Japan Today
health

Ozempic linked with lower dementia risk, nicotine use, British study finds

22 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Thomson Reuters 2024.

©2025 GPlusMedia Inc.

22 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

Novo Nordisk's popular diabetes treatment Ozempic could be tied to a lower risk of cognitive problems

...compared with three common antidiabetic drugs.

How does Ozempic compare with, say, the keto or carnivore diet...

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

How does Ozempic compare with, say, the keto or carnivore diet...

Tell us.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

How does Ozempic compare with, say, the keto or carnivore diet...

Tell us.

Well, I'm still waiting for an RCT (which will never be allowed). But what we have so far strongly suggests that the carnivore diet would blow Ozempic and the three common antidiabetic drugs out of the water. Its very effective against diabetes, obesity, autoimmunity ....

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34934897/

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

...compared with three common antidiabetic drugs.

How does Ozempic compare with, say, the keto or carnivore diet...

Complete misrepresentation, the baseline of the comparison is a net decrease of risk of health problems related to obesity, this extra benefit comes on top of that.

Keto or carnivore come instead with extra risks and low adhesion on the long term, so by default it is a much worse option and that is why the medical consensus is to consider them unhealthy ways to lose weight.

Well, I'm still waiting for an RCT (which will never be allowed). 

Of course, it is unethical to allow a comparison to something that has already confirmed to be worse than the best available treatment. Is like asking for a RCT of infections comparing antibiotic treatment against acupuncture without any pharmacological intervention. There is nothing to be gained from it because the only possible result is that following unhealthy diets is worse than doing nothing, and obviously much worse than using something with demonstrated benefits.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

"The study, published in the Lancet's eClinicalMedicine journal, explored more than 100 million medical records of U.S. patients to see if Ozempic increased the risk of several neurological and psychiatric conditions in the first year of use compared with three common antidiabetic drugs."

Seems pretty clear to me. If there was misrepresentation, it's by the author of the article.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34934897/

I thought so. That self-selecting, self-reporting study failed to convince me before, and I find it unconvincing now. Do you have another one?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Seems pretty clear to me. If there was misrepresentation, it's by the author of the article.

There is no misrepresentation, there was no increase found instead they found lower risks for dementia and nicotine use, you would be the one trying to misrepresent the findings of the study, not the authors.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Regarding the carnivore diet study:

"Diabetes medication use was significantly reduced. All respondents with diabetes discontinued noninsulin injection agents, 84% discontinued oral medications, and 92% of participants with T2DM discontinued insulin."

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Regarding the carnivore diet study:

That is still only what the respondents reported, not something validated by any medical professional, so there is no guarantee this is actually what happened, nor that it was appropriate according to a medical professional. Those that supposedly follow the diets publicly and present objective evidence (laboratory results) invariable are in much worse condition and end up at a very elevated cardiac risk for example, some have even abandoned the diets for this reason.

Of course the main point is that the benefits (as in objectively corroborated, not just reported) can be obtained by diets that are actually healthy and do not increase risk for the health of the patients as the unhealthy options you keep trying to recommend. That is why there is no institution in the a related field of medical science in the world that actually recommends paleo or keto diets over the actually healthy options that give all the benefits without the risks.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

That is still only what the respondents reported, not something validated by any medical professional, so there is no guarantee this is actually what happened, nor that it was appropriate according to a medical professional.

That is based on a number of measurements like HbA1c and BMI; data that is provided in the paper. It's not just people saying "hey, I feel fine, I think I'll stop taking my meds."

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I'm sorry, Raw Beer. But a study of people belonging to a Carnivore/Keto diet facebook group who report that those diets are healthy is just not very compelling.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

That is based on a number of measurements like HbA1c and BMI; data that is provided in the paper. It's not just people saying "hey, I feel fine, I think I'll stop taking my meds."

In the reference you brought the authors took exactly zero measurements, everything is just what people reported without any kind of validation nor control, what is the point of making false statements about your own reference? that means you are aware it is of terribly poor quality so you feel the need to claim things that are not included in it.

It is also telling that you make no argument over the huge advantage the diets that are actually considered healthy have by not only providing the benefits your reference only have listed as reported, but also because they do not have the very important risks that have been demonstrated for the unhealthy options you recommend.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Are you suggesting they just made up HbA1c and BMI values, and lied about resolving their diabetes?

Anyway, I hope you realize that the vast majority of human dietary studies involve self-reporting.

But hey, if you really want clinical trial results, then you should recall what I recently quoted from a paper you provided:

"It is interesting to note that a number of clinical trials which have utilized animal-product-rich diets (low-carbohydrate, high-protein or high-fat diets) in comparison to more mixed diets that are higher in carbohydrate and lower in fat demonstrate benefit in CVD risk factors, despite inherently reduced plant food consumption and increased saturated fat intake [39]."

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Are you suggesting they just made up HbA1c and BMI values, and lied about resolving their diabetes?

What I am saying is that no medical professional measured any values nor controlled the patients, at all.

The whole point of your reference is that everything is according to what people online said about themselves, so as data is terribly inadequate to prove that is what actually happened.

And of course once again you make no argument against the huge advantage of the diets the experts actually recommend that bring all the benefits (if not more) without the high risks of the worse options you like to recommend.

