Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It gives the impression that our numbers are huge, since any sizable group clustered together can seem enormous from one individual's viewpoint. Still, when you set that against all the overweight folks who wish they weren't and are clamoring for these drugs, I suspect our actual count is fairly small—and we barely cut into their earnings.oldrunnerguy said:
My stockpiling remark was meant as a joke, though I'm genuinely curious how Lilly plans to go after the gray market for Reta. That market must already be enormous, no?
Biologics get 12 years of patent protection, whereas standard drugs get 5 years.oldrunnerguy said:
Based on what I've gathered, should Retatrutide receive this classification, Lilly might gain free rein over how they set prices. I'm hoping that isn't the case. Time to start building a stash, perhaps! https://investor.lilly.com/news-rel...agonist-retatrutide-successful-two-additional.
Hearing that is genuinely quite disturbing — a supposedly qualified specialist making such a claim while ignoring the wealth of data showing how effective it is as a diabetes therapy, and not even taking into account the weight loss benefits. They cut the risk of developing most long-term diabetes complications by a substantial margin. Far, far more than insulin does. For most people the barrier is price or availability, but clearly some specialists either don't review the studies or don't adhere to treatment guidelines. If you can, it sounds like a good reason to look for another specialist. Unfortunately, prejudice within medicine is all too real.eidos said:
That matches what I went through. My primary care doctor suggested Victoza, so I began using it (Ozempic couldn't be found in stock back then). Then in 2024 I saw a diabetologist, and he said he didn't believe in GLP-1 agonists.BBA1969 said:
Zuul said:
They have the freedom to set any price they want. But they're in for a rude awakening once they realize US insurers won't pay for it, and customers in Europe and the UK—who typically cover private prescriptions themselves (unless they go gray)—don't have endless money to spend.
Across much of the EU, using GLP-1 drugs for weight loss remains largely stigmatized. On top of that, the cost is prohibitive because insurers refuse to pay unless a person already has diabetes.
Many physicians from older generations won't prescribe these medications to patients who are merely overweight, absent any comorbid condition. If no comorbidity exists, the topic never even comes up.
My sister-in-law, age 47, has a BMI nearing 40. Her doctor prescribed sartans and statins and never brought up GLP-1s. He did warn her that she must shed weight immediately or she will head directly into type 2 diabetes.
The twisted irony is that should she develop diabetes, suffer a heart attack, or get cancer, her health insurance (Belgium) would then cover everything.
Lilly had better run some awareness campaigns in the EU!
It's still far too common for doctors to make patients feel guilty.
oldrunnerguy said:
Based on what I've gathered, should Retatrutide receive this classification, Lilly might gain free rein over how they set prices. I'm hoping that isn't the case. Time to start building a stash, perhaps! https://investor.lilly.com/news-rel...agonist-retatrutide-successful-two-additional.
I wouldn't call myself against medicine—quite the reverse, actually.lessthanhalf said:
Hearing that is genuinely quite disturbing — a supposedly qualified specialist making such a claim while ignoring the wealth of data showing how effective it is as a diabetes therapy, and not even taking into account the weight loss benefits. They cut the risk of developing most long-term diabetes complications by a substantial margin. Far, far more than insulin does. For most people the barrier is price or availability, but clearly some specialists either don't review the studies or don't adhere to treatment guidelines. If you can, it sounds like a good reason to look for another specialist. Unfortunately, prejudice within medicine is all too real.eidos said:
That matches what I went through. My primary care doctor suggested Victoza, so I began using it (Ozempic couldn't be found in stock back then). Then in 2024 I saw a diabetologist, and he said he didn't believe in GLP-1 agonists.BBA1969 said:
Zuul said:
They have the freedom to set any price they want. But they're in for a rude awakening once they realize US insurers won't pay for it, and customers in Europe and the UK—who typically cover private prescriptions themselves (unless they go gray)—don't have endless money to spend.
Across much of the EU, using GLP-1 drugs for weight loss remains largely stigmatized. On top of that, the cost is prohibitive because insurers refuse to pay unless a person already has diabetes.
Many physicians from older generations won't prescribe these medications to patients who are merely overweight, absent any comorbid condition. If no comorbidity exists, the topic never even comes up.
My sister-in-law, age 47, has a BMI nearing 40. Her doctor prescribed sartans and statins and never brought up GLP-1s. He did warn her that she must shed weight immediately or she will head directly into type 2 diabetes.
The twisted irony is that should she develop diabetes, suffer a heart attack, or get cancer, her health insurance (Belgium) would then cover everything.
Lilly had better run some awareness campaigns in the EU!
It's still far too common for doctors to make patients feel guilty.
When it comes to the newer biological drugs, the majority are antibody-based rather than peptides, which will make them significantly harder for Chinese peptide manufacturers to copy illegally.
Once it's classified as a registered "medicine" rather than "just a research chemical," wouldn't customs and inspections come down harder on sellers? That's the reason I'd consider stockpiling…hotsauceboss said:
The only way stockpiling matters is if you believe today's suppliers will honor US patent rules and halt manufacturing. For those in this community who have no intention of ever purchasing from Lilly, that makes no difference.oldrunnerguy said:
Based on what I've gathered, should Retatrutide receive this classification, Lilly might gain free rein over how they set prices. I'm hoping that isn't the case. Time to start building a stash, perhaps! https://investor.lilly.com/news-rel...agonist-retatrutide-successful-two-additional.
Good thing I built up a supply... that should cover me for 1.5 yearsmarkspeptides said:
Once it's classified as a registered "medicine" rather than "just a research chemical," wouldn't customs and inspections come down harder on sellers? That's the reason I'd consider stockpiling…hotsauceboss said:
The only way stockpiling matters is if you believe today's suppliers will honor US patent rules and halt manufacturing. For those in this community who have no intention of ever purchasing from Lilly, that makes no difference.oldrunnerguy said:
Based on what I've gathered, should Retatrutide receive this classification, Lilly might gain free rein over how they set prices. I'm hoping that isn't the case. Time to start building a stash, perhaps! https://investor.lilly.com/news-rel...agonist-retatrutide-successful-two-additional.
I live in the UK, and I dropped 40kg during the same period that my friend in Belgium put on roughly that much. She kept pressing me for advice on how to shed the weight, and she was fully aware I was using GLP1s, since I'd been in a medical study at the start and had shared that with her.BBA1969 said:
Zuul said:
They have the freedom to set any price they want. But they're in for a rude awakening once they realize US insurers won't pay for it, and customers in Europe and the UK—who typically cover private prescriptions themselves (unless they go gray)—don't have endless money to spend.
Across much of the EU, using GLP-1 drugs for weight loss remains largely stigmatized. On top of that, the cost is prohibitive because insurers refuse to pay unless a person already has diabetes.
Many physicians from older generations won't prescribe these medications to patients who are merely overweight, absent any comorbid condition. If no comorbidity exists, the topic never even comes up.
My sister-in-law, age 47, has a BMI nearing 40. Her doctor prescribed sartans and statins and never brought up GLP-1s. He did warn her that she must shed weight immediately or she will head directly into type 2 diabetes.
The twisted irony is that should she develop diabetes, suffer a heart attack, or get cancer, her health insurance (Belgium) would then cover everything.
Lilly had better run some awareness campaigns in the EU!
