Americans on Ozempic go BLIND as doctors sound alarm over potentially startling side

[revelarts]

More Americans on Ozempic go BLIND as doctors sound alarm over potentially startling side effect

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...rs-effect.html

Experts have sounded the alarm about blockbuster weight loss drugs like Ozempic leaving users blind.

Several studies have linked the shots to conditions that cause inflammation and block blood flow to the eye, causing severe and sometimes permanent vision loss.
Now, researchers have detailed nine new reports of US patients who went blind after taking semaglutide or tirzepatide, the active ingredients in Ozempic and Mounjaro, respectively.

One woman injected one dose of semaglutide for her diabetes and woke up the next morning blind in her left eye.
This prompted her to stop the medication for two months before her diabetes forced her to go back on it. Two weeks after restarting, she lost vision in her right eye as well.

Another woman who had been taking semaglutide for a year woke up one morning with a 'painless shadow' over her left eye. Testing revealed blood vessels in her retina had become damaged, leading to blindness.
And one suffered bleeding in his left eye after taking tirzepatide for a year. However, doctors told him to keep taking the drug due to a lack of evidence linking his condition to weight loss shots.

The researchers wrote in JAMA Ophthalmology last month that it's not clear exactly what could be causing the side effect.
The experts said while the exact cause is unclear, drugs like Ozempic rapidly lowering blood sugar levels could damage blood vessels in the eyes, leading to vision loss.
Health officials in Denmark, where Ozempic maker Novo Nordisk is based, is currently investigating the links between semaglutide and vision loss.

The new report detailed the cases of nine adults taking either semaglutide or tirzepatide.
The average patient age was 57, and the majority (56 percent) were women.
The patients were from Utah, Minnesota, New York, West Virginia, and Ohio.
The researchers found seven patients were diagnosed with nonarteritic ischemic anterior optic neuropathy (NAION), a condition where blood flow to the optic nerve gets blocked. The optic nerve helps transmit visual information from the eye's retina to the brain.
Jacqueline Barber of Louisville, Kentucky slept on the couch with a garbage can next to her for about a year
She lost 140 lbs, her teeth began crumbling because of the stomach acid, and she became so weak that she had to use a walker to get around
This leads to sudden vision loss in one or both eyes.

NAION occurs in about 6,000 Americans every year, and it's most common in patients with diabetes, high blood pressure, and sleep apnea, as these conditions can damage blood vessels.
Weight-loss doctor reveals alarming new symptom he's seeing in Ozempic patients
One woman in her 50s developed NAION the day after her first semaglutide injection.
She woke up the morning after the injection with 'painful vision loss' in her left eye.
Tests revealed swelling in her optic nerve and damaged blood vessels in her retina.
The women stopped taking semaglutide and her insulin, and her vision had gone back to normal two months later.
Two weeks after restarting semaglutide to control her diabetes, the vision loss returned. She was diagnosed with severe optic nerve swelling, and her vision returned to normal seven months later.
It's unclear if she stopped semaglutide a second time.

A man in his 60s started experiencing painless blurred vision in his right eye 10 months after starting semaglutide for diabetes.
He had optic nerve swelling and flame hemorrhage, bleeding into his retina. Though his symptoms resolved within a few weeks, he lost vision in his left eye as well.
About 10 weeks after stopping semaglutide, vision in both eyes returned to normal.
vOne woman in her 30s suffered swollen optic nerves and hemorrhages in both eyes three months after starting semaglutide.

Most patients with NAION noticed their vision improving within days or weeks of stopping semaglutide.
One man, however, who developed hemorrhaging had vision improvements without stopping tirzepatide, so doctors advised him to stay on it.

The researchers said the results show associations between weight loss drugs and blindness, though they can't prove causation.
Roughly six percent of Americans - 15million - report using some form of weight loss shot.
Since their approval and mass circulation, patients have reported a number of unexpected side effects linked to the various weight loss drugs.
Black box warnings for the Ozempic include that it may increase the risk of developing thyroid tumors. The label also warns about the risk of developing stomach paralysis which can lead to nausea, vomiting and malnutrition.
Other individuals have reported developing problems with suicidal thoughts, sexual dysfunction and hair loss as a result of the drug.

"...One woman in her 50s developed NAION the day after her first semaglutide injection.
She woke up the morning after the injection with 'painful vision loss' in her left eye.
Tests revealed swelling in her optic nerve and damaged blood vessels in her retina.
The women stopped taking semaglutide and her insulin, and her vision had gone back to normal two months later.
Two weeks after restarting semaglutide to control her diabetes, the vision loss returned. She was diagnosed with severe optic nerve swelling, and her vision returned to normal seven months later..."