But hey, if you really want clinical trial results, then you should recall what I recently quoted from a paper you provided:

Which is still a non-argument to prove your claim, because comparing a high-risk carnivore diet to a terribly bad plant based diet in no way disproves that a good plant based diet is much better.

The data you need to prove your claim is a lower risk and better benefits when compared with a good and healthy plant based diet, which is what you have not provided. Comparing it to mixed diets based on refined sugars and flour is like having someone saying "This car is terribly slow compared with the current standards" and replying "But it is faster than walking", implicitly you are accepting the criticism is valid and you have to compare it with something in a much lower category to be able to find something worse.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Which is still a non-argument to prove your claim, because comparing a high-risk carnivore diet to a terribly bad plant based diet in no way disproves that a good plant based diet is much better.

Except that there is no valid evidence that the carnivore diet is risky; it is just your .... opinion.

There is much more evidence however that the carnivore diet reduces risks.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Except that there is no valid evidence that the carnivore diet is risky; it is just your .... opinion.

As repeatedly proved with many references this is the current consensus of medical science, ignoring it and pretending this is just a personal opinion makes it clear you understand you have no argument or data against this consensus.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10142709/

https://www.forbes.com/health/nutrition/diet/what-is-the-carnivore-diet

https://www.mdpi.com/2308-3425/10/7/282

Animal-food-centered diets may (1) increase cardiovascular toll-like receptor (TLR) signaling, due to increased serum endotoxins and oxidized LDL cholesterol, (2) increase cardiovascular lipotoxicity, (3) increase renin-angiotensin system components and subsequent angiotensin II type-1 receptor (AT1R) signaling and (4) increase serum trimethylamine-N-oxide concentrations. These nutritionally mediated factors independently increase cardiovascular oxidative stress and inflammation and are all independently tied to CVD development. Public policy efforts should continue to advocate for the consumption of a mostly plant-based diet, with the minimization of animal-based foods.

So much for "personal opinions"

There is much more evidence however that the carnivore diet reduces risks.

Yet the best you can do is present the same facebook user self reported "data", if that is the best you can do that means you have nothing against the consensus.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

As repeatedly proved with many references this is the current consensus of medical science, ignoring it and pretending this is just a personal opinion makes it clear you understand you have no argument or data against this consensus.

Except those "references" are off-point and do not deal with the actual issue being discussed.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Except those "references" are off-point and do not deal with the actual issue being discussed.

No they are not, they deal precisely with how the diet is unsafe and not recommended.

This is easy to prove the moment you could not even make an argument, just make a false claim that anybody can see with the quoted text.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

As repeatedly proved with many references this is the current consensus of medical science, ignoring it and pretending this is just a personal opinion makes it clear you understand you have no argument or data against this consensus.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10142709/

https://www.forbes.com/health/nutrition/diet/what-is-the-carnivore-diet

https://www.mdpi.com/2308-3425/10/7/282

That's it? That's all you have?

You rejected my Harvard study because the participants self-reported. But in your first paper, participants completed touchscreen questionnaires, asking about meat intake. And, that paper is not about carnivore diet.

The mdpi paper was already debunked when you first brought it up. The only valid point that author made was:

"It is interesting to note that a number of clinical trials which have utilized animal-product-rich diets (low-carbohydrate, high-protein or high-fat diets) in comparison to more mixed diets that are higher in carbohydrate and lower in fat demonstrate benefit in CVD risk factors, despite inherently reduced plant food consumption and increased saturated fat intake [39]."

So no, you haven't provided anything to even suggest that carnivore diet comes with additional risks.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

No they are not, they deal precisely with how the diet is unsafe and not recommended.

Exceptionally not relevant to the issue.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

That's it? That's all you have?

Specific objective data that proves the medical institutions of the world consider your recommendation unhealthy.

You on the other side have provided exactly zero examples of any institution that recommends the option you like, that means the references are already several degrees higher as proof of the claim, even if they were the only available (which of course they are not).

You rejected my Harvard study because the participants self-reported. But in your first paper, participants completed touchscreen questionnaires

With the huge difference that the burden of proof to just find out the same as every other institution of the world is nowhere near the burden of proof necessary to demonstrate the same institutions are all wrong as you require.

The mdpi paper was already debunked when you first brought it up. The only valid point that author made was:

Of course not, all their points are valid, as sure as you were unable to refute any.

And the point you keep repeating has already been explained to you, something against you could not argue against, so it is still as debunked, I can copy again the same reply since you have no answer against it.

Which is still a non-argument to prove your claim, because comparing a high-risk carnivore diet to a terribly bad plant based diet in no way disproves that a good plant based diet is much better.

The data you need to prove your claim is a lower risk and better benefits when compared with a good and healthy plant based diet, which is what you have not provided. Comparing it to mixed diets based on refined sugars and flour is like having someone saying "This car is terribly slow compared with the current standards" and replying "But it is faster than walking", implicitly you are accepting the criticism is valid and you have to compare it with something in a much lower category to be able to find something worse.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Exceptionally not relevant to the issue.

Well, you could not even make an argument about it, and the quoted text demonstrates the relevance, what is the point of making such an obviously false claim? anybody can read the references and see how the clearly apply to the topic, are you just making sure to show how you could not even read those references?

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites