[fc417fc802]

I'm not the same person you were responding to earlier? You seem rather emotionally wound up in all of this. Someone doesn't need "evidence" to say "I noticed A". The evidence is right there - they're claiming to have seen it.

Among other things, you've put yourself in the position of claiming - but not arguing, because you provide no reasoning to engage with - that there are no black swans in the world. It's entirely untenable.

What they saw might have been an outlier. Perhaps they misunderstood. They might be confused or uniformed or any number of things. They could even be lying outright! But to respond by dismissing a claimed observation without evidence or reason is not a constructive attitude and I would even argue anti-intellectual.

[const_cast]

What I'm claiming is there's zero evidence that ozempic causes buccal fat loss more than any other weight loss methods. There isn't even a mechanism for that. We even know for a fact that spot reducing fat is impossible.

If you claim differently, the burden of proof is on YOU. Not me.

Your observations be damned. Elephant in the room: observations from biased actors are less than worthless.

The reason this observation came to be is because people seek an easy way to punch down on ozempic users and differentiate their weight status from ozempic users. I've already explained that.

[chownie]

> You seem rather emotionally wound up in all of this.

There is no reasonable response once you turn the conversation into this, please don't do that.