Wygovy; Mounjaro; weight loss, and pharmaceutical drugs

The obesity/diabetes drugs, Wygovy, Ozempic, Mounjaro, have become a pharmaceutical best sellers. They are making the drug companies very wealthy! The active ingredient, semaglutide, helps control blood sugar, lowers appetite, and makes patients feel "full". The current claim of medical science is that these semaglutide drugs can lead to weight loss of more than 10%.

Given the burgeoning epidemic of obesity around the world this claim is an attractive one for so many people who find losing weight difficult. The sales of these drugs increased rapidly in 2023 following their promotion by the mainstream media's on behalf of the drug companies. They were "breakthrough" drugs, we were told by all media outlets.

(Have you noticed how little advertising the pharmaceutical industry has to do for itself? A press release usually does it, with the media content to pass on the advertising, free of charge, without any apparent investigation into the claims being made).

The drawbacks of these drugs are already well known:

• When patients stop taking the drug they put this weight back again.
• The drugs are not recommended for more than two years (so they have to be, or should be stopped within that time, making any gains reversible).
• Such are the concerns about these drugs the UK's NHS only prescribe them to patients who fulfil certain criteria, within a limited number of specialist weight-loss management clinics.
• Semaglutide is already known to cause serious side effects, these including anxiety, bloating, nausea, vomiting, blurred vision, confusion, constipation, diarrhoea, depression, fever, headache, indigestion, nightmares, seizures, tightness in the chest, trouble breathing, unusual tiredness or weakness, acid/sour stomach, heartburn, and much more.
  

To date these disadvantages have not slowed down burgeoning sales, especially as some pharmacies are selling them directly to the public, at a monthly cost of around £100 to £200.

Have we been here before?

For anyone who believes they have heard this before, can I refer you to one of my previous blogs, written in March 2018: Acomplia. What happens to all the 'wonder drugs' and 'miracle cure's of conventional medicine?"  Read the blog for a fuller description of events, but broadly this is what happened to Acomplia.

• Acomplia was an obesity drug, approved in 2006, and hailed as a new 'wonder drug'.
• In 2008 the drug was refused a licence in the USA, and withdrawn in the UK and Europe, particularly over fears of serious adverse reactions, particularly depression and suicide.
• The medical science, which had proclaimed this wonder drug, was found to be 'faulty'.
  

         "one study discovered that one-third of people on the drug lost 10% of their body weight, and 60% lost a less impressive 5%. Apparently, what the study did not say was that everyone in the trial was also on a low-calorie diet, and virtually everyone put the weight back on once they stopped taking the drug".

I will copy the conclusion of the Acomplia episode here, and predict (with a high degree of confidence) that this will be the conclusion of Wygovy/Ozempic story within the next few years.

 

"The European Medicines Agency (EMA) commented that the drug had proved less effective in 'real life' than in clinical trials. Patient hopes raised in the 'science' laboratory but dashed in real life. So it had been decided to suspend the licence for Acomplia as:

               "New data from post-marketing experience and ongoing clinical trials indicated that serious psychiatric disorders may be more common than in the clinical trials".

So Acomplia demonstrates better than most pharmaceutical drugs the many aspects of the hopelessness of medical science and drug regulation, which in the interests of selling drugs raise hopes, but lead only to further patient damage.

• The NHS resorts to a drug for a condition that would be better treated via life-style and dietary treatment.
• The drug is significantly less effective than the trials (the medical 'science' funded by the pharmaceutical industry) suggested.
• The full side effects of the drug remain unknown through all the 'scientific' drug testing, the regulator process, the licensing, and the prescription of the drug.
• The side effects turn out to be considerably more serious than the original condition or illness.
• And a drug thought to be unsafe in one country (the USA in this case) is considered to be perfectly 'safe' in others (indeed, most of Europe) - before it is withdrawn there too.

There is no such thing as a wonder drug, or a miracle cure, there never has been, and there probably never will be (on the basis that future performance is best predicted by past performance). So the next time the mainstream media, or your doctor tells you about a remarkable new treatment - run a mile, very, very quickly!"

There are already signs that these drugs will soon have to be withdrawn, with one pharmaceutical consultant saying that Ozempic, "the hot new weight-loss drug", poses medically dangerous gastrointestinal and mental health risks but fails to address the root causes of metabolic conditions.

