This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1 · go to the accepted answer.
Pregnancy is a good example of a question where the honest answer is boring and the interesting answers are unsupported. I would go with boring.
Where I part company with post #28, and it is a narrow parting.
Adding a small correction to the pregnancy summary above rather than a disagreement with it. The substance holds; one of the figures is out by a factor that matters.
Anyone posting a contraindication claim should include the source. Without one it circulates and hardens.
The variance between people here is larger than the effect being discussed.
Building on post #33 rather than restating it.
Pregnancy: these compounds are not approved for pregnancy. The potential risks outweigh potential benefits. Planning windows and washout (several months) are the standard approach.
One more caveat and then I will stop qualifying: the sample selected itself.
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.
Someone should write this up properly, and it should probably not be me.
Following, with nothing to contribute beyond having asked the same thing elsewhere.
Taking post #37 at face value and following it one step further.
Where a condition appears as a warning rather than a contraindication, the decision is a clinical one rather than a prohibition.
A caution and a contraindication are different levels and the difference is not stylistic. Conflating them makes the labelling sound more restrictive than it is.
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.
On balance I think that is right, and I would not bet much on it.
Practical note on pregnancy: write down what you expect before you look. The number of times I have found what I went looking for is higher than chance would allow.
Noted, and thank you for writing it out rather than summarising it.
A contraindication in labelling is a specific statement about a specific product and population, and quoting the actual text is more useful than paraphrasing it.
On post #46 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Personal or family history of medullary thyroid carcinoma, or multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2, is the clearest contraindication in this class and it is specific rather than general.
The part I am sure of is shorter than the part I have written.
Picking up post #46: that is the part I would want checked first.
Prior hypersensitivity to the product or its excipients is a contraindication that people forget applies to the excipients too.
Adding a source would improve this post and I do not have one to hand.
The arithmetic in post #49 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Labelling differs between jurisdictions for the same molecule, so quoting a contraindication should say which document it comes from.
Not a conclusion. A place to stand while looking for one.
Picking up post #52: that is the part I would want checked first.
A rodent toxicology finding underlying a contraindication is worth understanding, because it explains why the contraindication is narrow rather than broad.
Not the answer, but possibly the question that gets there.
On post #50 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Asking a pharmacist to check a contraindication takes minutes and is more reliable than any thread, including this one.
Labelling differs between jurisdictions for the same molecule, so quoting a contraindication should say which document it comes from.
Somebody will have a better source than mine, and I hope they post it.
Post #54 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
Nothing here is medical advice, and a contraindication question is one where the cost of a wrong forum answer is high.
It is worth stating the boring hypothesis before the interesting one.
Post #56 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Medullary thyroid carcinoma (personal or family history) or multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2: absolute contraindication. The rodent preclinical signal is real enough to exclude this population.