I can't read the article so I don't know if this is answered, but my real question is the price. Is it reasonable for the average person or is this for the rich only.
More options are great, but not if most people that need it can't afford it.
It is fascinating how quickly this space has evolved. Seems incredibly quick for medicine. That isn't a criticism, just things seem to generally move very slow.
insane money to be made -- Novo had an income that exceeded DK's GDP, for example.
most big pharma orgs flirted with it if not chasing it, so once it looks like there are working solutions they can retool, make knockoffs, steal secrets, bribe (aka hire with competitive rates) R&D staff from other orgs, etc.
>It’s no secret that dialysis is incredibly expensive. Each dialysis patient costs about $100,000 a year to treat, which means that Medicare spends over $30 billion a year treating ESRD patients.
>But have you ever really thought about what that means for individuals? The cost of dialysis is nearly 1% of the entire federal budget. Put into simpler terms, for every $100 Americans spend in taxes, approximately $1.00 goes toward paying for dialysis.
Might not be exactly 1% now, or it might be, since spending is now $6T per year. Regardless, healthcare due to being overweight/obese is a very large portion of government spend.
>But have you ever really thought about what that means for individuals? The cost of dialysis is nearly 1% of the entire federal budget. Put into simpler terms, for every $100 Americans spend in taxes, approximately $1.00 goes toward paying for dialysis.
Damn, that's such a shame. I wish that the US would reduce defense spending and spend more on dialysis.
Military spend is only 13% of total federal spend.
Healthcare is 26%.
At a certain point, unquestionable military superiority provides more utility than keeping old people alive, and more like surviving instead of living from my grandparents’ experience with dialysis.
Not that current US military spend is ideal, but neither is current healthcare spend on the healthcare and population it is spent on.
I would have assumed the opposite. If you're spreading the weekly dose into daily pills the dosage each time might be small enough to minimise the side effects (nausea etc).
Probably wise to not make any assumptions. It's possible that what you're positing will turn out to be true, but it's also possible that (for example) the presence of the drug in the digestive system before it's absorbed into the blood is the cause of the side effects. Time will tell.
If obesity becomes treatable with a pill I'm really curious to see how it impacts the demand for healthcare, particularly in countries with free public health care. Could it cut the demand enough so that with current spending availability and quality of treatment can increase a meaningful amount?
Just to be clear, there are NO Country's with "free public health care" but Europe has (mostly) "health care paid by society with compulsory health insurance or taxes and some taxes on alcohol/tabacco etc and some even on sugar ;) ".
>Which is colloquially referred to as free healthcare.
No, that's the point, it's called "Universal healthcare" and it's NOT free, since for most country's you need "compulsory health insurance" or it's paid by taxes.
Yeah I still don't think you're right. The point you're making is understood to the point that it's just noise to add an explainer every time you see the word free.
Just call it universal healthcare, a toddler would think something is free because you do not have to pay for a service immediately. For most people in Europe paying for healthcare is number two or even number one expense, no real concern for the really poor or really rich but kicks the nuts of the lower-middle to middle incomes.
The only people who call it "free" are from the US, not a single european would call it "free".
It's stupidity, not cultural difference, when one side talks about free and the other side who has that "free" health care feels it's a massive (but good) burden.
I'm absolutely for this system, as a Swiss citizen I'm incredibly proud of what we've achieved, but man it's hard...really hard, and it's only going to get worse because of the age shift.
>This is like saying you need to pay to walk on the pavement
>or you need to pay to see at night when outside.
Yes, please go outside and ask any random person that you have free sidewalks and free streetlights, they will probably look at you like you are a toddler.
Frustrating. I considered expanding on the definition of 'free' in my comment to ward off pedants. Decided it wasn't necessary but we live and learn I suppose.
>"pushing hidden agendas and framing actually matters"
Thank you very much, this is exactly the point, americans cheer the "free health care" and do not see the point that for example a swiss family has to pay 15-20% of their income every month for compulsory health insurance this is not a choice..one HAS to pay it, additionally, dental stuff for example is not included if it is not from a sickness.
It's absolutely NOT free and a big burden for most citizens who live in country's with Universal healthcare.
Important context here is that Americans pay on average higher healthcare costs than any country with universal healthcare. We have to pay more and get worse service for that payment. Not only are we paying more, there's more parties involved, more hoops to jump through and it's extremely frustrating.
It is mostly an enormous wealth transfer from the young to the old, which now constitute the majority of voters in the western democracies.
Meanwhile both midwifes and children doctors are severely under-financed, even common treatments require months of waiting time because the reimbursements do not even cover the costs.
Considering that most countries are in a demographic crisis and will go insolvent with 100% certainty due to the mismatch between net payers and their future financial obligations, this is insane.
I disagree with you. It is better to use precise language.
“Free healthcare” is an obvious political term used by people who are in favor of tax funded healthcare. FWIW I come from Sweden where we do have “free healthcare”, and it’s usually referred to as skattefinansierad, which means tax funded…
Obviously, but that just doesn’t seem to be doable for a huge chunk of the world, so these pills are a way out of the hell that is obesity and diabetes.
All medication is choosing between the effects of what you are treating the the side effects of the medication.
For a lot of people it isn't that easy. There is a reason weight loss surgery has been a thing for a long time. I could easily see using this as a jumping off point along with making choices about what you eat and increased exercise.
There is a psychological aspect to this, you start making those changes along with something like this so you start seeing the changes you are hoping for and feeling better so you keep with it.
Whether you use a pill or jab or neither, exercise exercise exercise! It will increase quality of life and reduce risk factors for lots of causes of death as you get older.
Exercise is great and I wish more people could find the time to do it, but exercise won’t lead to weight loss if people don’t change the horrible diets that got us here in the first place.
Weight loss shouldn't be the end goal. Health and fitness are what make life longer and more enjoyable. But it happens that excess weight inhibits health and fitness too. A skinny person can be unhealthy and unfit too.
That's a common perspective, but it oversimplifies a complex biological reality many people face.
The body has sophisticated signaling pathways that regulate hunger and defend fat stores. In some people, dysregulation in pathways like mTORC1 essentially keeps their "hunger volume" turned up regardless of their actual energy needs, increasing hunger-promoting neuropeptides (NPY, AgRP) while decreasing satiety signals (POMC, CART).
When someone with this dysregulation tries to lose weight, the body deploys additional defenses: reduced non-exercise activity thermogenesis (less fidgeting, less spontaneous movement), increased energy efficiency, and even induced lethargy after intentional exercise to preserve fat stores. This isn't laziness - it's sophisticated biological adaptation.
This creates a crucial matrix that determines weight outcomes:
* High willpower + Low hunger signaling: Naturally fit with minimal effort
* Low willpower + Low hunger signaling: Generally maintains healthy weight without struggle
* High willpower + High hunger signaling: Might maintain weight with constant effort
* Low willpower + High hunger signaling: Almost inevitably leads to obesity
Keep in mind willpower itself has significant genetic and epigenetic components - it's not simply a matter of character. Variations in dopamine and serotonin regulation genes directly affect impulse control and reward processing.
GLP-1/GIP medications work by intervening in these pathways. They activate receptors in the hypothalamus that can override or bypass the defective mTORC1 signaling. They directly inhibit AgRP/NPY neurons while activating POMC neurons, essentially normalizing the hunger signals. They also slow gastric emptying and modulate the brain's reward system to reduce food's hedonic value. In other words, they take willpower out of the equation. If you aren't hungry, you don't have to fight the urge to eat.
I'm not just speaking to the science here - I have direct experience. Despite years of disciplined efforts with trainers, various diets, calorie counting I went from 150lbs in my 20s to 315lbs by my 40s. With Zepbound, I've lost 55 pounds in six months without the constant battle. I will have to take this medication for the rest of my life, but I will probably live much longer as a result, and I'm already reaping the rewards in terms of energy, focus, sleep quality, et cetera.
These medications do have side effects worth considering, but they need to be weighed against the severe health consequences of obesity. Obesity significantly increases risk of heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, sleep apnea, certain cancers, and premature death. For men specifically, obesity increases sex hormone-binding globulin which reduces free testosterone levels, leading to fatigue, reduced muscle mass, decreased libido, and even depression. The most common side effects of GLP-1 medications (nausea, constipation, diarrhea) are typically mild, manageable, and often diminish over time. While there are theoretical concerns about more serious effects like pancreatitis based on animal studies, clinical data in humans hasn't supported these concerns. Regardless, these potential risks must be balanced against the near-certainty of health complications from remaining morbidly obese.