So I will get back to you when pharmaceutical drug history repeats itself, as it so inevitably does. In the meantime it seems that these new obesity/diabetes drugs are going to cause a lot of patient harm in the years to come.

Post Script 15th May 2024

These obesity drugs just get better and better - according to the drug industry anyway. This is what the Guardian has told us this morning.

 

            "If you hear brand names like Ozempic and Wegovy and think of suddenly gaunt A-listers posing on the red carpet, it is surely now time to think again. There has already been substantial evidence that as well as in their initial role as a diabetes treatment, semaglutides – the kind of drug in question – can have a real impact on obesity for people for whom nothing else works. Now a new study has found that they don’t just help those people lose weight – they have a major effect on their heart health, regardless of how much weight they lose."

 

Yes, another game changer - the best drug, we are reliably informed, since Statins. Heart disease has increased substantially since the introduction of Statin drugs, I suspect semaglutide will now be used for patients of heart disease, and in line with this original blog, I would predict the same outcome. A continuing rise in heart disease (plus an additional problem arising from the adverse drug reactions too, of course).

Postscript

I am not the only blogger who has drawn attention to the dangers of Semaglutide drugs. This article, posted on 13 September 2024 not only outlines the serious adverse reactions these drugs are known to have caused, but also outlines have pharmaceutical interests are now proclaiming that they can do other wonderful things, like slowing down the ageing process, preventing cancer, arthritis, Alzheimers and Parkinson's disease, and help people give up smoking!

There appears to be no end to the pharmaceutical industry hyping its drugs. Do they really still believe what they tell us? Do they remain ignorant of the harm they are causing? Or is it just all about selling drugs and making profits?

What is the difference between Medical Science and the Real World?

Conventional medical science is usually based on 'Randomised Controlled Trials' (RCT's), often described as by conventional medical practitioners as "the Gold Standard" of scientific investigation. What this means, in essence, is that medical scientists seek to fix two criteria, for example:

• on one side, the condition - obesity or weight loss, 
• on the other side, the medicine(s) used by complementary medicine for the treatment of obesity or weight loss.

The problem with this method is that in real life these two variables cannot be so easily 'fixed'. And when medical science tries to fix them, the method they choose usually has more to do with the outcome they want to achieve than any kind of scientific objectivity. (I have explored the bias of conventional medical science in more detail on this link). 

That's look at an example. BBC News has recently reported that a recent Australian study has found that complementary medicines for weight loss are 'not justified'. The story can be told simply, in the words of the BBC.

            "The first global review of complementary medicines for weight loss in 16 years suggests their use cannot be justified based on current evidence. Researchers found that while some herbal and dietary supplements resulted in marginal weight loss compared to a placebo, they did not benefit health."

In other words, the medicine's used by complementary, or natural medicine, do not work; yet (it emphasises) people are spending lots of money on them.

To come to this conclusion, the RCT studies that were reviewed would have (i) fixed the medicines, and (ii) the weight loss. They would have tried hard to eliminate all other external factor.

So the over-weight patient takes the medicine; and the study finds he/she does not lose weight.

What this ignores is the consultation, the skills of the therapist, and the 'holistic' nature of natural medical therapies. The RCT's studies might reflect the practice of pharmaceutical medicine (where usually 'the problem', once diagnosed, leads to the prescription of a pharmaceutical drug), but it does not reflect what happens in real life. The consultation, and the ingredients of the conversation between therapist and patient, cannot be eliminated. 

I have treated many overweight or obese patients and the process is much more complex, much more varied than than the selection of a 'medicine'. The consultation would take in account many factors, many 'variables' that medical science, and 'gold standard' RCT's, have to exclude. For example,

• Lifestyle
• Mental health factors
  
• Diet and nutrition
• Exercise

each one, in themselves, very complex, and very individual to the patient. The therapist would seek to clarify these factors, provide advice, and respond to the patient's response to this advice.  

This is what a 'holistic' approach is all about. 

It does not focus on medicines; it focuses on the patient. It takes into consideration a variety of complicated factors. After this, and only after this, does the therapist recommend a 'medicine' that might assist the patient in the process of losing weight. Yet the 'medicine' is only a small part of the treatment, compared to the patient making lifestyle changes in all the factors outlined above.

