I lost 8st on fat jabs but felt severely hungover & was constantly on the loo – but I'm happier than ever being skinny
A MOTHER has revealed that she lost over eight stone whilst using Mounjaro, but has been accused of 'cheating' her weight loss.
Not only this, but Kelsey, the mum from Glasgow, has constantly found herself on the loo and has been battling with feeling severely hungover, despite not having a drop of alcohol.
3
3
3
The content creator, who has lost 8 stone 13lbs since August 2024, got candid on the unfortunate fat jab side effects, but despite this, claimed that she is 'happier than ever' being slim.
Posting on social media, alongside a picture of Kelsey shortly after giving birth to her baby, she confirmed that as a result of taking Mounjaro, which is regarded by some as the King Kong of weight loss jabs, she has been accused of 'cheating' her weight loss.
But just seconds later, the brunette beauty showed off her newly slimmed down frame as she wore a cropped co-ord, held up a drink and beamed: 'I'll forever cheers to 'cheating'.'
Eager to clap back at those who hail Mounjaro 'the easy way out', Kelsey explained: 'You don't know the years I spent trapped in a cycle of diets that didn't work.
'You don't know the pain of battling a body that felt like it was working against me because of PCOS.'
Not only this, but Kelsey also claimed that prior to using Mounjaro, she was exhausted and faced 'quiet moments' where she 'nearly gave up.'
She then claimed that she is 'not 'stealing' from anyone', and instead, is 'reclaiming' her health and 'showing up' for herself in a way she never thought she could.
Now, Kelsey claimed that her ' mum tum ' is 'barely noticeable'.
Not only this, but she stressed that Mounjaro 'changed' her life and now she feels 'happier than ever.'
Sun GP Dr Zoe Williams claimed that Mounjaro, which could soon be rolled out on the NHS, can save the lives of people with 'life-threatening levels of obesity '.
Weight Loss Jabs - Pros vs Cons
But despite this, the NHS warned: 'Never take an anti-obesity medicine if it has not been prescribed to you.
"These types of medicines may not be safe for you and can cause serious side effects.'
I have been up since 5:30am feeling sick, really, really sick - back and forward to the toilet
Kelsey
In another clip, Kelsey got candid on her side effects after increasing her Mounjaro dose to 12.5mg.
The mother explained that she had initially been 'so lucky' when it came to experiencing Mounjaro side effects, but after starting on the 12.5mg dose, things all changed.
She admitted: 'Oh my goodness, I feel severely hungover, I feel like I've got the worst hangover.
'I feel so, so tired. I have been up since 5:30am feeling sick, really, really sick - back and forward to the toilet.'
Kelsey explained that not only has she been dealing with diarrhoea and stomach cramps, but she also claimed that her body, particularly her feet, are 'so swollen.'
Everything you need to know about fat jabs
Weight loss jabs are all the rage as studies and patient stories reveal they help people shed flab at almost unbelievable rates, as well as appearing to reduce the risk of serious diseases.
Wegovy – a modified version of type 2 diabetes drug Ozempic – and Mounjaro are the leading weight loss injections used in the UK.
Wegovy, real name semaglutide, has been used on the NHS for years while Mounjaro (tirzepatide) is a newer and more powerful addition to the market.
Mounjaro accounts for most private prescriptions for weight loss and is set to join Wegovy as an NHS staple this year.
How do they work?
The jabs work by suppressing your appetite, making you eat less so your body burns fat for energy instead and you lose weight.
They do this my mimicking a hormone called GLP-1, which signals to the brain when the stomach is full, so the drugs are officially called GLP-1 receptor agonists.
They slow down digestion and increase insulin production, lowering blood sugar, which is why they were first developed to treat type 2 diabetes in which patients' sugar levels are too high.
Can I get them?
NHS prescriptions of weight loss drugs, mainly Wegovy and an older version called Saxenda (chemical name liraglutide), are controlled through specialist weight loss clinics.
Typically a patient will have to have a body mass index (BMI) of 30 or higher, classifying them as medically obese, and also have a weight-related health condition such as high blood pressure.
