Lawsuit over GLP-1 drugs: over 900 cases
Quote:
https://www.post-gazette.com/news/h...es/202409080108 |
It's just $$$$ to the companies that manufacture these drugs.
|
All drugs carry risks and must be used wisely, as a tool for better health. Many people are taking too much of one or another drug and not carefully monitoring symptoms until damage has occurred.
Also each drug is most dangerous when it is new. Sticking with tried and tested older drugs is a good plan, and going very easy on newer drugs until they pass that critical testing period. People also must realize that drugs interact with each other. There is currently an epidemic, especially among older people, of deleterious drug interactions and deaths occurring because of this. Even adding a single Tylenol or an alcoholic drink to a big drug cocktail can lead to death. It's a complex topic. I think GLP-1 drugs can be a very potent and useful tool if used wisely. |
Quote:
THIS is the long-term study system, at work. That's one angle I think I lot of people don't understand. And no, I don't think they are conscientious about warnings, nor are many physicians, nurses, or pharmacists given the TIME to do so. I understand Europe required the drug to warn of the thyroid cancer problem, and so they did. Not that reassuring. Sandy! You sound like you would appreciate the review I wrote on "Magic Pill," the book. It was very informative, and I'm not done yet. |
Quote:
I'm not coming to their defense, because 123 deaths, and reports of intestinal obstruction, pancreatitis, blindness, loss of consciousness and disability are extremely serious adverse events and definite cause for alarm. And of course over 900 cases of harm considered bad enough to warrant lawsuits against Novo Nordisk and Eli Lily due to inadequate warnings is no small matter either. But it does need to be pointed out that the adverse event reporting system for drugs also includes all kinds of rather innocuous adverse events, because adverse events are anything different from feeling 100% normal, which means it could be anything from "I felt nauseous" (because I ate too much after the first dose) to "I had a headache" or "I felt lightheaded" (because it worked so well to control my appetite that I forgot to eat lunch) to "The injection left a red mark" (for a couple of hours). If there are millions of people taking a drug (9 million in 2022, closer to 31 million by the end of 2023), and only 18,000 "adverse events" even reported - that's still a very small percentage of people actually having adverse events - only one report of adverse events for every 33,000+ users. Again, I'm not negating the serious harms that have occurred, and not saying that the drug manufacturers should not be making the warnings very, VERY clear - preferably in bigger and bolder print than the name of the drug itself. As Sandy pointed out, there are risks involved with every drug, and that includes over the counter drugs. Acetaminophen (which was described to me when DD1 was a baby as "pretty innocuous") has the potential to cause irreversible liver damage. NSAIDS can cause all kinds of serious problems, from internal bleeding to organ damage. Antihistamines, eye drops, anti-diarrhea drugs (such as pepto-bismol) - they all have side effects, some worse than others. For that matter, vitamin supplements can cause damage if you take too much. (Or sometimes even if you don't take "too much" - I know that my mother was never able to take a mulit-vitamin that had even a small amount of magnesium in it, because with her Irritable Bowel, even a small amount of supplemental magnesium would inevitably cause diarrhea for days.) When we have real need of medication, Sandy is right that we are better off sticking with older drugs where at least the possible side effects are known. ... Or at least the [B]known[/B possible side effects are known. It's always possible for someone to have a previously unknown side effect to a medication that's been around for a century or more. But the same is true for a medication that's only been around for a year or a decade - As we've often pointed out on here, everyone is different. Most side effects will become known during drug trials... but as WB points out, the true long term study really only occurs once the drug is released for use by the general public. That's when all the previously unknown side effects start showing up, as well as the "everyone is different" extremely rare, previously unknown side effects. Should the GLP-1 type drugs be withdrawn from the market? I think so, yes. Or at least reserved for only the most difficult cases where a diabetic is unable to control their blood sugar even with a strict reduced carb diet: One where they truly do stick to the diet, one where the carb count is low enough that it really should keep the blood sugar under control, with the distribution of macros such that they don't have insane cravings or an uncontrollable appetite. But the main reason I think they should be reserved only for those cases is because there is a better way to control appetite, lose weight, and control blood sugars that really does work for most people. It takes quite a bit of discipline of course to get through the "induction flu", and also to continue the diet long term, as well as figuring out what really does work for YOU. That of course is one of the primary problems with the GLP-1 drugs: as soon as they wear off, your appetite returns with a vengeance, which means you then regain weight, and need to go back on the drugs again, and the risks involved with the known (and unknown) side effects. |
I’ve always liked Mark Sisson's balanced approach to all things health; exercise, diet is Primal, a less dogmatic style of "Paleo", same with his modified "keto" books, etc. Now that he is over 70, he has become more "Protein-Centric" a minimum of of 120 grams Protein. This week's newsletter is about weight loss drugs:
Quote:
Similar to Dr Naiman, who uses these drugs in his family practice, and has for years, but along with a diet of high protein, lifting heavy things, etc. The same advice he gives to someone who wants to lose weight only with diet. A minimum of 120g protein/day or 1g per pound of ideal body weight. The chances of withdrawing blockbusters drugs like these would be zero. |
Those are all good suggestions for doing GLP-1 drugs the best way possible.