Homeopathy treats obesity, and can help patients lose weight. This website gives a detailed explanation of how homeopaths set about the task, and the variety of factors they take into account. Yet you will notice that the remedies commonly used with patients come last; and that the choice of remedy has more to do with the patient, the individual, than the condition. Obesity is not a simple, single condition.

This is what holistic medical therapies do. It is not just about 'medicine'. Conventional medicine does NOT do this; certainly it is not done in medical science or via RCT studies. Natural therapy focuses on the individual, in all his/her complexity; it does not impose any 'controls' on what is considered important. It is holistic. It takes everything into account; and only at the very end comes up with medicine.

Conventional medicine fixes the condition (that is, obesity is the same problem with each and every individual), and then fixes the medicine (an 'off-the-shelf' solution to the over-simplified, over-generalised condition).

What this piece of conventional medical 'science' indicates is just confined and restricted conventional  medical science is. It explains why conventional medicine has little or no medical solution to the problem of obesity; and perhaps why, to cover up its inadequacy, it wants to dismiss 'complementary medicine'. It seeks to make the point that it natural medicine is no more effective than pharmaceutical medicine.

And for obesity, any other illness/disease can be substituted - the same general principle applies. 

The successful treatment of any sickness or disease is not simple or straightforward; it cannot be simplified by 'scientic methodology'.

Medical treatment must always be measured in terms of 'patient outcomes' - not medical science. 

Obesity. A new breakthrough treatment? Or the promotion of another failed and unsafe drug with serious known side effects?

Earlier this month another new 'wonder drug' was announced in the mainstream media (MSM), who provide advertising for the pharmaceutical industry, free of charge. BBC News set the general tone with its headline.cons

"Obesity: Appetite drug could mark 'new era' in tackling condition"

The problem with these pharmaceutical news releases, dutifully repeated by the MSM, is that they invariably come to nothing. The 'new era' does not happen.

Nor are the known adverse drug reactions. Perhaps there is a mention of some minor side effects later in the article. The drug referred to here is semaglutide (marketed as Wygovy or Ozempic, et al). It's not a new drug. It has a long list of serious side effects but these are glossed over. On this link there is a clear warning at the top of the page, there are side effects that you need to 'check with your doctor', and a very long list of known adverse reactions that go far beyond the nausea, diarrhoea, vomiting and constipation the BBC article chooses to mention.

But no matter, The intended message is that conventional medicine has discovered yet another new treatment for a very serious problem. We are reminded not only of this, but the fact that obesity can lead to much more serious outcomes, including heart disease, diabetes and severe Covid-19. So provide warnings of the consequences of the condition, whilst emphasising the 'game changing' effects of the drug. It is an advertising strategy designed to produce queues at the doctors surgery.

When this drug strategy works, when or if the obesity epidemic is reduced by semaglutide (Wygogy, Ozempic), I will return to this subject. I will also return to it when (or if) the drug is withdrawn or banned - because it has caused more serious patient harm than even the drug companies are able to justify.

Antibiotics. The failure of Conventional Medicine's Wonder Drug

Does conventional medicine work? Yes, many people will say. If asked how they can demonstrate this belief most will say "Antibiotics". 

Antibiotic drugs are certainly considered to be the 'wonder drug' of all Conventional Medicine's 'wonder drugs'. They were once thought to be 'entirely safe'. Doctors have prescribed them in abundance for decades as the answer to most illness and disease, even giving them for conditions they cannot treat! So what is the latest news on the internet about antibiotics?

There is a growing awareness that antibiotics have been overprescribed now for many years, for both humans, and farm animals. Their association with the development of 'Superbugs' is also well known.

This article discusses the work of Professor Martin Blaser, New York University, who has been studying the long-term effects of antibiotics on the gut flora. The article intimates that they may do long-term damage to our stomachs, and in doing so here, he is certainly not describing a few simple 'side-effects', but serious DIEs - disease inducing effects!

          "Early evidence from my lab and others hints that, sometimes, our friendly flora never fully recover... These long-term changes to the beneficial bacteria within people's bodies may even increase our susceptibility to infections and disease. Overuse of antibiotics could be fueling the dramatic increase in conditions such as obesity, type 1 diabetes, inflammatory bowel disease, allergies and asthma, which have more than doubled in many populations."

So here we have convincing evidence of the association between antibiotics and the rapid rise of some of the most serious chronic diseases that have afflicted us over the last few decades - the decades we have gradually been given more and more of these drugs. In another internet article, based on the same research, one serious question arises. Why is the mainstream media silent, why is it failing to report this?  But the reality is that the situation is much worse, and this can be seen in the following articles - on subjects also ignored by the mainstream media.


This article speaks not only of damage caused to the stomach, but to our mental health too. It speaks of a number of 'medical pioneers' who have come across evidence that the rising numbers of mental disorders can be traced to 'intestinal flora imbalances'. It speaks particularly of the work of Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride who has based her UK paediatric practice on fixing all kinds of behavioral and eating disorders by using diet and probiotics to restore gut health.

This article links the rise of obesity with the rise of antibiotic consumption, and again uses the work of Professor Blaser, alongside other corroborating evidence, in order to do so. This article asks the same question - are antibiotics making us fat? And leading homeopath, Dana Ullman, devotes this article to the subject as well.

This article looks at the links between antibiotics and AIDS/HIV, another alarming association.

So it is quite appropriate for this article to ask whether antibiotics are not 'a dangerous prescription drug'. And I am also pleased to see yet another article that is asking the question - why are we, as patients, not being told this by the mainstream media.

Sometimes, though, it take a personal tragedy to bring home the full impact and power of Big Pharma drugs to cause mayhem in people's life. This is just one story, of a woman disabled by taking antibiotics for a simple chest infection.

So what is the ConMed Establishment doing about this? Well, this VacTruth article indicates that the problems with antibiotics are already well known.

          Dr. Margaret Chan, Director General of the World Health Organization (WHO), dropped an allegorical bomb while speaking in Copenhagen Wednesday, March 14, 2012.  The mainstay of modern allopathic medicine and healthcare, antibiotics, was the target. Quite candidly Chan reported,

“We are losing our first-line antimicrobials. Replacement treatments are more costly, more toxic, need much longer durations of treatment, and may require treatment in intensive care unit.”

Dr. Chan went on to elaborate about numerous bacteria that have become antibiotic resistant, e.g., methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), plus other infectious diseases, i.e., multi-drug resistant tuberculosis, are becoming increasingly difficult and expensive to treat because antibiotics aren’t effective.  Chan elaborated further, “Things as common as strep throat or a child’s scratched knee could once again kill.”  Are her words to be interpreted as warnings, threats, realities, or a prediction of something even more sinister in the way of pharmaceuticals that will have to be invented?

And this article, from a GP magazine, suggests that doctors are also aware of the problems connected with antibiotics. There is even a new book, 'The Emperor's New Drugs' that is designed to 'explode the antidepressant myth', and this is written by a doctor who prescribed them in his earlier career.

Indeed, the problem with antibiotics appears to be producing some 'panic' within the ConMed Establishment, which is perhaps apparent in this article, which asks the question 'What if Antibiotics stop working?' Clearly, it assumes that they are working, and that nothing else will be available if they stop working. And, of course, there is no discussion of their dangers here.

So will the ConMed Establishment bother to tell us about the dangers of antibiotics? Apparently not. Despite the known dangers, GPs are continuing to prescribe antibiotics, even for the wrong diseases, like coughs and sinusitis! And, in this BBC article, it would appear that most people continue to believe antibiotics cure diseases, and do so safely. Perhaps this is because the BBC does not usually bother to inform us about the dangers of antibiotics, or any other Big Pharma drug, come to that!

And when we get a warning from the Independent newspaper, it appears that the problem with antibiotics is just that we are overusing them, not that they are inherently dangerous.

So what should we all do? Stop taking antibiotics, and hope that those we have already taken have not caused long-term harm? Unfortunately, it is not as simple as this. The meat we eat has become a major problem because farm animals have been reared on a heady diet of antibiotics. It is even put into their feed!

Such is the seriousness of this problem, The EU has been advised to phase out the use of antibiotics, calling instead for better animal hygiene, housing and husbandry. Interestingly, it is also recommending more use of homeopathy, which of course does not carry the same risks and dangers.

The FDA in USA, however, have not followed suit. They have recently decided not to ban antibiotics in animal feed - despite an earlier indication that they were going to do so. The FDA is well known for its 'close' links with the corporate world - so perhaps this is not too much of a surprise.

But it is a problem for our health. 

Whatever antibiotics are doing to farm animals, this article outlines the threat we face through the meat we eat. And there is evidence that the problem we now face from antibiotic-resistant superbugs all began on the farm, and in the food we eat.