all major expert bodies are ALP-controlled also by the fact that their saturated fat recommendations imply that Bikman's choc'full'o'satfats shakes probably aren't good for cardiovascular health:

etc etc etc

Thank geebus we have heroes like Bikman and The Liver King standing firm for truth.
 
Looking at the very long video, there seem to be quite a few possible side effects and it all sounds a bit 'a shot in the dark' sort of thing. Of course it can't be and will be properly regulated. But I didn't get a good feeling of confidence. I will watch the progression of this side of 'medicine' with fascination.
 
Gwynn said:
Of course it can't be and will be properly regulated.
Click to expand...
Time will tell...personally, like most drugs. I'll avoid it.
 
bulkbiker said:
That "probably " is doing a lot of lifting and Wegovy has fairly well known side effects.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1638188155202306052

As for sat fat, LDL and cholesterol.....
Click to expand...
Chaz seems to have done a good job putting together every journal paper since about 1990 which he thinks might have something to say against apoB as an independent risk factor or marker in any population, apparently without reviewing study quality or impact.

He could have done the same kind of thing for any proposed risk factor or marker. That's the way science works: lots of studies, lots of differing conclusions, lots of noise. For a non-expert, the best strategy is to rely on the expert groups to assess, filter, weight and summarise, rather than an individual Chaz.
 
Last edited:
Eddy Edson said:
Chaz seems to have done a good job putting together every journal paper since about 1990 which he thinks might have something to say against apoB as an independent risk factor or marker in any population, apparently without reviewing study quality or impact.

He could have done the same kind of thing for any proposed risk factor or marker. That's the way science works: lots of studies, lots of differing conclusions, lots of noise. For a non-expert, the best strategy is to rely on the expert groups to assess, filter, weight and summarise, rather than an individual Chaz.
Click to expand...

I have ZERO intention of wading into the specifics of this argument, but the problem with "For a non-expert, the best strategy is to rely on the expert groups to assess, filter, weight and summarise" is it gave us the Eat Well Plate, salmonella from eggs, and a few other not terribly helpful guidelines.

I think it is incumbent upon us all to do at least some research onto the pros and cons of anything, whether it be fixed rate mortgages, travel to X, Y or Z country or any medication we might be considering taking.
 
AndBreathe said:
I think it is incumbent upon us all to do at least some research onto the pros and cons of anything, whether it be fixed rate mortgages, travel to X, Y or Z country or any medication we might be considering taking.
Click to expand...
Oh, sure. But it's hard to do it effectively without being aware of the expert consensus in whatever field. Eg: if you just go by what some random Chaz says, when this conflicts with the consensus, the chances of a good outcome aren't great. Or if you just go by some idealogical/political/etc criteria. Or by anecdotes on message boards. Or without controlling for confirmation bias. Etc etc etc.

You need to be familiar with the expert reviews to make sure you're not being misled by what somebody is saying about them.

Gil Cavalhao has another nice vid on doing yr own research:
 
Eddy Edson said:
Oh, sure. But it's hard to do it effectively without being aware of the expert consensus in whatever field. Eg: if you just go by what some random Chaz says, when this conflicts with the consensus, the chances of a good outcome aren't great. Or if you just go by some idealogical/political/etc criteria. Or by anecdotes on message boards. Or without controlling for confirmation bias. Etc etc etc.

You need to be familiar with the expert reviews to make sure you're not being misled by what somebody is saying about them.

Gil Cavalhao has another nice vid on doing yr own research:
Click to expand...

So, where do anecdotes on message boards crossover with lived experiences?

Sometimes an analytic mind concludes that general research findings don't make sense, and therefore seek alternatives. That's how many of us move forward.

Sometimes going against the flow is good and right. Sometimes being a disrupter is appropriate, and extremely important, after all if we always do what we always do, the results will be pretty much as they always have been.

Research is utterly fascinating. I've been on both the periphery and the core of it, and not finished yet.
 
AndBreathe said:
So, where do anecdotes on message boards crossover with lived experiences?
Click to expand...
Personally I'd agree with the standard kind of view which says that generally they can be useful for forming hypotheses but not very useful as evidence.
 
Last edited:
AndBreathe said:
So, where do anecdotes on message boards crossover with lived experiences?

Sometimes an analytic mind concludes that general research findings don't make sense, and therefore seek alternatives. That's how many of us move forward.

Sometimes going against the flow is good and right. Sometimes being a disrupter is appropriate, and extremely important, after all if we always do what we always do, the results will be pretty much as they always have been.

Research is utterly fascinating. I've been on both the periphery and the core of it, and not finished yet.
Click to expand...

Where does it become an obsession.
Deciding you don't like the researches conclusions, and trawling together every opposing view, regardless of the quality, and factual content?
Are you still being a "disrupter" or just seeking validation to kill self hidden doubts.
 
travellor said:
Where does it become an obsession.
Deciding you don't like the researches conclusions, and trawling together every opposing view, regardless of the quality, and factual content?
Are you still being a "disrupter" or just seeking validation to kill self hidden doubts.
Click to expand...
I don’t know. Ask an obsessive.

it Depends on your definition of disrupter. If you mean someone who asks questions, including those that are difficult, then yes. I still question thing. I believe that is one way of provoking thought.
 
Not absolutely relevant, but I'll pop this thread from the great Deirdre Tobias here:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1638305169195646977

Anyone claiming obesity is genetic isn’t wrong. It explains between-person differences in BMI and why weight gain propensity is similar to our parents. Anyone claiming obesity is environment isn’t wrong. It explains where our society has ended up in a short few decades.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top