From the other side of the consultation, briefly.

pete_nash said:

...we're creating a generation dependent on cardiovascular risk...

I understand the concern, but consider this analogy: are we "creating a generation dependent on" blood pressure medication? Cholesterol medication? Thyroid medication?

Obesity is a chronic disease with biological drivers. Treating it with medication is no different from treating any other chronic condition. The "dependency" framing implies weakness or moral failure — neither of which is accurate.

If ongoing medication is what keeps someone healthy, that's successful treatment, not dependency.

Dr.KarenChen said:

pete_nash said: ...we're creating a generation dependent on cardiovascular risk...

Mine went the same way, slower. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.

Dr.KarenChen said:

pete_nash said: ...we're creating a generation dependent on cardiovascular risk...

SUSTAIN-6 was the first CVOT to show cardiovascular benefit with semaglutide, relevant to cardiovascular risk. In 3,297 T2DM patients with high CV risk: MACE HR 0.74 (95% CI 0.58-0.95, p=0.02)[1].

Notable: the retinopathy signal in SUSTAIN-6 (HR 1.76) was subsequently attributed to rapid A1C reduction in patients with pre-existing retinopathy — not a direct drug effect. This has been confirmed in longer-term follow-up studies.

Dr.KarenChen said:

pete_nash said: ...we're creating a generation dependent on cardiovascular risk...

NNT calculation for cardiovascular risk clinical endpoints: NNT = 1/ARR (absolute risk reduction).

From SELECT trial: MACE at 39 months — 6.5% semaglutide vs 8.0% placebo. ARR = 1.5%. NNT = 67 over 3.3 years.

Compare to established therapies:

These NNTs are clinically meaningful and comparable to accepted cardiovascular interventions.

Moderator note: leaving this open. It is being argued well and the disagreement is the useful part.