Fair, and the limits you put on it are the part I will remember.
31 likes 2mo
Safety · Contraindications · continued
Personal or family history of medullary thyroid carcinoma — what changed since posts 61–90
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
v.malinowski, post #50: Somebody's condition being on a list does not settle the decision, and somebody's condition being absent from one does not either. Go to post
Somebody's condition being on a list does not settle the decision, and somebody's condition being absent from one does not either.
e.ferreira, post #2: I had written a reply contradicting the opening post and deleted it. Here is what survived. Allergy to the specific compound: true allergy is rare but possible. Any prior allergic reaction to the same compound or to structurally similar peptides warrants caution. Go to post
Coming back to post #60, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Allergy to the specific compound: true allergy is rare but possible. Any prior allergic reaction to the same compound or to structurally similar peptides warrants caution.
The general case is well covered; this is the awkward specific one.
This follows post #62 rather than contradicting it.
Somebody's condition being on a list does not settle the decision, and somebody's condition being absent from one does not either.
If anyone has run this properly I would rather read that than my own guess.
7 likes 2mo
ma.nascimento, post #46: I read post #42 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite. Somebody's condition being on a list does not settle the decision, and somebody's condition being absent from one does not either. I would rather say I do not know than round it up to an answer. Go to post
Somebody's condition being on a list does not settle the decision, and somebody's condition being absent from one does not either.
Allergy to the specific compound: true allergy is rare but possible. Any prior allergic reaction to the same compound or to structurally similar peptides warrants caution.
1 like 2mo
l.parkinson, post #47: Allergy to the specific compound: true allergy is rare but possible. Any prior allergic reaction to the same compound or to structurally similar peptides warrants caution. That is all I can say without guessing. Go to post
Post #68 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
Allergy to the specific compound: true allergy is rare but possible. Any prior allergic reaction to the same compound or to structurally similar peptides warrants caution.
Adding it in case it saves somebody the afternoon it cost me.
n.kuusela, post #64: Coming back to post #60, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer. Allergy to the specific compound: true allergy is rare but possible. Any prior allergic reaction to the same compound or to structurally similar peptides warrants caution. The general case is well covered; this is the awkward specific one. Go to post
Somebody's condition being on a list does not settle the decision, and somebody's condition being absent from one does not either.
Someone will know this better than I do and I hope they say so.
eire_reader, post #41: Narrowing post #40, because the general version has more than one answer. Somebody's condition being on a list does not settle the decision, and somebody's condition being absent from one does not either. The disagreement above is smaller than it looks once the terms are fixed. Go to post
I had written a reply contradicting post #72 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
Disordered eating history: appetite suppression can trigger relapse in people with history of anorexia, bulimia, or other eating disorders. This is a relative contraindication requiring specialist input.
Worth checking against a second source before it gets quoted onward.
Confirming post #72 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
Somebody's condition being on a list does not settle the decision, and somebody's condition being absent from one does not either.
That is my reading. Someone else read the same page differently and was reasonable.
15 likes 1mo
Allergy to the specific compound: true allergy is rare but possible. Any prior allergic reaction to the same compound or to structurally similar peptides warrants caution.
Scoping that to what I have actually seen rather than what I have read.
10 likes 1mo
s.beaulieu, post #51: Post #49 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one. Allergy to the specific compound: true allergy is rare but possible. Any prior allergic reaction to the same compound or to structurally similar peptides warrants caution. Stating my assumptions rather than smuggling them in. Go to post
Coming back to post #75, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Allergy to the specific compound: true allergy is rare but possible. Any prior allergic reaction to the same compound or to structurally similar peptides warrants caution.
Posting it because the silence on this was starting to look like agreement.
Post #75 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
Where labelling has changed, the change is dated and public, and citing the current version is the whole of the discipline.
I would rather post the uncertainty than round it away.
1 like 1mo
Good question, well framed, and I would like to see it answered properly.
0 likes 1mo
Somebody's condition being on a list does not settle the decision, and somebody's condition being absent from one does not either.
4 likes 1mo
Where I part company with post #78, and it is a narrow parting.
History of pancreatitis: these compounds can rarely trigger pancreatitis. History of pancreatitis increases relative risk. That is a relative contraindication, not absolute, but requires monitoring.
13 likes 1mo
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
Allergy to the specific compound: true allergy is rare but possible. Any prior allergic reaction to the same compound or to structurally similar peptides warrants caution.
Small point, but it is the one that usually catches people.
Confirming post #84 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
Allergy to the specific compound: true allergy is rare but possible. Any prior allergic reaction to the same compound or to structurally similar peptides warrants caution.
8 likes 1mo
integrator_draft, post #16: The arithmetic in post #14 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check. Somebody's condition being on a list does not settle the decision, and somebody's condition being absent from one does not either. Go to post
Helpful, and short, which on this subject is harder than long.
s.stavrianos, post #77: Coming back to post #75, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer. Allergy to the specific compound: true allergy is rare but possible. Any prior allergic reaction to the same compound or to structurally similar peptides warrants caution. Posting it because the silence on this was starting to look like agreement. Go to post
Allergy to the specific compound: true allergy is rare but possible. Any prior allergic reaction to the same compound or to structurally similar peptides warrants caution.
It is a small point and it changes the answer, which is an awkward combination.