Ozempic costs $1000/month (in the US) but $5/month to manufacture [0]. I think if this drug and others are to have a significant anti-consumption effect on other companies it needs to be vastly more accessible, which first requires more accessible healthcare in the US, which is unlikely to happen.<p>Also it's an injection, which raises the barrier. If drugs like these become orally administered and over-the-counter, then yeah, I'd be more confident that it could have a positive effect. But currently, it looks like a drug that few can access/afford in the US.<p>[0] <a href="https://www.sanders.senate.gov/press-releases/news-sanders-statement-on-outrageous-cost-of-ozempic/" rel="nofollow">https://www.sanders.senate.gov/press-releases/news-sanders-s...</a>
I'm not very familiar with the approval process for new drugs, but as far as I know it involves some initial step where the safety is assessed, and then the effectiveness. But I don't think either of those are actually long term processes (like, longer than 5 years).<p>So it scares me a bit when something like Ozepmic pops up and tons of people jump on it, without knowing the long term effects that might appear. I read the other day there's an entire subreddit devoted to Ozempic side effects, and those are only short term ones (maybe those being discussed there were already discovered during the trials, I don't know to be honest).<p>Are my fears unfounded and just the result of my lack of knowledge around the approval process and/or the inner workings of drugs?
Re: "mounting concern" about the profits of processed food & tobacco companies, here you are also the 2018 classic of the genre:<p>> Goldman Sachs asks in biotech research report: ‘Is curing patients a sustainable business model?’<p><a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/11/goldman-asks-is-curing-patients-a-sustainable-business-model.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/11/goldman-asks-is-curing-patie...</a>
If these drugs turn out to be significantly more effective for a wide range of addictions than past approaches, that would indeed be a major societal shift.<p>I wouldn't try any of them right now, but if my insurance covered one for treating alcoholism at some point I'd give it a shot. If it actually worked it would likely significantly improve not only my life experience, but also my productivity and thereby the lives of others I have an impact on. It's a nice thought.
People like Scott Galloway have been saying this for a while, and he's completely right. The research isn't all there quite yet for stopping addiction, but the research definitely points to GLP1's effectiveness at reducing food cravings, appetite (and anecdotally "food noise") for people taking it.<p>If you're looking for a quick primer on what the term "GLP1 Agonist" even means:
<a href="https://glp1.guide/content/what-are-glp1-agonists/" rel="nofollow">https://glp1.guide/content/what-are-glp1-agonists/</a><p>This will absolutely have a huge effect on companies that sell ingestable... "luxuries"/addictive substances -- the only thing holding back the deluge of change is the accessibility/pricing of the drugs.<p>It also seems like the next phase of this is gene therapy:<p><a href="https://glp1.guide/content/a-glimpse-of-the-future-glp1-gene-therapy" rel="nofollow">https://glp1.guide/content/a-glimpse-of-the-future-glp1-gene...</a>
hi! this is my substack post and new policy org. thanks to whoever posted this. hope you will subscribe!<p>we are looking for folks with MDs and PhDs or other experience in the field or in EA type writing to join the project. the thesis is that the addiction crisis is solvable if we put sufficient resources into new medication development, including GLP-1 for addiction and powerful non opiate painkillers like the Vertex drug that will be approved early next year.<p>addiction is the number 1 cause of DALYs in the united states if you include opiates, stimulants, alcohol, and cigarettes.<p>the right policies can get new treatments to people rapidly without massive public costs and without disrupting incentives. but we're currently on track for at least another decade of massive damage if we don't change things. join the effort!
These effects started being priced in last year. Citrini on Twitter called a lot of this out in advance and made a bunch of money on long/short plays. Might be some room left to run, but be careful shorting potato chip companies and fast food because you think you found a secret.
When I took Ozempic I had these side effects:<p>* Low libido and erectile dysfunction
* Constipation, diarrhea, and extreme bloating (burping all night long)
* Often difficulty sleeping. Waking up a lot. Very restless.<p>We need a drug that doesn't slow digestion but decreases hunger and increases satiety.
Many years ago as a teen I worked seasonally at a big blue/yellow electronics store that sells TVs, computers, appliances....and candy at the register. Curious, I asked my manager about it.<p>"Oh yeah, someone comes in here to buy a $10 HDMI cable, and impulse buys a $2 candy bar at checkout. Instant 20% more sales. Gas stations, pharmacies, they all do it."
Take-for-life drugs with random paralysis as side effects that cost $12k per year might not be affordable by governments when half of society is obese.
We could also clamp down on addictive shit like Doritos and Oreos like we did with tobacco. Unbelievable that people will need to take a drug to escape the treachery of junk food companies everywhere you turn.
> A policy of cost-restriction and access guarantees would bring massive public health benefits.<p>Ah yes price controls, the best way to keep something inaccessible to everyone except those with personal connections.
I had the thought there are gonna be some people on these drugs who will still find a way to have bad diets that keeps them fat and unhealthy. Since they have less appetite instead of a sandwich and a milkshake they will skip to the milkshake only.
In March 2023, Novo Nordisk was suspended from the ABPI for a period of two years, for engaging in misleading marketing practices that amounted to "bribing health professionals with inducement to prescribe".[59] This is only the eighth time in the last 40 years that ABPI sanctioned a member organization.<p><a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novo_Nordisk" rel="nofollow">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novo_Nordisk</a>
"It’s pretty amazing that a reporter can write with a straight face that people eating less Doritos and Oreos is a ‘mounting concern’!"<p>This is a really bad-faith interpretation of what the reporter said. The "mounting concern" is linked to a CNBC video. It's obvious in context that it's the investors in processed food companies who are concerned, not the reporter herself.