For people with dysregulated hunger signaling, these medications aren't just cosmetic interventions—they're addressing a fundamental biological dysfunction that otherwise creates persistent obstacles to maintaining a healthy weight. The risk-benefit analysis strongly favors treatment for those who need it. They make sustainable lifestyle changes possible by removing the constant neurobiological opposition to weight loss.
>> Better off just exercising and eating as clean as you can!
I'm sure the morbidly obese are unaware of this.
For what it's worth, I'm an ex-smoker and quitting smoking was easy compared to trying to deny myself unhealthy amounts of food. The vast majority of obese people hate it and don't want to be that way - but they're addicted to food. GLP-1's pretty much stop their cravings. Using them to get to a healthy weight and then trying to manage cravings when they are healthier and happier seems like a good solution. Especially given the side-effects of extreme obesity are severe and well known - better to worry about that than 'unintended side effects' that are at this point hypothetical.
> Better off just exercising and eating as clean as you can!
Let me guess…you have never had a weight problem. As someone who has lost over 170lbs via diet and exercise and battles like hell every fucking day even eight years later to try and keep it all off, it’s laughable to see some people think it’s so simple.
If my presumption was off base, I take it back. But achieving weight loss isn’t simple and it isn’t easy. It’s not simple because even though CICO seems to be a simple equation on its face, getting the “CI” portion of that equation doesn’t work the same way for everyone. So sloganeering and minimizing it misses the greater complexity.
That is what I felt like the person I replied to had done.
My comment is not a criticism in their prescribed process but in the notion that if a person has difficulty sticking to that process that they shouldn’t look for alternatives. The goal is to lose weight because an unhealthy weight is definitely detrimental to your health in a myriad of ways. If a medication can facilitate weight loss, even at the cost of some side effects, the net gain is still likely better.
I lost my weight with a low carb, high fat diet. That worked for me but it’s controversial. I heard plenty of criticism about how it was going to damage my kidneys. My attitude was and is that if I live to see kidney damage in my late 70s…that’s better than a massive heart attack or stroke taking me out at 55.
Because of how tough it was and continues to be if there was an injection, pill, or otherwise that could make it easier—I would take it. Also despite my success without it, I’d suggest any obese person who needs to lose weight but have not had much success, take the medicine, lose the weight you can.
Not just that the pill works as well as the jab, but Lilly has stockpiled over a billion pills to meet expected demand.
https://archive.is/4E9TF
https://ghostarchive.org/archive/ncNWg
Duh. Rybelsus has been available for a couple of years, and is the legit source for the compounding pharmacies selling GLP drugs.
The downside is that it you need to be disciplined taking it. First thing in the AM, empty stomach, no eating or drinking for a half hour.
I can't read the article so I don't know if this is answered, but my real question is the price. Is it reasonable for the average person or is this for the rich only.
More options are great, but not if most people that need it can't afford it.
It is fascinating how quickly this space has evolved. Seems incredibly quick for medicine. That isn't a criticism, just things seem to generally move very slow.
weight loss pills are a holy grail of pharma.
insane money to be made -- Novo had an income that exceeded DK's GDP, for example.
most big pharma orgs flirted with it if not chasing it, so once it looks like there are working solutions they can retool, make knockoffs, steal secrets, bribe (aka hire with competitive rates) R&D staff from other orgs, etc.
Denmark GDP is $500B+ per year, Novo Nordisk net income is less than $15B per year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Denmark
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NVO/novo-nordisk/n...
Considering that we spend 1% of the fed budget on dialysis alone, glp-1 may have come just in time...
Wow, source?
https://usrds-adr.niddk.nih.gov/2024/end-stage-renal-disease...
It might be a slight overestimate post-covid, but we spend 50 billion on it.
As of Jun 2021:
https://strivehealth.com/news/patients-vs-profits-who-wins-i...
>It’s no secret that dialysis is incredibly expensive. Each dialysis patient costs about $100,000 a year to treat, which means that Medicare spends over $30 billion a year treating ESRD patients.
>But have you ever really thought about what that means for individuals? The cost of dialysis is nearly 1% of the entire federal budget. Put into simpler terms, for every $100 Americans spend in taxes, approximately $1.00 goes toward paying for dialysis.