But wait, correlation doesn't mean causation... plus these are all antidotal... no large double blind peer reviewed studies, +doctors say it's AOK... plus it's been approved by the FDA. Of course a few unlucky people will have a bad reaction... collateral damage right?

However more study should be done.

But anyone who questions the science here is fear mongering and just as bad as those selling Ozempic without mentioning possible & RARE side effects.

[Black Diamond]

I got out of novo nordisk stock just in time.

[Gunny]

NAION occurs in about 6,000 Americans every year, and it's most common in patients with diabetes, high blood pressure, and sleep apnea, as these conditions can damage blood vessels.

Passive aggressive much? Presenting exception as rule, again, does not an argument make. Nine people, huh? I'd have guessed more. Approximately 1 in 8 adults use Ozempic or like product; or, more than 15 million Americans.

1 in 8 adults in the US has taken Ozempic or another GLP-1 drug, KFF survey finds | CNN

As far as warnings go, you must not watch TV. Fifteen seconds of advertising and 45 seconds of disclaimers/possible side effects follow. Ad nauseum. At risk people (bolded) should be working more on their at risk issues instead of looking for a "magic pill" to lose weight. Problem is with diabetics is they can't lose weight because of the diabetes and often go to extremes trying to because diabetics are threatened by all sorts of side effects because of excess weight. It's a circle jerk. Diabetes and/or high blood pressure can make you go blind with or without Ozempic.

I'd also like to see some kind of split with legit numbers split for those that take it out of medical necessity, and those that are just lazy and looking for a "magic pill". That ain't going to happen. Too much self-interest involved by users AND sellers.

I don't believe in ANY "magic pills". Once upon a time, in my lifetime, amphetamines were regularly prescribed as "diet pills", and when you need to take the edge off the speed to get some sleep you drop a couple of valium or placydil (sp). ALL legally prescribed, FDA approved. None of that even comes close to the supposed "fat burners" -- non-prescription fad products that change labels every couple of years but rarely the ingredients. Those that ever worked were found to be "harmful" (ephedrine as example).

Point being, those things that aren't possibly "harmful" don't work and never did. When has anything "too good to be true" ever been true?

left out of all of this is: freedom - freedom of choice? Freedom to educate one's self before making decisions? You claim to be all for that. Except when you aren't.

[fj1200]

But wait, correlation doesn't mean causation... plus these are all antidotal... no large double blind peer reviewed studies, +doctors say it's AOK... plus it's been approved by the FDA. Of course a few unlucky people will have a bad reaction... collateral damage right?

However more study should be done.

But anyone who questions the science here is fear mongering and just as bad as those selling Ozempic without mentioning possible & RARE side effects.

A. People want a drug to fix their problems; side effects be damned.
2. Do you know how science works?

[revelarts]

A. People want a drug to fix their problems; side effects be damned.

very True.

2. Do you know how science works?

....1st knowing that correlation doesn't mean causation... & it's not antidotal ... & ONLY many repeated large double blind peer reviewed studies done by the RIGHT people can say anything... & if official doctors & experts say it's AOK then it's must be true... especially if it's approved by the FDA or other official body.
And then backhanded dismissals of quacks & outliers who don't align with the current status quo.
However more study should always be done... by the right people.

That's what i've been told is the ONLY way anyone should start to consider anything as even pointing towards alternative conclusions.

[revelarts]

Passive aggressive much?

shotguns with buckshot don't work over the internet
soo..
tools available and all that.

Presenting exception as rule, again, does not an argument make. Nine people, huh? I'd have guessed more. Approximately 1 in 8 adults use Ozempic or like product; or, more than 15 million Americans.

1 in 8 adults in the US has taken Ozempic or another GLP-1 drug, KFF survey finds | CNN

As far as warnings go, you must not watch TV. Fifteen seconds of advertising and 45 seconds of disclaimers/possible side effects follow. Ad nauseum. At risk people (bolded) should be working more on their at risk issues instead of looking for a "magic pill" to lose weight. Problem is with diabetics is they can't lose weight because of the diabetes and often go to extremes trying to because diabetics are threatened by all sorts of side effects because of excess weight. It's a circle jerk. Diabetes and/or high blood pressure can make you go blind with or without Ozempic.

I'd also like to see some kind of split with legit numbers split for those that take it out of medical necessity, and those that are just lazy and looking for a "magic pill". That ain't going to happen. Too much self-interest involved by users AND sellers.

I don't believe in ANY "magic pills". Once upon a time, in my lifetime, amphetamines were regularly prescribed as "diet pills", and when you need to take the edge off the speed to get some sleep you drop a couple of valium or placydil (sp). ALL legally prescribed, FDA approved. None of that even comes close to the supposed "fat burners" -- non-prescription fad products that change labels every couple of years but rarely the ingredients. Those that ever worked were found to be "harmful" (ephedrine as example).Point being, those things that aren't possibly "harmful" don't work and never did. When has anything "too good to be true" ever been true?

all decent points.
I don't think I said anything that tries to disputes any of that.

left out of all of this is: freedom - freedom of choice? Freedom to educate one's self before making decisions? You claim to be all for that. Except when you aren't.

