Comment by Beijinger

Comment by 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.

Reply View 2 replies

mlyle 3 months ago

> Ozempic attacks the lack of control over the calorie input, the only thing that ultimately matters in this equation.
But in fairness, there's a complex etiology behind the lack of control of the calorie input, and attacking causes a bit earlier in the chain could make even more sense, no?
I'm not saying Ozempic is bad-- it's quite a good thing. But to the extent that it lowers our desire to really figure out these causes and deal with them, that's unfortunate.

Reply View | 0 replies
Beijinger 3 months ago

Look, I gave this as a metaphor. Better anti-lung cancer drugs (not Ozempic) are not the right answer to the smoking problem. Neither is Ozempic the right answer to the epidemic. I don't oppose Ozempic, neither would I better anti-lung cancer drugs, and both should be covered by insurance. But both "solutions" would not address the underlying problem? Is this so hard to understand? A 5th grader should understand this.

Reply View | 0 replies

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.

Reply View 1 reply

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.

Reply View | 0 replies

op00to 3 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.

Reply View 2 replies

Beijinger 3 months ago

I am not explaining it again. If you don't understand an analogy or if you don't want to understand it, then it is not worth my time.

Reply View | 1 reply
- op00to 3 months ago
  
  How convenient. A "Science PhD" who is unable to understand how Ozempic works is also too lazy to explain their point of view when their misinformed view is revealed to them.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies