Ozempic maker Novo Nordisk facing pressure as study finds $1,000 appetite suppressant can be made for just $5

What the hell happened to Public Funding for Science and shit

That's only for diseases you can't milk a fat profit from like tuberculosis.
Would a publicly funded study into a weight loss drug receive a sufficient share of a government's research budget?
- I'm not sure I understand your question but maybe it should
Someone that doesn't understand how much capitalism has done for research.

The scales aren't the same, the public would never allow that sort if risk, its completely impossible for governments to cause that amount of drug breakthroughs
- You apparently don't understand how much government-subsidized research has done.
  
  Ever had an MRI? Ever known anyone who had an MRI? Ever known anyone whose life was saved because something was discovered on an MRI?
  
  Thank NASA, not capitalism.
- But the public of course is just fine having a little 10 trillion military excursion in the middle east. You don't even need to explain how it will be profitable in that case. Because of how passionately everyone wanted this.
  
  For old people cancer, capitalism is the only possible option.

It's also needed by type 2 diabetics. So I'd say pretty vital.

This is the dumbest thing I've read in a month. It was originally and still is a diabetes drug. Go lick more corporate boots.

I've seen that argument about expensive drugs over and over and over.

And you know what it's an argument in favor of?

Government-subsidized research.

It's not an argument in favor of pricing drugs so high that only the rich can afford them. At all.
- Exactly. It's an argument for regulation. Also maybe they should spend some of their advertisement budget on R&D instead of convincing patients what they should be on.
- And let's not forget that a great deal of the research is already publicly-funded.
  
  I still don't understand how Covid vaccines are suddenly allowed to cost a fuck ton of money. Enough public money was thrown at those things to buy entire nations - why the fuck isn't it owned by the public.
  
  That one is especially ludicrous. It's mitigating a pandemic (or I guess endemic at this point) illness! It should be manufactured at cost.

R&D already disappears when compared to marketing or executive pay. Corpos whining about profits again

Likely not, no. Novo Nordisk spent $5 Billion on R&D in a year as a company. I can't find consistent numbers on advertising costs, but that looks to be somewhere around $100-200 million over the last 12 months, for this product specifically. The total annual compensation of the entire executive team at Novo Nordisk is about $46 million USD.

When you are overweight, it is not a case of just eating less. Eating less has very different physical and psychological effects for someone who is overweight than for someone who is not.

If you are interested in learning something about this, you can check out the setpoint theory of body weight. In short, the body has a setpoint for which weight it should be. If you are overweight, this setpoint is at a higher weight than if you are not. If your weight gets below the setpoint, your metabolism will slow down and your appetite will go up and the body starts to try and do everything to go back to this higher weight. That is why most people are not able to lose more than 10% of their weight in the long term. Often, when they gain the weight back, they gain back even more than they lost and the setpoint might even go up further. It is a neverending struggle for most people. Medication like Ozempic affect this mechanism so it becomes possible to lose weight.

If you want, you can find a lot of scientific papers about this. There is quite a lot of research on this and the setpoint theory is well accepted within the medical field specialised in dealing with weight problems, I believe.

In addition, Ozempic is not only a fat loss medicine. It is also used by people with diabetes to lower their glucose.

Im not smart in this at all, but i heard on a podcast, which sounds like bullshit but so does your set point thing, that bacteria had a lot of say so with our eating habits. The bacteria in our body that crave sugar influence our want of sugar? Its like a spiraling downwards trend- someone comsumes a lot of sugar- bacteria that thrives on sugar multiplies in our gut- that bacteria affects our body to crave more sugar- they get fed so we stay fat.

At the end of the day, someone can just eat less and fight thr cravings. Theres no way to agrue that eating 5000 calories are healthy. If you're 500 lbs and now need more calories to function then so what. Go without.

There was a study that looked at the children of parents who starved for a portion of their lives. And the children were better off because their body was prepared to fight starvation. No i wont cite it, because that i read about over a decade ago. So my point is, people can just eat less, screw what their body wants or thinks. Eat fucking less. Fast for a week every few months if you're overweight. Youre not gonna die, but you'll lose weight.
- That something sounds like bullshit does not mean that it is bullshit. I mean, I believe we should look at the data and the research. I did hear something about the role of gut bacteria but it was more about issues like depression. Might be interesting to check out further. Thank you.
  
  I am not saying people should not fight their cravings. But the cravings of someone who is obese might be very different from someone who has a normal weight. Like I said, if you get below the setpoint often appetite will go up. Considering that most obese people are not able to lose significant weight in the long term, these cravings seem to be too strong and it seems to make people unable to "just eat less". So, we need a solution for that.
  
  I am not sure whether this is what you are referring to, but I know about this study that says that prenatal exposure to famine in early gestation increases the risk of obesity.
  
  You talk about cravings caused by you dont know while also saying what i heard our gut biome causing that affect sounds like bullshit. Im no expert on anything, but i used to listen to podcast everyday. I believe i learned about our gut biome and the bacteria in it from a licensed diatrician rhonda patrick. Despite the hacking scandle, shes the person who did 23andme.
  
  You act like your set points are something other then a rationale explanation. Im not saying what i have gone through is set in stone, but i personaly went from 300+ lbs down to 190lbs, then back up to 300+lbs when i was let go during covid. Ive been fat, lost it and became fat again. Its 100% eating habits, at least for me, which can be explained by gut boime causing cravings because i could tell the difference of my cravings.
  
  And no that study is not what i was talking about. I did not even have to look at it because you said its the cause obesity
  
  Thanks for the name. I will check out Rhonda Patrick and see what research I can find on the topic. I thought you were calling the different theories bullshit, but maybe I misunderstood you and you only meant to say that they sound like that. If that is the case, I apologize. I got so much negativity just for mentioning the research that I might have responded too harshly.
  
  I am sorry to hear that you are struggling with weight so much. I think obesity has to do with eating habits. However, there is a reason for why you have this eating habits. One reason for that could be gut microbiome.
  
  What often happens is that people just get angry with themselves for eating too much. And that anger might help in the short term to force yourself to eat less, but in the long term it will not work and it will just make you feel bad about yourself. However, if you look at the actual underlying causes, such as gut microbiome or setpoint theory, this might provide the insight needed for long term weight loss without the extent of suffering that most obese people have to endure.
  
  It is the only study I know about this. I checked it out, because I have a lot of people with anorexia in my family as well as some people with eating disorders causing obesity. I thought maybe being anorexic and pregnant is similar for your body as being in famine and pregnant. So, that is why I know about this study.
  
  Firstly, the study i remember that looked at starving people were more about ww2 survivors i belives. There hasnt been a whole lot of mass starvings where people came out alive other than that.
  
  On to your set point thing, no i do kinda believe its bullshit. But thats because i hear your thoughts, and instantly thing its just a side effect of some something i learned about years ago that makes more sense to me.
  
  Also i dont need pity about being over weight, despite being over 300 lbs, i dont look too over weight, im thankfull i spent years i construction toning my body, and some how it not ad bad as i was when i was a teenager. Im not sure why but i dont actually look as fat as what other 300lsb people look. I live with my younger cousin who weighs 30 lbs more then me but looks vastly bigger. But he never lost weight or worked in extreme conditions like i have. So honestly i dont know the reason.
  
  My last point is, you kinda sound like an ai, no offense if you're not, but you come across as very absorbing and completion, like you took in what i said and immediately ran with it. Most people online dont do that. And just in general the way you typed things out just feels ai-y once i had that thought.
  
  I am not an AI. I am not sure how to prove that, but I am not. I am a scientific researcher, but in another field than the medical field. Maybe my scientific background shows in the way I communicate? Also, English is not my native language, so that might be why I sound different as well.
  
  The reason I checked out so much research on obesity (as well as on being underweight) is that many of my family members suffer from eating disorders. I lost my little sister to anorexia a couple of years ago and my mother had it. However, some of my family members are obese as well, also due to eating disorders. I think trying to understand why people eat in a certain way and to help them instead of just judging them, might change things. And for me, scientific work and data is the best way to understand things. Maybe that gives you a bit of understanding where I am coming from and why I am interested in this subject.
  
  If something is the result of research, it cannot just be called bullshit and set aside. It is not just another opinion that you can just decide to disagree with, considering the care that usually has been taken to reduce bias and ensure validity. Of course, research can be wrong and it is important to have a scientific debate. However, such a debate should be based on clear reasoning and arguments and other research results.
  
  I was not pitying you. I was being compassionate. There is a difference between the two. I tried to be kind and understanding. That's all.
  
  Edit: I also wanted to mention that the study I linked refers to a study on women who were pregnant during the famine in WWII in the Netherlands. Maybe that is what you meant.
  
  I apologize for saying the whole ai thing. Because frankly, how precise you responded and how well you accepted anothers ideas came off as very strange compared to the typical internet interaction. I migjt just be too jaded to accept someome online as being a knowledge person without questioning it.
  
  Its saddening to hear about your family's struggles. Again im sorry for downplaying your word to start with, but i will recommend you look more into the gut biome. Im not a researcher or sicenitist, i worked in construction and rebuilding peoples homes most of my working life. But i always had an intrest in health.
  
  Thank you, I appreciate that very much. I try to be accepting of other ideas and to be understanding. But sometimes it is difficult for me too. Especially if I get many negative reactions and I do not completely understand why (I do not mean you, but some of the other people that responded to me). Then I get defensive as well, even though I try not to be.
  
  Your work sounds nice and very useful! As a researcher, I know a lot about a very small set of subjects. Sometimes, I am wondering whether I am actually contributing enough and whether what I am doing is actually useful. When you are building homes, at least it is very clear who you are helping and how they benefit from it. I would not be able to do it. I have two left hands, as we say in my language. I am not good with the practical stuff, I am only good with theory.
  
  In any case, thank you for the discussion. I checked the gut microbiome out a little bit already and there is a lot of scientific work on it. Very complex and very interesting! I am looking forward to delving into that. I hope you have a nice day (or evening depending on the time where you are).
  
  Multiple times on Reddit and Lemmy, people have accused me of being an AI. I just don't get it. Is it because I have good grammar, spelling and punctuation skills?
  
  One guy was so convinced that even when I took a photo of myself (partial face blacked out) holding up a napkin with both of our usernames on it- I was bored- he said it was photoshopped.
  
  You can't convince crazy people, and someone who thinks they're having a legitimate conversation like this with an AI is crazy.
  
  I think the person who thought I was an AI explained it quite well. Thet said they just got jaded. However, they believed me when I told who I was and apologised. I appreciate it when people are able to revise their idea and it shows they did not have bad intentions.
  
  I would not say people are crazy, there is a lot of manipulation going on on the internet by businesses and some governments. I think a lot of people fall for bots all the time. For example, Twitter and Reddit is full of them. So, I do not think it is that weird that people sometimes are not sure whether they are talking to AI.
  
  What happened to you when you even showed pictures of yourself and they still were convinced you were AI is quite extreme. I hope that that does not happen too often, because that seems like the other person is either a troll or paranoid.
- At the end of the day, someone can just eat less and fight thr cravings.
  
  Try eating half of what you normally eat for a month and see how easy it is.
  
  Then imagine doing that for the rest of your life.
  
  If it was as easy as you seem to think it is, there wouldn't be such an obesity problem. And there certainly wouldn't be such a big problem with people regaining weight later on.
  
  Also:
  
  No i wont cite it,
  
  Cool, I won't believe you then, and I doubt anyone else will either.
The set-point theory is junk science propagated by the HAES movement. Human bodies can't escape the laws of physics, if you eat less energy than you expand you'll lose weight unless your body somehow evolved the ability for photosynthesis or nuclear power.
- No, it is not junk science. Research about it is published in many serious scientific journals. Just check out Scopus or something. You cannot say that it is junk science just because you do not like the results.
  
  You also seem to not understand it. It does not say that you can escape the law of physics. It also does not say that in my explanation. It says that you energy expenditure goes down if you get below the setpoint. So, eating less becomes less effective. At the same time, you appetite will go up. This makes it very difficult to maintain the weight loss and this is why many people fail to keep the weight off in the long term.
  
  Criticism of any research is possible, of course. However, just saying it is junk and misrepresenting what the theory actually says are not good arguments.
  
  If you disagree, then what is your explanation of why most obese people tend to not keep more than 10% weight off over time without medication or surgery? What scientific evidence is there for that? I would be very interested in hearing about alternative research on this topic.
  
  When you gain weight, once the fat storage cells reach capacity, your body makes more of them. When you go into ketosis, burning stored fat, the cells don't die. They shrink. So once you go off your diet they will happily plump back up again. This is why your weight will yo-yo.
  
  Losing weight and keeping it off should be done through dietary change, regular exercise, and commitment. That's true even if fat cells are physically killed or removed as part of treatment. Anything else yields temporary results or requires a lifelong legal drug habit.
  
  The fat storage cells definitely play a role as well. One of the ways in which the mechanism I discussed works is via leptin, as leptons regulate energy expenditure. Leptin is primarily produced by adipocytes. So, I believe that is where the connection is. This paper says some interesting stuff about it: https://doi.org/10.1242/dmm.008698.
  
  The issue that I was discussing is that most people do not succeed with keeping the weight off. Most obese people do not manage to lose significant weight in the long term as they tend to regain the weight. We need to look at why that is to solve it. The research on setpoints offers at least a partial explanation. However, if you know about research that further explains this, I would be very interested. (Some sources if you are interested: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17469900/, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11684524/, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19175510/)
  
  There's no research to back you up. The only reason people are obese is because they eat too much.
That's just fat people bullshit. Next you're going to say someone that is actually obese is healthy.
- No being obese is not healthy. It is clearly associated with many health risks. I have no idea why you would infer that I would think it is healthy from what I have said. Obesity is clearly a problem. However, to solve it, I think we should look at the mechanisms behind it and try to understand it. So, that is what I am trying to do.
  
  Saying that something is "just fat people bullshit" is also not a good argument. Maybe we can leave the emotions and especially the anger out of it and just look at the research. You seem angry and I have no idea what I have done to you to make you angry. I just tried to discuss some research on this subject.
- Hey there. I'm a fat person, but I'm not healthy. In fact, I'm here at the Mayo Clinic because I haven't eaten any solid food for the last 7 months and have lost 80 pounds since this started. I'm underweight now. I still look fat. I still have a big belly.
  
  Maybe it's more complicated than you think.

It also regulates sugar and can be used as an alternative to insulin in many cases. The fact that it slows down the digestive process to make you feel like you're still full is a side effect compared to the sugar regulation.

That's why people take ozempic.

Also what you said is incredibly stupid.

There would still be a profit incentive in this case even if they charged 1% of what they're asking for. They'd still be making a 50% profit. A margin that would be highly favourable in basically any other industry. The whole point of market competition is to drive down that profit margin and pass the savings on to customers. A 95% markup like here demonstrates that the health industry is completely immune to market forces.

R and d would disaapear and no new drugs would be made if it wasn't for patents and profits.

True and I think no one expects any good to cost the same as manufacturing it, but the difference here is 200 times. That is bonkers.

R and d would disaapear and no new drugs would be made if it wasn’t for patents and profits.

Yes.

If people just ate less they would get the same benefit.

Well, yes, but actually no. We enjoy food for a reason, and the availability of all kinds of food today interferes with our bodies and brains, which were tuned to scarcity in ancient times. Most people simply can't eat less; that's why the majority never lose weight or regain it after some time. Meanwhile, health issues caused by being overweight are consistently among the leading causes of death in developed countries. Therefore, this fat loss drug is very important.

People can lose weight.

Many examples of people not losing weight then changing something and losing weight.

Just calories in calories out. The rest is lack of willpower and laziness.
- This is just ignorant.
  
  Calories in and out is accurate.
  
  That wasn't the point of my post. Could you please read the whole thread before joining instead of picking a single phrase?
  
  Your point is plain lunacy. Calories in, calories out. That's all. That's science.
  
  Consider not using word "science" anymore, you clearly have no idea what it is.
  
  Ahaha! Ok! You're spreading misinformation, that's against the rules.
  
  Bring any confirmation that what I said is wrong. I'll wait.
  
  Calories in, calories out. That's the basics of thermodynamics. That's - fucking science. Go and educate yourself https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics