Between this and the 2nd order decrease in renal disease from the reduction in diabetes and high blood pressure, Ozempic would have to end up having some truly awful long term effects to net out negative in utilitarian terms.
The US spends 130 G$/yr (0.5% of the _entire_ GDP) on dialysis, and that undercounts just how awful being on dialysis is in subjective terms.
The food industry is worried.[1] "One big concern for the industry is the importance of so-called “super consumers”, who drive an outsized share of spend. For instance, consider this recent estimate: 9% of adults drive 34% of candy consumption. Assume that one-third of those adults successfully adopt Ozempic or another GLP-1, and that’s a roughly 10% hit to category sales."
The snack industry needs "whales".
[1] https://foodinstitute.com/focus/analysis-ozempic-likely-to-i...
Fortunately my insurance covers most of the cost; at $25 a month, it's over 2.5x higher than any of my other prescriptions, but well within my budget. We'll see how long that lasts, especially since I plan to retire at the end of 2025 and go onto Medicare.
reminds me of cortisone, which was also hailed (and partially is) a sort of panacea. Turned out not to be a cure for everything, and with some significant downsides, while still being a very valuable drug.
Eating disorders are a thing and often have to do with the mind or genetics, but there are so many people just letting go to cravings and having terrible habits when it comes to eating, don't want to do any sacrifice and just let themselves go for so long than it becomes a serious health issues for them.
I see plenty of parents feeding the kids like they are going to do foie gras out of them... People eating pastries like it's chewing gum, bagels like it's a snack... some of my American colleagues have never drunk just plain water...only sodas...and a lot of it.
I really feel like this is just the trick the food (and healthcare) industry was waiting for to allow those people to eat as much as they want and don't get fat (and possibly get ill later), and the fashion industry to push for a "cheap way" to reach beauty standards (which is why this practice has mostly became popular thanks to famous people using it).
Plus there are pretty common side effects (1 out of 10 experiences them) and it fundamentally creates a dependency to a drug, because without changing habits, if a patient stops using the drug, they'll regain the weight in a short time...
Most people think they have a condition but in reality it's just them not trying to solve the problem and complaining about it.
I no longer agonize over thinking about yummy unhealthy foods. I no longer want to treat myself outside of lunch and dinner. I no longer want portions beyond being full.
Even if the weight loss aspects didn't work, the upside in clear headedness and not dedicating energy to thinking about food has been worth it.
I believe that these attributes are so promising, that the idea of government subsidized Ozempic just seems like great domestic policy to me. I believe that whichever politician pitches this idea first will get a ton of support from the public and the press.
Anyway. Food cravings gone, I was eating like 10 times a day before that. At least, but sometimes even more. Now I'm on intermittent fasting/OMAD and has 0 problems. No hunger, no cravings. Feeling significantly better.
Lost 30 pounds so far.
Then I will gladly suffer FOMO while other people test this hypothesis over the next decade or so
----- We identified 3999 US adults weighted to an estimated population size of 93.0 million [M] (38% of US adults) who fit STEP 1 eligibility criteria. Applying STEP 1 treatment effects on weight loss resulted in an estimated 69.1% (64.3 M) and 50.5% (47.0 M) showing ≥ 10% and ≥ 15% weight reductions, respectively, translating to a 46.1% (43.0 M) reduction in obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2) prevalence. Among those without CVD, estimated 10-year CVD risks were 10.15% “before” and 8.34% “after” semaglutide “treatment” reflecting a 1.81% absolute (and 17.8% relative) risk reduction translating to 1.50 million preventable CVD events over 10 years.
Basically if you run/bike a lot you’ll burn more calories and lose weight if you eat at a deficit. But you’ll also improve your heart health, lower your resting heart rate, etc.
Do these drugs help in that way at all or just with losing the weight? It would be amazing if we had a drug that improved people’s heart health.
I'd never encountered anyone like that in real life, but they show up over and over again on any discussion of these drugs. It's very strange to me.
Not sure how that is a good thing...
As a counter-example, most people experience depression at least once in their life and most of these take antidepressants on a temporary basis (the exception being those who are genetically/developmentally depressed - i.e. chronic/lifelong). Once the underlying issue has been addressed with therapy or what-have-you, these people can cease use of the drug.
This is not the case with Ozempic. If you take it to lose weight then cessation will cause rapid weight gain. You'll be stuck with it for the rest of your life, for something that can [again] usually be permanently solved with other forms of treatment.
I think this is morally fine. However, it does mean that these people will suffer even more harm if they are ever find themselves unable to afford/obtain Ozempic. We would effectively be duplicating the current issue that we have with insulin.
But I wonder whether I'd say the same if I hadn't learned to lose and keep off all the weight I needed to, before it came along.
(If the downvotes are because I sound like I'm bragging, that's fair but also not my intent. What I mean to say is, I suspect I'd view this class of drug and indication less dispassionately and with more of an appetite for risk, if I weren't so lucky as to have no pressing need for the benefit.)
Has there ever been a point in human history in which we basically started taking a drug daily for the rest of our lives with no side effect whatsoever?
That's not listed here: https://www.drugs.com/sfx/ozempic-side-effects.html?form=sub...
We allow poison in food, but not led in our water, radioactive waste in our backyards. Why?
I have a personal bias to small effect consistent medication over high effect rare medication, but I have at least one friend who has seen great results with Ozempic. So I'm glad to see more people can access this drug.
After all, I can't really see. I use glasses or contact lenses.
This highlights one of the issues I have with articles like this about Ozempic at this current moment - this glosses over something major with these two particular drugs. With methadone, yes, it will keep you off of heroin, but you'll also likely never, ever get off of methadone because the withdrawal is 1) just as horrible and severe as heroin and 2) can last months. To the point where you'd almost be better off just kicking the heroin the "old fashioned" way. suboxone is similar - the drug isn't without side effects either. Of course, that isn't to say these things aren't useful - to have a methadone/suboxone dependency is way preferable to heroin addiction.
My only real point is that we should wait to see what long term side effects these drugs have before calling them miracles and glossing over their down sides, because I think the end effect of that is counterproductive to medicine. I'm always immediately skeptical as to what drugs pharmaceutical companies are pushing out, due to the history I've witnessed so far in my lifetime.
That all said Ozempic probably would've saved a relative of mine's life. In the end, they'd likely not care about the side effects all that much.