"left out of all of this is: freedom."
Yes, it was left out. Who said anything about taking people's freedom to use it?

please show me where in comments here (or elsewhere concerning drugs... legal or illegal) have I said that people should be legally banned from taking anything.

I don't understand your POV where you think that if someone says that something is harmful,
that it automatically means that they want to make it Illegal. And take the "freedom" to use it away.

Is that how you feel about things you think are harmful to people?

[revelarts]

Presenting exception as rule, again, does not an argument make. Nine people, huh? I'd have guessed more. Approximately 1 in 8 adults use Ozempic or like product; or, more than 15 million Americans.

1 in 8 adults in the US has taken Ozempic or another GLP-1 drug, KFF survey finds | CNN

....

left out of all of this is: freedom - freedom of choice? Freedom to educate one's self before making decisions? You claim to be all for that. Except when you aren't.

Gunny do you think the federal gov't should subsidize Ozempic?

"Today, over 100 members of Congress support a bill to fund Ozempic with Medicare... Most of these members have taken money from the manufacturer of that product, a European company called Novo Nordisk."
"There is a push to recommend Ozempic for Americans as young as six over a condition—obesity—that is completely preventable, and barely even existed 100 years ago."
"Since 74% of Americans are obese, the cost of all of them—if they take their Ozempic prescriptions—will be $3 trillion a year."
"This is a drug that has made Novo Nordisk the biggest company in Europe. It's a Danish company, but the Danish government does not recommend it. It recommends a change in diet to treat obesity, and exercise."
"For half the price of Ozempic, we could purchase... organic food for every American—three meals a day—and a gym membership for every obese American."
RFK jr

[Gunny]

shotguns with buckshot don't work over the internet
soo..
tools available and all that.


all decent points.
I don't think I said anything that tries to disputes any of that.



"left out of all of this is: freedom."
Yes, it was left out. Who said anything about taking people's freedom to use it?

please show me where in comments here (or elsewhere concerning drugs... legal or illegal) have I said that people should be legally banned from taking anything.

I don't understand your POV where you think that if someone says that something is harmful,
that it automatically means that they want to make it Illegal. And take the "freedom" to use it away.

Is that how you feel about things you think are harmful to people?

Gunny do you think the federal gov't should subsidize Ozempic?

"Today, over 100 members of Congress support a bill to fund Ozempic with Medicare... Most of these members have taken money from the manufacturer of that product, a European company called Novo Nordisk."
"There is a push to recommend Ozempic for Americans as young as six over a condition—obesity—that is completely preventable, and barely even existed 100 years ago."
"Since 74% of Americans are obese, the cost of all of them—if they take their Ozempic prescriptions—will be $3 trillion a year."
"This is a drug that has made Novo Nordisk the biggest company in Europe. It's a Danish company, but the Danish government does not recommend it. It recommends a change in diet to treat obesity, and exercise."
"For half the price of Ozempic, we could purchase... organic food for every American—three meals a day—and a gym membership for every obese American."
RFK jr

Well, so long as we are opining rather than advocating

My opinion of Ozempic, in the opposite direct, is the same as my opinion of anabolic steroids where the topic concerns me. Being the gym rat I've always been, suffice to say since I started lifting weights in the mid-70s, I have had more than a few opportunities to take the easy road. Definitely in the early-mid 80s in the Marines. It's being lazy and cheating and it's not real, plain and simple. When you stop taking them, all that chemically-induced muscle, strength meets reality. If you don't know exactly what you are doing, you end up worse off than when you started. Not to mention abuse (as opposed to use) can do to your organs including your brain. Then there's the physiological damage to your skeletal system from steroids allowing you to lift WAY more weight than your body's natural ability.

And you have to and will, sooner or later come off. Or drop dead. All that for an illusionary, proverbial moment in the sun? No thanks. For me, if it ain't real, it don't count. But there are millions who think otherwise.

Then there's the dependency. Kind of the same approach I have to tariffs. How long is it one takes Ozempic to maintain that faux look/weight loss? And what's the price of rebound when you can't get it? I'll go back to the steroids -- when they finally came to the startling conclusion based on abusers and bad side effects because some media personalities died or were crippled they became evil overnight and without a small fortune, you're not getting any. Except black market from Mexico and Canada, OR Junior's guaranteed to work bathtub brew. THEN what? What happens when these people are suddenly cut off? Or choose to cut themselves off? Either way. Based on most data I've ever read on chemical dependency it usually ain't pretty.

