Comment by criddell

Comment by criddell 3 months ago

11 replies

> Ozempic will not make America healthy again

Will it help a significant net number of Americans be healthier? If so, then it should be made available to those people.

> You will have to look into lifestyle choices

That's not being questioned, is it? Who doesn't understand that exercise and eating well is better than not exercising and eating garbage all day?

Beijinger 3 months ago

You were obviously not able to understand my argument.

Ozempic treats a problems (overweight) and might prevent problems further down the road (diabetes, high blood pressure, heart problems etc.) with trade offs like higher risk for specific cancers.

It does not treat the underlying cause ob obesity. One that might be highly processed food and Kennedy, whatever you think of him, stated this correctly.

Where in my post do you see that I said that Ozempic should not be made available? Please work on your reading abilities.

  • mullingitover 3 months ago

    > It does not treat the underlying cause obesity.

    Obesity is caused by compulsive excess calorie intake. That’s precisely what Ozempic treats.

    Kennedy is a grifter who profits from quack medicine. Ozempic, because of its effectiveness, threatens the supplements industry which is rife with quack cures for obesity. This is the reason he’s against it.

    • Beijinger 3 months ago

      "Obesity is caused by compulsive excess calorie intake."

      OMG. Please don't try to lecture a STEM PhD in Science.

      Obesity is caused by many things. Genetics, epigenetics, psychology, bad food (highly processed, addictive taste), social interactions, gut microbiome, hormone balance disruptions (plastics?) possibly even viral infections.

      Kennedy may be many things. Maybe even an idiot. With the statement that "Ozempic will not make America healthy again" he is right. If you have a smoking epidemic, better lung cancer treatment is not the right answer. What again does not include that better lung cancer treatments should not be available.

      • mullingitover 3 months ago

        > If you have a smoking epidemic, better lung cancer treatment is not the right answer.

        You’re correct, but Ozempic isn’t a lung cancer treatment, it’s a supremely successful smoking cessation aid. I don’t understand how you’re struggling with this metaphor as a Science STEM PhD in Science.

        Obesity is a physics problem: you can gain weight on the healthiest food imaginable, and you can lose weight on a diet of marshmallows. Ozempic attacks the lack of control over the calorie input, the only thing that ultimately matters in this equation.

      • inglor_cz 3 months ago

        In this comparison, Ozempic is nicotine patch.

        And yeah, it is not a cure, but in the absence of a cure, harm reduction is a worthy goal.

        • Beijinger 3 months ago

          In contrast to "mullingitover", you are able to distinguish between harm reduction and cure. Again, I don't appose harm reduction and it should be covered by insurance. But people are selling the harm reduction as the cure.

      • op00to 2 months ago

        I’m not sure what you have a PhD in, but if the degree says you’ve got one in “Science”, I’d try a different cereal box.

        Ozempic is nothing like cancer treatment. It’s surprising you don’t understand this. Ozempic would be better compared to medicine that magically removes nicotine cravings, allowing people to quit smoking.