GPs generally do not prescribe the drugs for weight loss.
Private prescribers offer the jabs, most commonly Mounjaro, to anyone who is obese (BMI of 30+) or overweight (BMI 25-30) with a weight-related health risk.
Private pharmacies have been rapped for handing them out too easily and video calls or face-to-face appointments are now mandatory to check a patient is being truthful about their size and health.
Are there any risks?
Yes – side effects are common but most are relatively mild.
Around half of people taking the drug experience gut issues, including sickness, bloating, acid reflux, constipation and diarrhoea.
Dr Sarah Jarvis, GP and clinical consultant at patient.info, said: 'One of the more uncommon side effects is severe acute pancreatitis, which is extremely painful and happens to one in 500 people.'
Other uncommon side effects include altered taste, kidney problems, allergic reactions, gallbladder problems and hypoglycemia.
Evidence has so far been inconclusive about whether the injections are damaging to patients' mental health.
Figures obtained by The Sun show that, up to January 2025, 85 patient deaths in the UK were suspected to be linked to the medicines.
According to WebMD, swelling in the feet, ankles or legs can happen when using Mounjaro, especially if you are dehydrated, which can happen if you aren't drinking enough water or are dealing with diarrhoea.
The pros also acknowledged that diarrhoea, as well as stomach pain, are just two of the 'most common side effects of Mounjaro'.
Social media users react
The TikTok clip, which was posted under the username @ kelseymounjaroandme, has clearly left many open-mouthed, as it has quickly amassed 175,600 views.
Despite her side effects, social media users were stunned by Kelsey's incredible weight loss and many eagerly raced to the comments to express this.
One person said: 'Oh my you look incredible!!'
What are the other side effects of weight loss jabs?
Like any medication, weight loss jabs can have side effects.
Common side effects of injections such as Ozempic include:
Nausea: This is the most commonly reported side effect, especially when first starting the medication. It often decreases over time as your body adjusts.
Vomiting: Can occur, often in conjunction with nausea.
Diarrhea: Some people experience gastrointestinal upset.
Constipation: Some individuals may also experience constipation.
Stomach pain or discomfort: Some people may experience abdominal pain or discomfort.
Reduced appetite: This is often a desired effect for people using Ozempic for weight loss.
Indigestion: Can cause a feeling of bloating or discomfort after eating.
Serious side effects can also include:
Pancreatitis: In rare cases, Ozempic may increase the risk of inflammation of the pancreas, known as pancreatitis, which can cause severe stomach pain, nausea, and vomiting.
Kidney problems: There have been reports of kidney issues, including kidney failure, though this is uncommon.
Thyroid tumors: There's a potential increased risk of thyroid cancer, although this risk is based on animal studies. It is not confirmed in humans, but people with a history of thyroid cancer should avoid Ozempic.
Vision problems: Rapid changes in blood sugar levels may affect vision, and some people have reported blurry vision when taking Ozempic.
Hypoglycemia (low blood sugar): Especially if used with other medications like sulfonylureas or insulin.
Another added: 'Wow!! Incredible transformation.'
Fatal consequences
In addition to diarrhoea and stomach cramps, those debating whether to begin using Mounjaro should know that the jabs can have fatal consequences.
The injections are licensed for patients with type 2 diabetes and are administered every seven days.
They are also available to assist those who are clinically obese (with a Body Mass Index of 30 or over).
The drugs can be prescribed by a practitioner - such as a doctor, nurse or a pharmacist-independent prescriber.
But increasingly, we are seeing more and more people buying them through online pharmacies, without sufficient checks.
Not only this, but figures from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency revealed that fat jabs had been linked to 82 deaths across the UK.