My view on "freedom of choice" is contradictory considering the current system we live in. I'm all about people killing themselves any old way they want. But I do not believe the public/taxpayers/insurance payers should be footing the bill for brain-dead paraplegics by their own hand and own choice. That's not the case. Our insurance premiums reflect the choices and stupidity of others. Then you get into what's "approved" and not.

I think people who have been prescribed Ozempic out of real medical necessity should be covered. I don't consider fat and lazy medical necessity without the real, underlying reason. Why do I want my taxes and or insurance premiums to support fat and lazy?

The issue I have with the pharmaceutical companies is the exact same as yours. You just like to argue even in agreement They are in business to make money and report to their shareholders. I don't picture them as a group of altruistic saints. On the other hand, without a demand for product, they have no reason to try and provide one. I am leery of any chemical that creates a dependency without cause; which, IMO, more often than not leads to crime and/or unethical conduct somewhere along the trail.

[fj1200]

... & ONLY many repeated large double blind peer reviewed studies done by the RIGHT people can say anything... & if official doctors & experts say it's AOK then it's must be true... especially if it's approved by the FDA or other official body.
And then backhanded dismissals of quacks & outliers who don't align with the current status quo.
However more study should always be done... by the right people.

That's what i've been told is the ONLY way anyone should start to consider anything as even pointing towards alternative conclusions.

I don't think anyone has told you that.

[revelarts]

I don't think anyone has told you that.

I can't go back and find them all but, yes someone did tell me that, pretty much.
A cumulative POV on "how science works". Here are a few Direct quotes from someone.

Often starts with friendly questions like:

"Do you know how science works?"
"Do you understand how studies work?"

Then lessons taught obliquely.

"I googled her articles two ways. Nothing along the lines of the title of the video. If there's something there it shouldn't be that hard to find.And it's anecdotal."

"If he bases it on other research then he can reference his other research. If he wants to base it on his experiences and others experiences then he can say he has concerns but should acknowledge that his experience is anecdotal."

"Those studies make no attempt at a control group that would be necessary to confirm actual causal relationships."

"...It's the age-old question isn't it? Causation vs. correlation.That
and repeatability of results,
lack of bias,
corroborating studies, etc...."

"That's how I know the study looks like an exercise in a predetermined outcome."

"Whatever you want to call these particular "studies" or "statistical analyses" they only acknowledge that cancer incidences have gone up and can only speculate as to the cause."
.

Take awhile to dig all of them up but it yes...

[fj1200]

Take awhile to dig all of them up but it yes...

I specifically left off correlation =/= causation and anecdotal because those are things that do not prove what you think they prove. I have also never said anything about RIGHT people or official doctors and experts or FDA approved.

[revelarts]

I specifically left off correlation =/= causation and anecdotal because those are things that do not prove what you think they prove. I have also never said anything about RIGHT people or official doctors and experts or FDA approved.

So Good science and solid general conclusions CAN be drawn WITHOUT many repeated large double blind peer reviewed studies done by the RIGHT people?

& what official doctors & experts say, even if it's been approved by the FDA or other official bodies, can be credibly questioned, or even regarded as false, if there's evidence from other sources?

& very credible studies can be done by the wrong people?

[fj1200]

^You have an inordinate reliance on right/wrong/official/whatever. There are good studies. There are bad studies. There are good conclusions that can be drawn from good studies. There are bad conclusions that can be drawn from good studies.

[revelarts]

... There are good studies. There are bad studies.

we're probably not going to agree on what the criteria is for determining what makes a study good or bad so ...I'll just leave it.

There are good conclusions that can be drawn from good studies.

Again we're probably not going to agree on what the criteria is for determining what makes a conclusion, good.
But in general I'd rather ask are the conclusions reasonable, or more likely than not, based on the info available.
And often the studies themselves include clear conclusions.
While ALWAYS adding text that leave the door open for more study, but still manage sit firmly on one side or another rather than live in perpetual agnosticism.

There are bad conclusions that can be drawn from good studies.

see above

[fj1200]

we're probably not going to agree on what the criteria is for determining what makes a study good or bad so ...I'll just leave it.

Again we're probably not going to agree on what the criteria is for determining what makes a conclusion, good.
But in general I'd rather ask are the conclusions reasonable, or more likely than not, based on the info available.
And often the studies themselves include clear conclusions.
While ALWAYS adding text that leave the door open for more study, but still manage sit firmly on one side or another rather than live in perpetual agnosticism.

see above

Considering what I've seen you give credence to I suspect not. But there are answers to those questions that are fairly well defined; you just happen to not like it when what you think doesn't conform to the evidence... or the evidence doesn't conform to what you think.