I feel that a lot of discussion is by people who have never taken ozempic or have and are successful with its treatment. For what it’s worth, I’d like to give some insight to my own experience with it and why I’m not on it.

I won’t talk about all my medical issues, but to make it very broad - I have type 2 and a genetic disorder regarding my ability to metabolize. I was put on a trial of ozempic because of its apparent effectiveness.

While on it, one of the first things I noticed that no one seems to talk about (so I don’t know if it’s just me or not): the feeling of being sated and hungry are two different feelings. It was weird being hungry and full all the time. A bit torturous, but something I felt was manageable.

Unfortunately, even on the lowest dosage, the sated feeling was so strong I felt nauseous all the time. It eventually became a problem when I started becoming dehydrated because I couldn’t even keep a glass of water down.

I was removed from the medication and I had persistent side-effects afterwards. It’s been years now and while the side effects have diminished, I still get random bouts of nausea for no apparent reason. It’s unrelated to when I eat or drink, but it’s something I’ve never experienced prior to being on ozempic.

As weird as it sounds, there are some days I wish I could go back on ozempic. It is effective, but now doctors know I retained some side effects, they won’t let me try it ever again.

And I guess that’s it. Nothing too horrible I guess, but even miracle drugs have side effects. Everyone is built differently, so there will always be outliers.

No. But I do sing the victory fanfare tune from final fantasy every time I do some small thing. Wash dishes? Victory! Laundry? Victory! Cook dinner? Victory! Take a shit? Victory!

We’ve had similar incidents with weapon safety (and other things) in the past that were more serious than what was going on in that picture. It all depends on the circumstances, and I’ve seen it go both ways. The point I was making is if there was anything more substantial, it would not just be ‘relieved of command’. No mention of an actual reprimand, which is more serious. I’m not saying it couldn’t ultimately lead up to that, but we don’t know that yet.

It was also a relief of command, not a court martial, not non-judicial punishment, not a demotion or and not a punitive action. It happened because it affected the image of the force, but not necessarily anything that is terribly bad. Relieving someone of command can be a precaution or a temporary measure, not always leading up to anything drastic. He will probably get additional training and a small mark on his record that will go away in a short time as long as the trend doesn’t continue. He may even still get to keep his command or just move somewhere else to command.

Why would you break the 2nd? Are you one of those liberal types? /s

And even if it was, it would be the right move. The last thing we want is to stop risk management because there’s only 2 hours left and the door hasn’t fallen off so far.