Following the death of a man from Burton upon Trent, Staffs, who died after taking Mounjaro, his family are now calling for a probe into the jab's "potential to kill."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
25 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Mother jailed for aborting baby at 39 weeks would now go unpunished
Within a week of her due date, Sarah Catt aborted her baby. She claimed that her son was stillborn and that she had buried his body, but no evidence of the baby was ever found. Catt is among a small number of women in England and Wales to face prosecution after terminating their pregnancies. However, under new regulations set to be brought in, she – and others like her – would never have been arrested. On Tuesday night, MPs voted with a majority of 242 to decriminalise those seeking an abortion at any stage of gestation and for any reason. Abortion in England and Wales is currently a criminal offence. However, it is legal if carried out up to 24 weeks and with an authorised provider, with very limited circumstances permitting one after this period. Women may also take prescribed medication at home if they are fewer than 10 weeks pregnant. The vote has divided public opinion, with many welcoming the 'hard-won victory' for women, and others believing that it goes too far, arguing that ' late-term abortions kill babies '. In September 2012, Catt, then 35, was convicted of aborting her baby when she was 39 weeks pregnant. During her trial at Leeds Crown Court, and following an analysis of her computer, jurors heard that she had bought a drug from a company in Mumbai to induce labour, and that she delivered her baby at home by herself. The judge was told that Catt had been having an affair with a work colleague for seven years, and that her husband was unaware of the pregnancy and was not consulted about her decision to have an abortion. She already had two children with her husband and had previously had a scan while 30 weeks pregnant at a hospital in Leeds, confirming the pregnancy. However, suspicions were raised when she failed to register the birth weeks later. After giving birth to her son, Catt said he was not moving or breathing, and that she buried his body but never revealed the location. She pleaded guilty to administering a poison with intent to procure a miscarriage. Sentencing her, after a trial in which she was described as having 'shown no remorse or given an explanation for what she did', Mr Justice Cooke said that she made a 'deliberate and calculated decision' to end her pregnancy, and that the gravity of her crime lay between murder and manslaughter. However, in June 2013, Catt had her eight-year prison sentence reduced to three-and-a-half years. Lady Justice Rafferty, heading a panel of three judges in the Court of Appeal, described the original sentence as 'manifestly excessive', while Catt sobbed in the dock. Catt is among half a dozen women to have faced prosecution for having an abortion, and who, following the MPs' recent vote, would not now be criminalised. Sophie Harvey is also among them. She was just 19 when she gave birth in her bathroom. Her stillborn baby was found wrapped in a towel and placed in a household rubbish bin. Six years later, in December last year, Harvey and her partner Elliot Benham both pleaded guilty at Gloucester Crown Court to conspiracy to obtain a poison with the intent to procure a miscarriage and endeavouring to conceal the birth of a child. Harvey was sentenced to an 18-month community order, while Benham was ordered to do 150 hours of unpaid work. The court heard that they did not want the baby, but when Harvey discovered she was pregnant the foetus was found to be 28 weeks old – four weeks over the legal limit – and that they had paid for drugs to cause the abortion. According to recent Freedom of Information data released by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), between 2019 and 2023, 21 defendants (16 men and five women, aged between 24 and 59 years old) were charged with administering or procuring drugs or using instruments to induce an abortion, or child destruction. Of them, ten defendants were convicted and five were convicted on other substantive offences. Further high-profile cases have continued to divide public opinion. Nicola Packer was still bleeding and in pain when she was handcuffed. She was recovering from surgery for a stillbirth when police arrived at hospital later that day and accused her of illegally aborting her baby. Ms Packer took abortion medication, which was prescribed over the phone during the Covid-19 lockdown in November 2020, when she was aged 41. She delivered at home, and brought the foetus to a London hospital in a backpack the following day. Jurors heard that she took the medications when she was around 26 weeks pregnant, though the legal limit is 10 weeks, and that she knew this. However, Ms Packer denied this and spoke of her 'shock' at being pregnant, before breaking down, saying: 'If I had known I was that far along I wouldn't have done it. I wouldn't have put the baby or myself through it.' In May 2025, she sobbed as she was acquitted of 'unlawfully administering to herself a poison or other noxious thing' with the 'intent to procure a miscarriage'. She had spent almost five years facing the threat of prison. Ms Packer has since spoken out about how, instead of being sent home to recuperate following her surgery, while in custody and in pain, she was not given anti-clotting medication on time, having been told it was 'not a priority'. Furthermore, in June 2023, Carla Foster was sentenced to 28 months in prison for terminating a pregnancy between 32 and 34 weeks. The then 44-year-old mother-of-three claimed she felt too ' embarrassed ' to see a doctor after becoming pregnant in 2019, and that she did not know how far along she was. She also received abortion medication over the phone during the Covid-19 pandemic, and a court heard that she lied to a nurse practitioner from the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), convincing them that she was seven weeks pregnant. Shortly after, she made a 999 call telling operators that she was in labour and had suffered a miscarriage. She was initially charged with child destruction and pleaded not guilty. She later pleaded guilty to an alternative charge of administering drugs or using instruments to procure abortion, which was accepted by the prosecution. The Court of Appeal later reduced her sentence to 14 months suspended. Sitting at the London court in July 2023, Dame Victoria Sharp described her case as 'very sad', adding that 'it is a case that calls for compassion, not punishment'. In 2024, the CPS dropped its case against Bethany Cox, then 22, from Teesside, who was accused of causing her own miscarriage after purchasing drugs in 2020, as the first Covid-19 lockdown ended. At the time, Nicholas Lumley KC, her barrister, said that she had been interviewed by police in the 'throes of grief', and had been investigated for three years. It is not known how or when the baby died, and the prosecution dropped the case due to 'evidential difficulties'. As a result of MPs' vote this week, the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which outlaws abortion, will be amended so that it will no longer apply to women ending their own pregnancies. That means that Ms Packer, Ms Foster, Ms Catt, Ms Cox, Ms Harvey, and others like them in similar circumstances would no longer be prosecuted. The vote was tabled by the Labour MPs Stella Creasy and Tonia Antoniazzi, who criticised the current 'Victorian' laws being used against vulnerable women, and said that the decriminalisation would ensure women do not face arrest, investigation, prosecution or imprisonment regarding any pregnancies. Following the vote, Heidi Stewart, chief executive of BPAS, hailed the vote as 'a landmark moment for women's rights in this country and the most significant change to our abortion law since the 1967 Abortion Act was passed'. In contrast, Kathleen Stock, a former philosophy professor at the University of Sussex, who was forced to quit her job in 2021 following a high-profile row with the institution over her gender-critical views, was among those criticising the vote. 'Late-term abortions kill babies,' she said. 'Viable babies.' Catherine Robinson, spokesman for Right To Life UK, also raised concerns about the implications of the vote. She said: 'Removing the legal deterrent against women having abortions outside of a clinical setting beyond 24 weeks will only make it more likely that women in vulnerable circumstances will take similar action in future, putting themselves at risk. The current legal deterrent protects women from coercion at the hands of abusive partners and from taking actions they may later regret.' The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children said that the vote marked 'a dark day', and described the result as 'heartbreaking', 'horrifying', 'extreme' and 'barbaric'. According to the latest available data held by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), there were 251,377 abortions for women in England and Wales in 2022. This marked the highest number since the Abortion Act was introduced in 1967, and an increase of 17 per cent over the previous year. The vast majority of them were medically induced and funded by the NHS. According to recent polling by Ipsos ahead of the vote, 71 per cent of Britons think abortion should be legal in all or most cases, and 47 per cent believe that the current 24-week time limit for most abortions in England and Wales is 'about right'. When asked about illegal abortions, just over half (55 per cent) think that the person who performed the abortion should face a penalty. However, considerably fewer believe that the woman who had the abortion (32 per cent) or someone else who arranged the abortion (37 per cent) should face a penalty.