Unfortunately there are confounding factors that can and do often result in problems trying to follow those suggestions. Take for instance the recommendation that if you're going to take the drugs to lose weight, then you need to be prepared to take them for life. But since most people taking those drugs can't possibly pay the $1,000+/month for a year (much less for life), they're reliant on their insurance company approving the drugs. Two factors (that I've heard of so far) get in the way there: If you aren't losing enough weight to satisfy the insurance company's requirement over a given period of time, then they will cut you off - and that does happen. In some cases, the individual simply isn't responsive to the drugs. Or maybe their body will not be responsive until they reach a much higher dosage - but if the insurance company cuts them off before they reach that dosage. A second insurance company ploy is to require the patient to be moved up to the next higher dosage every single month. Doesn't matter if the patient is doing really well on a lower dosage, or if the weight loss/side effects balance on the lower dosage is better for them. The insurance requirement is to keep moving up the dosage to what's considered optimal therapeutic or maintenance level. They won't approve another month at the same level until you reach the highest dosage. A possible third factor in continuing those drugs for life: What happens when the patient is finally no longer obese? The insurance company will cut them off because they've achieved their weight loss goal. It's possible that some of the health improvements could come into play here - they might be able to convince the insurance company that the drugs are needed to continued health improvements. Depends on whether the drug is classified as needed for an ongoing condition that has not been cured by the drugs, or if it's considered to be no longer needed once the condition is no longer as serious of a problem, and if the condition continues at a lower level once they reach goal weight, the insurance company determines it should be treated with cheaper drugs. As far as making sure to get enough protein to minimize muscle loss - even whey protein can be difficult to get down, much less keep down when the drug makes you barely able to consume anything and keep it down... a not uncommon occurrence when getting used to a higher dosage. It also still takes longer to digest whey protein than starches, hence the heavy use of starches in the diet routinely suggested with these drugs. And of course there's also the problem of completely forgetting to eat while on the drugs because it turns off all thoughts of food. They would need to truly force whey protein a few times a day. Also keep in mind that every package of whey protein (at leaset all those I've ever seen) cautions that it is not a balanced diet, only a supplement, and that you should never rely on a diet of nothing but whey protein for weeks at a time, much less months or years at a time) I know he's not suggesting eating nothing but whey protein Weight based exercise to maintain muscle will be fine as long as the person has not messed up their back and joints to the point that any weight based exercise will just cause more back and joint problems. But who is most likely to have messed up backs (and knees and hips and ankles) to begin with? Those who have been carrying around an extra fifty or hundred pounds or more for years. In other words, the people who are using GLP-1 drugs. So much of this is just d***ed if you do, d***ed if you don't. They're so much better off if they can somehow do a lower carb/higher protein diet without the drugs. The drugs are the easy way out... until the problems associated with using the drugs and continuing to use them long term surface and make things even worse. |
Maybe Mark is more protein centric because of two factors.
As we age, the level of stomach acid drops and that acid is the way proteins break down into absorbable particles, like amino acids. ( Collagen type proteins breakdown into a 3 part amino acid ). Adding an acid like vinegar , lemon juice and HCl tablets brings up the acid level for proper stomach function. Older folks tend to decrease food consumption, and reduce their effort to prepare food. Ive personally seen this in my mother ,90, an MIL, 88. They do easy. And fewer meals. And both dont eat enough protein. I assume these two are representative of their age group. |
Quote:
Very true, and a real snag for people who had depended on PPI drugs and easily digested fast food. I just put the dressing on my steak, and skip the salad :lol: Fermented foods are wonderful for us. I put at least a 1/2 cup of lemon or lime juice in my smoothies, because that seems to help me digest a 45 gram wallop of protein. Ordinary juices don't have the same effect, with much higher sugar. Also covers my C. I don't need extravagant amounts since I'm not eating the grains which drain that from the body. Which is how people have to radically reconstruct their view of what food is, the same way a successful low carber must. Now I view the classic fast food meal as a handful of actual food value compared to the bulk and impact of the rest of the meal, and its negative effects on my metabolism. DH gets an occasional muffin from a real bakery, but he won't touch anything less. This was a struggle for him at first, but now, those things that used to taste so good no longer do, and instead make him queasy. Which we both think is a healthy response. :lol: It doesn't trigger the need for more. That's what the whole cookie/cracker, soda and snack food, bakery aisle is like. The new tobacco. Because it's the same corporate structure, motivation, and tricks. |
Quote:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ETTER02-Weekday |
I take the minimum dose of Ozempic. I tried increasing it to the next level, and it made me feel malaise, for whatever reason. I suspect there was degeneration in muscle tissue, particularly in smooth muscle, such as my heart, and I felt weak and had angina. So I tried decreasing the dose back to the minimum, and I felt good again. I definitely found I felt better once I began taking it, due to the better control of my blood sugars, in the first place. It also stopped my weight creeping up. I didn't necessarily lose weight, but it enabled me to stop gaining, and because I was feeling better, I exercised more, and ate less. I was doing more fun things and not sitting on the couch snacking.
I don't mind injecting because similar to when I took insulin during my pregnancies, the needle is very small and thin. I alternate injecting into the upper arm on the underside near the elbow, which is easy for me to reach. I dislike injecting into my stomach or thigh. It does leave a tiny bruise which persists for a couple of days. I inject once a week, on the same day and time each week, so it is easy to remember to take it. And I take the minimum dosage. Another reason to keep on the lowest dose was cost. In spite of getting a doctor's note and form filled for insurance, they wouldn't cover it. Apparently the amount exceeds my deductible. I already am taking Pilocarpine for the Sjogren's, which is pretty expensive, so the addition of another expensive drug was not approved. So any Ozempic I am taking, I am paying for myself. Thankfully I can afford it easily now I am working. Again, feeling better means I can work more and earn enough to pay for this new drug addition. Having had a gastric bypass already, I do eat a lower amount of food, even though I don't low carb any more, or at least, I can't focus on carnivore. I tolerate eggs quite well, and try to eat canned soft meats a fair amount too. It's not the best choice of meat, but it is something my stomach can handle. Today I had thinly sliced home baked pumpkin yeast bread with butter and mashed spam with mayo. Delicious, high protein, carb but high in soluble fibre, and keeping amounts low because I can't eat a lot now. I had a single slice of a meat pizza. And I had toast with spreadable cheese for breakfast. Always incorporating protein, always keeping amounts low, always needing to keep things soft and easy to digest. I am concerned about my oldest daughter, though. She has admitted she is taking Ozempic for weight loss. She barely eats now. She is on the full dose of 1 mg/week. She always had constipation since she was tiny, with congenital low gut cellular motility. How is the Ozempic changing that situation? Yes, she's losing weight, and as mentioned, weight loss is a good thing for health overall. She is at high risk for diabetes and cancer from both maternal and paternal families, so keeping her weight down is very important for increasing her lifespan and also quality of life. But does the benefit outweigh the risks? She's currently on holiday, but when she gets back I will be discussing some of these issues and sharing your excellent links and articles here. |
Quote:
Yes, but I just checked on some websites. It is a chronic condition, "but can be managed." There was a study concluding it did not contribute to death. It would seem to me, based on these basics, that diabetes does this slowly, and the patient would be forced to make changes that would slow or stop the effect. Maybe they won't recover, if they wait that long, but they retain enough digestive tone for things to work enough to avoid malnutrition. But the news article about the grandmother who is now on a liquid diet, for life, and unable to hold a job, it wasn't like that. She had six months of warning, from the article, of the most common side effects. And then it happens all at once, and so... permanently. These people do not retain even the minimal amount of digestive capability, which means the Type II version gets stopped in time. I've no doubt people who reach that point have years behind them of poorly controlled blood sugars, and of course that plays a role. It probably plays a role with the GLP-1 drugs, too. Because the people who get them is after years of overweight and metabolic damage. Now, an older celebrity who had put on 20-30 pounds? Which would be a normal factor in any person trying to stay fit with the current official Pyramid sabotage. They would, ironically, get away with their Ozemipic use better than a long-time brittle diabetic -- the one who actually is sick. |
If she was following the standard diabetes diet which recommends far too many carbs or a diabetic to handle properly (most likely she was if she had such poor blood sugar control, even while on diabetes meds), then she was most likely following the recommendations to eat "easy to digest" foods (carbs) on ozempic too.
Quote:
Obviously that's not a nutritionally complete diet, and it does even less good if she can't keep it down or digest it properly. And this is probably the saddest part: Quote:
|
Sandy - you are wise to use the drug with a very watchful eye on how it affects you - and especially backing off to a lower dosage when you didn't feel well on the higher dose, especially taking it on top of having had WLS so that you aren't able to eat much to begin with.
The drug was originally developed for difficult diabetes cases, not for weight loss. But of course once it was discovered that it could decrease appetite (especially at higher dosages), they were off and running with it as a way to treat obesity... and unfortunately, the diet they normally suggest with it concentrates entirely too much on carbs, doesn't include nearly enough protein, and the med itself makes it very difficult to eat more than absolutely minimal fats (so good luck getting enough essential fatty acids). Quote:
You are very right to be concerned - for all the reasons you mentioned. I hope you're able to talk to her about your concerns and at least help her understand that she needs to eat (even if she's not hungry), make sure she gets enough protein (to minimize muscle loss), and be very wary of signs that her digestive system is not handling the medication well. |
I also noticed that it is not recommended for people trying to get pregnant. So that is a major thing...soon they will be trying, at least we hope so!
All my 3 girls gained weight in their 20's about the time they started on hormonal type birth control. Same as me. I didn't get fat until I went on the pill. I was not a dieter, and had a fairly healthy, home cooked diet, with a heavy emphasis on ethnic food. All my kids eat and love veggies, but we also love pizza, pasta, and rice dishes. Actually that's what a lot of the world eats and mostly they don't get fat. But our family, descendants of peasant farmers who went through war after war, we have the epigenetics to gain weight as soon as we start reproducing or our bodies think we are because of the birth control hormones mimicking pregnancy. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 20:33. |
Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.