The latter started out as a blood pressure medication: but its famous OTHER effect … sent off-label/non-prescription demand, and prices†, through the roof!
Ozempic, by contrast? Is very good at lowering blood sugar levels.
But also has a reputation for helping users lose weight.
Which is debatable, in my case: but I could be wrong.
At any rate?
That’s what’s causing the shortages: celebrities are buying it — celebrities who don’t look fat, to me — to lose weight: when a long healthy walk could be far more appropriate.
That means there’s less Ozempic for those of us that do need it.
None of the chemists told me why the stockists were short.
Bar the one in Ongar Road: who told me the manufacturers were having some sort of manufacturing issues.
They didn’t get more specific than that.
‘Manufacturing issues’ … ?
Could mean anything.
Under current circumstances, I suspect ‘Manufacturing issues’ means the company can’t make it fast enough.
~≈😷≈~
Let’s move on, shall we?
Yesterday’s Teaser saw Olga‡, Mum§ and Debbi¶ putting in their answers: with everyone scoring five out of five.
Let’s see how everyone does with today’s questions, shall we?
Q1)Protestors threw purple flour at the then British Prime Minister on 19th May, 2004. Which British Prime Minister: Tony Blair, Gordon Brown or David Cameron?
Q2)NASA launched the STS 77 shuttle mission: on 19th May, 1996. The mission was on which shuttle?
Q3)19th May, 1943, saw who make an address to the US Congress: Winston Churchill, Neville Chamberlain or Joseph Stalin?
Q4)Singer, Grace Jones, was born on 19th May, 1948. Where: Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica or Barbados?
Q5)Finally … ? Pete Townsend of the Who was born on 19th May, 1945. He’s best remembered as the Who’s what: guitarist, bassist or drummer?
* The alternative is an injectable drug call Victoza: also known as Saxenda.
† From what I can see? Ozempic can be legally purchased for off-prescription use from chemists, both online and off. A quick Googling says the off-prescription price is anywhere between £179 and £249. By contrast, it costs £9·65, on prescription. Some bˆgger’s getting rich!
‡ By the sound of it, Olga? It sounds like form filling’s the same, everywhere: there’s a hell of a lot more game playing in these things that we realise! At any rate? I know an old friends been helpful: as he’s passed on some tips. And I’ve managed to email that link to a neighbour, who’s going through the same process.
§ Hello, Mum!
¶ Well done, Debbi! I hope you’ve got a safe place to store them all!
Oh, that’s a thought. I heard this item on the Today programme: and immediately thought of you. I don’t know if it’s relevant, though: apparently, it depends on the type of incident a patient’s suffered.
Q5) guitarist All systems are stuck and designed to protect from outsiders, but this shouldn't apply to services supposedly set to help people in need. Unfortunately, it does. They tried an experiment here where they got a robot calling a helpline designed to help those trying to sort out benefits and aid, and it made 150 calls before it managed to get a person on the other side. Not enough staff (and they are also dealing with people who manage to get an appointment or go there in person, so... Of course, there are individuals and companies who "sell" said appointments at a price, so they contribute to the problem). I think there should be an agreement between all the countries and all the pharmaceutical companies to ensure that priority would be given to medical uses of any medications they manufacture, to ensure people who need them have sufficient supply. Here they were also saying that the chemists had difficulty sourcing some pretty standard medications because the price here is so low that the pharma companies preferred to sell them to other countries, so the chemists were asking for the prices to be increased (here we have our own NHS and medications are subsidised, so...) Somehow, the solution seems counterintuitive to me. Rather than putting the price up here, what should happen is that everybody puts their own prices down, and don't compete against each other. Health and medications shouldn't be a business. Some things should never be a business. And yes, I know it is hopeless, but that doesn't mean it's not right.
I love it when someone comments. But, having had anonymous comments I feel may be libellous, actionable or just plain offensive, over the years?
I’d appreciate you* leaving your name — with a link to your website or social-media profile†, for preference — before you post a comment.
Should you choose to use a pseudonym/name, I’d appreciate it if that name were to be polite and inoffensive. I’d rather you kept it clean, and relatively grown up. Comments left with a pseudonym will be posted at my discretion: I really prefer a link.
Contentious, actionable or abusive posts left anonymously will not be posted. Nor will comments using offensive pseudonyms or language, or that are abusive of other commenters.
Thank you.
* I know many value their online privacy. I respect that. But hope you respect my wish to see who’s commenting on my blog: and my wish for you to introduce your self to me, and to your fellow commentors.
† Your Facebook, X/Twitter, Blogger, Instagram, TikTok or LinkedIn profile are acceptable. I also like seeing folks webpages.
Q1) Tony Blair
ReplyDeleteQ2) Endeavour
Q3) Winston Churchill
Q4) Jamaica
Q5) guitarist
All systems are stuck and designed to protect from outsiders, but this shouldn't apply to services supposedly set to help people in need. Unfortunately, it does. They tried an experiment here where they got a robot calling a helpline designed to help those trying to sort out benefits and aid, and it made 150 calls before it managed to get a person on the other side. Not enough staff (and they are also dealing with people who manage to get an appointment or go there in person, so... Of course, there are individuals and companies who "sell" said appointments at a price, so they contribute to the problem).
I think there should be an agreement between all the countries and all the pharmaceutical companies to ensure that priority would be given to medical uses of any medications they manufacture, to ensure people who need them have sufficient supply. Here they were also saying that the chemists had difficulty sourcing some pretty standard medications because the price here is so low that the pharma companies preferred to sell them to other countries, so the chemists were asking for the prices to be increased (here we have our own NHS and medications are subsidised, so...) Somehow, the solution seems counterintuitive to me. Rather than putting the price up here, what should happen is that everybody puts their own prices down, and don't compete against each other. Health and medications shouldn't be a business. Some things should never be a business. And yes, I know it is hopeless, but that doesn't mean it's not right.
1 Tony Blair
ReplyDelete2 Endaevour
3 Winston Churchill
4 Jamaica
5 Guitarist