Daily Mail
38 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Keir Starmer insists assisted dying Bill has not been rushed as dozens of MPs say it should receive more scrutiny
Keir Starmer has dismissed warnings that the proposed legalisation on assisted dying is being rushed. The Prime Minister insisted that plenty of time had been devoted to the controversial plan despite dozens of his MPs pleading for it to receive more scrutiny. He also indicated that he will back the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill in the knife-edge vote tomorrow. But he said he would not try to sway opinion as the Government has remained officially neutral – though he previously promised leading campaigner Dame Esther Rantzen he would make time for assisted dying to come to the Commons. Asked during the G7 summit if he will be voting for the Bill, the PM replied: 'I've done my best not to influence the vote. My own view, I think, is well known and long-standing.' When pressed as to whether the critics within his party were wrong to raise concerns about the process, Sir Keir replied: 'It is a matter for individual parliamentarians. 'There has been a lot of time discussing it, both in Parliament and beyond Parliament, and quite right too, it's a really serious issue.' Since the bill passed its first Parliamentary hurdle in November, Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP behind has introduced a series of changes, including removing the safeguard of a High Court judge signing off applications A majority of 55 voted in favour the Bill last year, meaning that 28 would need to switch sides to bring it down, and at least a dozen have publicly turned against it in recent weeks. Even MPs sympathetic to the principle of legalising assisted dying plan to vote against it due to the actions of Labour's Kim Leadbeater. Since the bill passed its first Parliamentary hurdle in November, she has introduced a series of changes, including removing the safeguard of a High Court judge signing off applications. She instead put forward the concept of a panel of experts who would consider requests. Yet many professionals claim her plan is unworkable and more than 1,000 doctors have urged MPs to reject it. Some 50-plus Labour MPs want the third reading vote be delayed, warning the final version of the Bill has not been published and only 12 of 133 proposed amendments have been voted on.
Daily Mail
38 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Alzheimer's drugs rejected for NHS because the benefits 'are too small to justify the cost', watchdog says
Two drugs to treat Alzheimer's disease have been rejected for use on the NHS because their benefits are 'too small' to justify their cost, the health spending watchdog has said. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice) is standing by its earlier decision to turn down donanemab and lecanemab after considering new information submitted by manufacturers. Charities described the decision as 'disappointing' and a 'painful setback' for patients, while the firms Lilly, which makes donanemab, and Eisai, which makes lecanemab, said they would appeal. Donanemab and lecanemab are targeted antibody drugs that slow down the early stages of Alzheimer's. They represent a huge step forward in research because they target a known cause of the disease, rather than just treating symptoms. Both drugs bind to amyloid, a protein which builds up in the brains of people living with Alzheimer's disease. By binding to amyloid, the drugs are designed to help clear the build-up and slow down cognitive decline. Publishing its final draft guidance, Nice said the treatments have been shown to delay progression from mild to moderate Alzheimer's by four to six months. But it said the medicines cannot be provided on the NHS because they are not good value for money and 'only provide modest benefits at best'. Last year, NHS England published a briefing paper suggesting the cost of bringing the drugs to the health service could be £500 million to £1 billion per year. Professor Fiona Carragher, Alzheimer's Society's chief policy and research Officer, said the decision was 'disappointing'. The fact is, even if donanemab and lecanemab were made available on the NHS tomorrow, too many patients wouldn't be able to access them because the health system isn't ready to deliver them Professor Fiona Carragher, Alzheimer's Society She said: 'There is no doubt that today's decision is a setback for people with Alzheimer's disease. 'It is highly disappointing that we are in a situation where treatments that slow the progression of the condition are not available on the NHS. 'The reality we're faced with is that these treatments remain out of reach of both the NHS and most eligible people with Alzheimer's disease. 'In other diseases like cancer, treatments have become more effective, safer and cheaper over time. It's essential we see similar progress in dementia. 'The fact is, even if donanemab and lecanemab were made available on the NHS tomorrow, too many patients wouldn't be able to access them because the health system isn't ready to deliver them. 'The science is flying but the system is failing.' While we recognise the hope these treatments offer, the evidence shows they only provide modest benefits at best and substantial resources would be needed to provide them Helen Knight, director of medicines evaluation at Nice She said the Government must now commit to 'the long-term investment needed to fundamentally change dementia diagnosis so that we are ready for new treatments', including bringing in earlier diagnosis and access to specialist diagnostic tests. She added: 'We are heading towards a future where disease-slowing treatments reduce the devastating impact of dementia, and we cannot afford to delay preparing the NHS for them.' Hilary Evans-Newton, chief executive of Alzheimer's Research UK, said: 'This rejection is a painful setback for people affected by Alzheimer's – but sadly not a surprising one. 'The drugs' modest benefits, combined with the significant costs of delivering them in the NHS, meant they faced insurmountable challenges. 'People with early Alzheimer's in England and Wales now face a long wait for innovative new treatments as they won't be able to access lecanemab or donanemab unless they can afford to pay privately. 'This decision sends a troubling signal to the life sciences sector – undermining confidence in the UK as a home for research, innovation and clinical trials. That risks lasting damage to both patients and the economy. People with early Alzheimer's in England and Wales now face a long wait for innovative new treatments as they won't be able to access lecanemab or donanemab unless they can afford to pay privately Hilary Evans-Newton, Alzheimer's Research UK 'Nice's decision should ring alarm bells for a Government that, only a year ago, pledged to make the UK a global leader in dementia treatments. 'With over 30 Alzheimer's drugs now in late-stage trials globally, momentum is building – and more will enter regulatory systems in the years ahead. 'Without intervention from Government, people with Alzheimer's will continue to miss out — not because science is failing, but because the system is.' Helen Knight, director of medicines evaluation at Nice, said: 'While we recognise the hope these treatments offer, the evidence shows they only provide modest benefits at best and substantial resources would be needed to provide them. 'The committee accepted that any slowing of the disease getting worse would be meaningful for people with mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia caused by Alzheimer's disease and their carers because it could mean more time socialising, driving and being independent, so needing less help day-to-day from family members. 'But the committee concluded the small benefits to patients shown in the clinical trials and the lack of long-term evidence of effectiveness balanced with the substantial resources the NHS would need to commit to the treatments would be too great and could displace other essential treatments and services that deliver substantial benefits to patients. 'We have done everything we possibly can to try and achieve a positive outcome in our assessments of these treatments, including providing an additional opportunity for evidence to be submitted. 'We realise today's news will be disappointing for many, but we now need to focus on the encouraging pipeline of new Alzheimer's drugs in development, a number of which are already earmarked for Nice evaluation.' Drug firms and registered patient groups now have until July 8 to appeal against the decision. In clinical trials, donanemab, which is given via a drip, has been shown to slow the rate at which memory and thinking get worse by more than 20%. Results also suggest the drug leads to a 40% slowing in the decline of everyday activities such as driving, enjoying hobbies and managing money. Lecanemab – also administered via drip – has been shown to successfully remove protein build-up from the brains of people living with early Alzheimer's disease. For people taking lecanemab, this meant the decline in their thinking and memory skills was slowed down by 27%. It also slowed down the decline in quality of life by up to 56%. However, side-effects of the drugs can be serious, including brain bleeds and risk of death. A reformulation of lecanemab is being developed so it can be administered subcutaneously under the skin. Nice could then review the drug in this form. There are several other Alzheimer's treatments in development, and the NHS stands ready to offer patients access to new treatments as soon as they are deemed by regulators to be clinically and cost effective Dr Jeremy Isaacs, NHS England Lilly said it would appeal the Nice decision on the grounds it was unreasonable based on the evidence submitted. Chris Stokes, president and general manager of UK and Northern Europe at Lilly, said: 'If the system can't deliver scientific firsts to NHS patients, it is broken. 'If the Government is to deliver on its goals to reduce lives lost to the biggest killers and put Britain at the forefront of transforming treatment for dementia, it must keep pace with licensed medical breakthroughs.' Dr Jeremy Isaacs, national clinical director for dementia at NHS England, said: 'NHS England has a dedicated team preparing for the rollout of new Alzheimer's treatments. 'There are several other Alzheimer's treatments in development, and the NHS stands ready to offer patients access to new treatments as soon as they are deemed by regulators to be clinically and cost effective.'
