This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Where I part company with post #59, and it is a narrow parting.
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.
Where I would look next, rather than where I would stop.
Somebody's condition being on a list does not settle the decision, and somebody's condition being absent from one does not either.
It is the kind of thing that is obvious once and never again.
Adding the measurement that post #63 says would settle it.
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.
That much is documented. The rest is how I have interpreted it.
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.
Picking up post #66: that is the part I would want checked first.
Small correction to my own earlier position on Absolute versus relative contraindications. I had the units the wrong way round, which changes the conclusion by an order of magnitude and therefore changes it entirely.
Research-use-only material has no labelling and therefore no contraindications listed, which is not the same as having none.
I would want a second opinion before relying on that.
The honest answer on Absolute versus relative contraindications is that it depends, and the useful part is the list of what it depends on. Four items, in rough order of how much they matter.
Most people get the first two right and then argue about the fourth.
I read the earlier replies on Absolute versus relative contraindications twice before writing this, because I had assumed the opposite and wanted to be sure I was disagreeing with what was said rather than what I expected.
Useful. I have added it to my own notes with the date on it.
Worth stating the null on Absolute versus relative contraindications before we explain it: the observation may be nothing. That possibility deserves a sentence and usually does not get one.
Answering the question post #72 raises rather than the one it answers.
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.
That is all the detail I have. Someone else will have more.
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.
Anyone with a larger sample, please post it.
Everything in post #76 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
Since Absolute versus relative contraindications keeps coming up, it should probably be a maintained page rather than a recurring thread. I am happy to draft it if someone with more direct experience will review it.
Reading the contraindications section of the actual product information takes two minutes and answers most questions asked here.
That holds under the stated conditions and I have stated them.
Gastroparesis or severe delayed gastric emptying: these compounds slow gastric emptying. Pre-existing severe gastroparesis can be worsened. That is a relative contraindication depending on baseline severity.
The literature is thinner on this than the confidence in the thread implies.
Answering the question post #81 raises rather than the one it answers.
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 what I would do. It may not be what is correct.
The arithmetic in post #81 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
I have been on both sides of the Absolute versus relative contraindications argument in this category within eighteen months, which should tell you how strong the evidence for either side is.
Noted, and thank you for writing it out rather than summarising it.
Building on post #84 rather than restating it.
Concurrent insulin or sulfonylureas: not an absolute contraindication but requires dose adjustment and close monitoring for hypoglycemia. The combination is used with caution, not avoided.
This is the version I would want a new member to read first.
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Revisiting: Absolute versus relative contraindications
Revisiting: Absolute versus relative contraindications Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. I was wrong about Absolute versus relative contraindications in a…
|
+11 | 15 | 22k | 5mo |
|
Pancreatitis history and the risk calculus
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Pancreatitis history and the risk calculus Everything below is what sits behind that. I would like to know what people here actually do about pancreatitis history,…
|
+28 | 32 | 52k | 17h |
|
Personal or family history of medullary thyroid carcinoma
Personal or family history of medullary thyroid carcinoma Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Asking about a contraindication as written rather than as…
|
+31 | 37 | 709 | 26d |
|
Pregnancy as an absolute contraindication
Pregnancy as an absolute contraindication — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Pregnancy keeps being re-asked here and I think that is because the answer is conditional and…
|
+102 | 106 | 21k | 14mo |
|
Follow-up: Conditions that change the calculus rather than forbidding it
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Conditions that change the calculus rather than forbidding it Everything below is what sits behind that. I was wrong about Conditions in a thread last spring and I…
|
+30 | 34 | 62k | 2y |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Taste changes and food aversion, reported and discussed
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Taste changes and food aversion, reported and discussed Everything below is what sits behind that. The question about taste changes and food aversion that I…
|
+40 | 47 | 28k | 20mo |
|
Pregnancy as an absolute contraindication
Pregnancy as an absolute contraindication — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Pregnancy keeps being re-asked here and I think that is because the answer is conditional and…
|
+102 | 106 | 21k | 14mo |
|
When to stop reading forums, including this one
When to stop reading forums, including this one I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. Something that has come up for me and that I suspect is more common…
|
+78 | 86 | 47k | 6mo |
|
Follow-up: An emergency department visit, described afterwards
On the subject in the title: An emergency department visit, described afterwards Working notes rather than a conclusion. A follow-up question about emergency department visit that I did not know to ask the…
|
4 | 18k | 1mo | |
|
Talking to a therapist about this specifically — does this still hold?
The question in the title: Talking to a therapist about this specifically — does this still hold? I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. A question about the part of this that…
|
+59 | 65 | 13k | 14mo |