In the UK these were once within reach, thanks to an arrangement between our NHS and Lilly. Then Trump voiced complaints, wanting the US price brought down, and Lilly answered by raising UK prices 3-fold inside a single month.ladyj779 said:
And it's worth adding that what people pay abroad is never close to the figures seen in the USZuul said:
They have the freedom to set any price they want. But they're in for a rude awakening once they realize US insurers won't pay for it, and customers in Europe and the UK—who typically cover private prescriptions themselves (unless they go gray)—don't have endless money to spend.![]()
Speaking as a physician, I see part of your point. Medicine covers so much ground that staying current with every development is impossible for any single person. For most of us, there simply isn't enough time to get through much reading, and when topics aren't discussed among peers at conferences or meetings, blind spots can appear. This often comes down to specialists and those who focus their work on particular fields.lastresort said:
I wouldn't call myself against medicine—quite the reverse, actually.lessthanhalf said:
Hearing that is genuinely quite disturbing — a supposedly qualified specialist making such a claim while ignoring the wealth of data showing how effective it is as a diabetes therapy, and not even taking into account the weight loss benefits. They cut the risk of developing most long-term diabetes complications by a substantial margin. Far, far more than insulin does. For most people the barrier is price or availability, but clearly some specialists either don't review the studies or don't adhere to treatment guidelines. If you can, it sounds like a good reason to look for another specialist. Unfortunately, prejudice within medicine is all too real.eidos said:
That matches what I went through. My primary care doctor suggested Victoza, so I began using it (Ozempic couldn't be found in stock back then). Then in 2024 I saw a diabetologist, and he said he didn't believe in GLP-1 agonists.BBA1969 said:
Zuul said:
They have the freedom to set any price they want. But they're in for a rude awakening once they realize US insurers won't pay for it, and customers in Europe and the UK—who typically cover private prescriptions themselves (unless they go gray)—don't have endless money to spend.
Across much of the EU, using GLP-1 drugs for weight loss remains largely stigmatized. On top of that, the cost is prohibitive because insurers refuse to pay unless a person already has diabetes.
Many physicians from older generations won't prescribe these medications to patients who are merely overweight, absent any comorbid condition. If no comorbidity exists, the topic never even comes up.
My sister-in-law, age 47, has a BMI nearing 40. Her doctor prescribed sartans and statins and never brought up GLP-1s. He did warn her that she must shed weight immediately or she will head directly into type 2 diabetes.
The twisted irony is that should she develop diabetes, suffer a heart attack, or get cancer, her health insurance (Belgium) would then cover everything.
Lilly had better run some awareness campaigns in the EU!
It's still far too common for doctors to make patients feel guilty.
When it comes to the newer biological drugs, the majority are antibody-based rather than peptides, which will make them significantly harder for Chinese peptide manufacturers to copy illegally.
Still, during the past 10 years or so, I've seen that physicians holding MD degrees tend to hugely overrate how much they know about newer biochemistry and pharmacology. Sure, becoming a medical doctor demands an enormous amount of commitment, learning and training, yet none of that alters the reality that they aren't the ones conducting actual research. Many of them lag behind in keeping their knowledge current, and that's what separates strong doctors from average ones.
plus it relieves constipation … quite a medicationdeleted.user.27 said:
No need to worry everyone, cocaine remains available and works well to curb hunger. It's a fantastic fat burner, plus it costs less abroad too.![]()
It also sharpens concentration, wipes out self-esteem issues and depression!!!!…for 20 minutesColdSmoke said:
plus it relieves constipation … quite a medicationdeleted.user.27 said:
No need to worry everyone, cocaine remains available and works well to curb hunger. It's a fantastic fat burner, plus it costs less abroad too.![]()
Sure, that makes sense.adbh said:
Speaking as a physician, I see part of your point. Medicine covers so much ground that staying current with every development is impossible for any single person. For most of us, there simply isn't enough time to get through much reading, and when topics aren't discussed among peers at conferences or meetings, blind spots can appear. This often comes down to specialists and those who focus their work on particular fields.lastresort said:
I wouldn't call myself against medicine—quite the reverse, actually.lessthanhalf said:
Hearing that is genuinely quite disturbing — a supposedly qualified specialist making such a claim while ignoring the wealth of data showing how effective it is as a diabetes therapy, and not even taking into account the weight loss benefits. They cut the risk of developing most long-term diabetes complications by a substantial margin. Far, far more than insulin does. For most people the barrier is price or availability, but clearly some specialists either don't review the studies or don't adhere to treatment guidelines. If you can, it sounds like a good reason to look for another specialist. Unfortunately, prejudice within medicine is all too real.eidos said:
That matches what I went through. My primary care doctor suggested Victoza, so I began using it (Ozempic couldn't be found in stock back then). Then in 2024 I saw a diabetologist, and he said he didn't believe in GLP-1 agonists.BBA1969 said:
Zuul said:
They have the freedom to set any price they want. But they're in for a rude awakening once they realize US insurers won't pay for it, and customers in Europe and the UK—who typically cover private prescriptions themselves (unless they go gray)—don't have endless money to spend.
Across much of the EU, using GLP-1 drugs for weight loss remains largely stigmatized. On top of that, the cost is prohibitive because insurers refuse to pay unless a person already has diabetes.
Many physicians from older generations won't prescribe these medications to patients who are merely overweight, absent any comorbid condition. If no comorbidity exists, the topic never even comes up.
My sister-in-law, age 47, has a BMI nearing 40. Her doctor prescribed sartans and statins and never brought up GLP-1s. He did warn her that she must shed weight immediately or she will head directly into type 2 diabetes.
The twisted irony is that should she develop diabetes, suffer a heart attack, or get cancer, her health insurance (Belgium) would then cover everything.
Lilly had better run some awareness campaigns in the EU!
It's still far too common for doctors to make patients feel guilty.
When it comes to the newer biological drugs, the majority are antibody-based rather than peptides, which will make them significantly harder for Chinese peptide manufacturers to copy illegally.
Still, during the past 10 years or so, I've seen that physicians holding MD degrees tend to hugely overrate how much they know about newer biochemistry and pharmacology. Sure, becoming a medical doctor demands an enormous amount of commitment, learning and training, yet none of that alters the reality that they aren't the ones conducting actual research. Many of them lag behind in keeping their knowledge current, and that's what separates strong doctors from average ones.
lessthanhalf said:
Hearing that is genuinely quite disturbing — a supposedly qualified specialist making such a claim while ignoring the wealth of data showing how effective it is as a diabetes therapy, and not even taking into account the weight loss benefits. They cut the risk of developing most long-term diabetes complications by a substantial margin. Far, far more than insulin does. For most people the barrier is price or availability, but clearly some specialists either don't review the studies or don't adhere to treatment guidelines. If you can, it sounds like a good reason to look for another specialist. Unfortunately, prejudice within medicine is all too real.eidos said:
That matches what I went through. My primary care doctor suggested Victoza, so I began using it (Ozempic couldn't be found in stock back then). Then in 2024 I saw a diabetologist, and he said he didn't believe in GLP-1 agonists.BBA1969 said:
Zuul said:
They have the freedom to set any price they want. But they're in for a rude awakening once they realize US insurers won't pay for it, and customers in Europe and the UK—who typically cover private prescriptions themselves (unless they go gray)—don't have endless money to spend.
Across much of the EU, using GLP-1 drugs for weight loss remains largely stigmatized. On top of that, the cost is prohibitive because insurers refuse to pay unless a person already has diabetes.
Many physicians from older generations won't prescribe these medications to patients who are merely overweight, absent any comorbid condition. If no comorbidity exists, the topic never even comes up.
My sister-in-law, age 47, has a BMI nearing 40. Her doctor prescribed sartans and statins and never brought up GLP-1s. He did warn her that she must shed weight immediately or she will head directly into type 2 diabetes.
The twisted irony is that should she develop diabetes, suffer a heart attack, or get cancer, her health insurance (Belgium) would then cover everything.
Lilly had better run some awareness campaigns in the EU!
It's still far too common for doctors to make patients feel guilty.
When it comes to the newer biological drugs, the majority are antibody-based rather than peptides, which will make them significantly harder for Chinese peptide manufacturers to copy illegally.
Lilly is going to take whatever steps it can to curb the gray market. Still, in most respects, its approach will stay the same as it is today: it tolerates the situation simply because there is no alternative.oldrunnerguy said:
My stockpiling remark was meant as a joke, though I'm genuinely curious how Lilly plans to go after the gray market for Reta. That market must already be enormous, no?