Might not be exactly 1% now, or it might be, since spending is now $6T per year. Regardless, healthcare due to being overweight/obese is a very large portion of government spend.
https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/feder...
>But have you ever really thought about what that means for individuals? The cost of dialysis is nearly 1% of the entire federal budget. Put into simpler terms, for every $100 Americans spend in taxes, approximately $1.00 goes toward paying for dialysis.
Damn, that's such a shame. I wish that the US would reduce defense spending and spend more on dialysis.
Military spend is only 13% of total federal spend.
Healthcare is 26%.
At a certain point, unquestionable military superiority provides more utility than keeping old people alive, and more like surviving instead of living from my grandparents’ experience with dialysis.
Not that current US military spend is ideal, but neither is current healthcare spend on the healthcare and population it is spent on.
You want to spend more on dialysis?
I would think any sane country would want to spend less. First by reducing demand and second by negotiating costs with suppliers.
And if I were to cut any of the big line items, I would start with number two which is interest on debt
I wonder if this will make side effects more apparent. 7 doses a week vs. once a week with the shot.
I would have assumed the opposite. If you're spreading the weekly dose into daily pills the dosage each time might be small enough to minimise the side effects (nausea etc).
Probably wise to not make any assumptions. It's possible that what you're positing will turn out to be true, but it's also possible that (for example) the presence of the drug in the digestive system before it's absorbed into the blood is the cause of the side effects. Time will tell.
I'd think the dose would be different because it has to go through your stomach rather than directly injected.
There are still some problems with Orfo but it's definitely a step up from the peptide. After Pfizer killed Danuglipron, this is nice to see.
Yea but whats the price? Even w/ insurance a lot of the GLP-1's are hundreds of $$/mo and most can't afford that outside of hollywood.
It's a small molecule. A big, complicated to make, expensive small molecule. But still probably significantly cheaper than the peptide.
Don't we already have this in pill form with Wegovy / Rybelsus? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semaglutide
They are different chemically. Rybelsus is a peptide, whereas orforglipron is small-molecule. Simpler, cheaper, fewer dietary restrictions.
Ahh, interesting. Thanks.
If obesity becomes treatable with a pill I'm really curious to see how it impacts the demand for healthcare, particularly in countries with free public health care. Could it cut the demand enough so that with current spending availability and quality of treatment can increase a meaningful amount?
Don't all the countries with "free public health care" (understand this is loosely defined) already have much lower obesity rates relative to the US?
I am interested in how it impacts all the businesses based on selling dissolved sugar and excess carbs.
It is already happening: https://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/ozempic-drug-users...
Folks already on the injections are affecting those industries. Fascinating times.
Just to be clear, there are NO Country's with "free public health care" but Europe has (mostly) "health care paid by society with compulsory health insurance or taxes and some taxes on alcohol/tabacco etc and some even on sugar ;) ".
> Europe has (mostly) "health care paid by society with compulsory health insurance and some taxes on alcohol/tabacco etc and some on sugar ;) ".
Which is colloquially referred to as free healthcare.
>Which is colloquially referred to as free healthcare.
No, that's the point, it's called "Universal healthcare" and it's NOT free, since for most country's you need "compulsory health insurance" or it's paid by taxes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care
Nobody on Earth needs this explained to them
Obviously everyone who uses the word "free" instead of "universal" need's it.
It's not free beer but universal beer.
Yeah I still don't think you're right. The point you're making is understood to the point that it's just noise to add an explainer every time you see the word free.
Just call it universal healthcare, a toddler would think something is free because you do not have to pay for a service immediately. For most people in Europe paying for healthcare is number two or even number one expense, no real concern for the really poor or really rich but kicks the nuts of the lower-middle to middle incomes.
The only people who call it "free" are from the US, not a single european would call it "free".
There's plenty of cultural differences I accept about Europe, you can manage to accept this one about the US.
>cultural differences
It's stupidity, not cultural difference, when one side talks about free and the other side who has that "free" health care feels it's a massive (but good) burden.
I'm absolutely for this system, as a Swiss citizen I'm incredibly proud of what we've achieved, but man it's hard...really hard, and it's only going to get worse because of the age shift.
This is like saying you need to pay to walk on the pavement, or you need to pay to see at night when outside.
Of course there is a cost associated but most places count all that as part of the cost of living in society.
>This is like saying you need to pay to walk on the pavement
>or you need to pay to see at night when outside.
Yes, please go outside and ask any random person that you have free sidewalks and free streetlights, they will probably look at you like you are a toddler.
What does “free” mean to you? Is anything actually free by your definition?
Frustrating. I considered expanding on the definition of 'free' in my comment to ward off pedants. Decided it wasn't necessary but we live and learn I suppose.
"Free" is simply wrong, both pedantically and in a "pushing hidden agendas and framing actually matters" way.
It is socialised healthcare.
>"pushing hidden agendas and framing actually matters"
Thank you very much, this is exactly the point, americans cheer the "free health care" and do not see the point that for example a swiss family has to pay 15-20% of their income every month for compulsory health insurance this is not a choice..one HAS to pay it, additionally, dental stuff for example is not included if it is not from a sickness.
It's absolutely NOT free and a big burden for most citizens who live in country's with Universal healthcare.
Important context here is that Americans pay on average higher healthcare costs than any country with universal healthcare. We have to pay more and get worse service for that payment. Not only are we paying more, there's more parties involved, more hoops to jump through and it's extremely frustrating.
Yes you are absolutely right, your medicare is a scam without any laws to protect the "obligatory" paying customer, that's a "you" problem.
It is mostly an enormous wealth transfer from the young to the old, which now constitute the majority of voters in the western democracies.
Meanwhile both midwifes and children doctors are severely under-financed, even common treatments require months of waiting time because the reimbursements do not even cover the costs.
Considering that most countries are in a demographic crisis and will go insolvent with 100% certainty due to the mismatch between net payers and their future financial obligations, this is insane.
This is widely understood to mean "free to the patient at time of use/need". Stop being deliberately obtuse.
I disagree with you. It is better to use precise language.
“Free healthcare” is an obvious political term used by people who are in favor of tax funded healthcare. FWIW I come from Sweden where we do have “free healthcare”, and it’s usually referred to as skattefinansierad, which means tax funded…
>This is widely understood to mean "free to the patient at time of use/need".
This is called insurance, sometimes provided by society sometimes by business or a mix of both, but never is it "free".
[dead]
Until they find out that there are unintended side effects...
Better off just exercising and eating as clean as you can!
> I enjoy building new things, asking why and helping people see gray rather than black & white.
Obviously, but that just doesn’t seem to be doable for a huge chunk of the world, so these pills are a way out of the hell that is obesity and diabetes.
All medication is choosing between the effects of what you are treating the the side effects of the medication.
For a lot of people it isn't that easy. There is a reason weight loss surgery has been a thing for a long time. I could easily see using this as a jumping off point along with making choices about what you eat and increased exercise.
There is a psychological aspect to this, you start making those changes along with something like this so you start seeing the changes you are hoping for and feeling better so you keep with it.
Whether you use a pill or jab or neither, exercise exercise exercise! It will increase quality of life and reduce risk factors for lots of causes of death as you get older.
Exercise is great and I wish more people could find the time to do it, but exercise won’t lead to weight loss if people don’t change the horrible diets that got us here in the first place.
Weight loss shouldn't be the end goal. Health and fitness are what make life longer and more enjoyable. But it happens that excess weight inhibits health and fitness too. A skinny person can be unhealthy and unfit too.
they can be.
but statistically you're dying far earlier as a fatty fatty boombalatty, and like 1/3 of the US is obese, with the rest of the population overweight
That's a common perspective, but it oversimplifies a complex biological reality many people face.
The body has sophisticated signaling pathways that regulate hunger and defend fat stores. In some people, dysregulation in pathways like mTORC1 essentially keeps their "hunger volume" turned up regardless of their actual energy needs, increasing hunger-promoting neuropeptides (NPY, AgRP) while decreasing satiety signals (POMC, CART).
When someone with this dysregulation tries to lose weight, the body deploys additional defenses: reduced non-exercise activity thermogenesis (less fidgeting, less spontaneous movement), increased energy efficiency, and even induced lethargy after intentional exercise to preserve fat stores. This isn't laziness - it's sophisticated biological adaptation.
This creates a crucial matrix that determines weight outcomes:
* High willpower + Low hunger signaling: Naturally fit with minimal effort
* Low willpower + Low hunger signaling: Generally maintains healthy weight without struggle
* High willpower + High hunger signaling: Might maintain weight with constant effort
* Low willpower + High hunger signaling: Almost inevitably leads to obesity
Keep in mind willpower itself has significant genetic and epigenetic components - it's not simply a matter of character. Variations in dopamine and serotonin regulation genes directly affect impulse control and reward processing.
GLP-1/GIP medications work by intervening in these pathways. They activate receptors in the hypothalamus that can override or bypass the defective mTORC1 signaling. They directly inhibit AgRP/NPY neurons while activating POMC neurons, essentially normalizing the hunger signals. They also slow gastric emptying and modulate the brain's reward system to reduce food's hedonic value. In other words, they take willpower out of the equation. If you aren't hungry, you don't have to fight the urge to eat.
I'm not just speaking to the science here - I have direct experience. Despite years of disciplined efforts with trainers, various diets, calorie counting I went from 150lbs in my 20s to 315lbs by my 40s. With Zepbound, I've lost 55 pounds in six months without the constant battle. I will have to take this medication for the rest of my life, but I will probably live much longer as a result, and I'm already reaping the rewards in terms of energy, focus, sleep quality, et cetera.
These medications do have side effects worth considering, but they need to be weighed against the severe health consequences of obesity. Obesity significantly increases risk of heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, sleep apnea, certain cancers, and premature death. For men specifically, obesity increases sex hormone-binding globulin which reduces free testosterone levels, leading to fatigue, reduced muscle mass, decreased libido, and even depression. The most common side effects of GLP-1 medications (nausea, constipation, diarrhea) are typically mild, manageable, and often diminish over time. While there are theoretical concerns about more serious effects like pancreatitis based on animal studies, clinical data in humans hasn't supported these concerns. Regardless, these potential risks must be balanced against the near-certainty of health complications from remaining morbidly obese.
For people with dysregulated hunger signaling, these medications aren't just cosmetic interventions—they're addressing a fundamental biological dysfunction that otherwise creates persistent obstacles to maintaining a healthy weight. The risk-benefit analysis strongly favors treatment for those who need it. They make sustainable lifestyle changes possible by removing the constant neurobiological opposition to weight loss.
>> Better off just exercising and eating as clean as you can!
I'm sure the morbidly obese are unaware of this.
For what it's worth, I'm an ex-smoker and quitting smoking was easy compared to trying to deny myself unhealthy amounts of food. The vast majority of obese people hate it and don't want to be that way - but they're addicted to food. GLP-1's pretty much stop their cravings. Using them to get to a healthy weight and then trying to manage cravings when they are healthier and happier seems like a good solution. Especially given the side-effects of extreme obesity are severe and well known - better to worry about that than 'unintended side effects' that are at this point hypothetical.
> Better off just exercising and eating as clean as you can!
Let me guess…you have never had a weight problem. As someone who has lost over 170lbs via diet and exercise and battles like hell every fucking day even eight years later to try and keep it all off, it’s laughable to see some people think it’s so simple.
Actually as someone who is over 225lbs and only going up in weight monthly I don't think its fair to presume things about others like that....
As another commenter said - its simple, not easy...
If my presumption was off base, I take it back. But achieving weight loss isn’t simple and it isn’t easy. It’s not simple because even though CICO seems to be a simple equation on its face, getting the “CI” portion of that equation doesn’t work the same way for everyone. So sloganeering and minimizing it misses the greater complexity.
That is what I felt like the person I replied to had done.
It's not easy, but it definitely is simple.
You're saying you did what op said and that it worked, and framing it like a criticism.
My comment is not a criticism in their prescribed process but in the notion that if a person has difficulty sticking to that process that they shouldn’t look for alternatives. The goal is to lose weight because an unhealthy weight is definitely detrimental to your health in a myriad of ways. If a medication can facilitate weight loss, even at the cost of some side effects, the net gain is still likely better.
I lost my weight with a low carb, high fat diet. That worked for me but it’s controversial. I heard plenty of criticism about how it was going to damage my kidneys. My attitude was and is that if I live to see kidney damage in my late 70s…that’s better than a massive heart attack or stroke taking me out at 55.
Because of how tough it was and continues to be if there was an injection, pill, or otherwise that could make it easier—I would take it. Also despite my success without it, I’d suggest any obese person who needs to lose weight but have not had much success, take the medicine, lose the weight you can.
just