Ozempic will disrupt big tobacco, candy companies, and alcohol brands

I could see patenting mechanism of delivery, like injections versus oral, but not the example above.

First, worth noting that this is very much TBD. There are grave 1st Amendment concerns with the government's efforts there and it is very much an open question for now whether the effort will actually hold up in court. That said:

>what’s stopping Uncle Sam commandeering Novo to either sell off its Ozempic ownership as a subsidiary to force a lower general sales price, or forcing to nullify its patents? I’m speaking legally rather than economically.

So as a practical matter, and as with TikTok, Novo Nordisk is not a domestic company it's a foreign one. But unlike TikTok where China is a geopolitical opponent, Novo is Danish and thus part of a close ally. Second the people pushing the TikTok thing are fine with TikTok going away entirely in the US, that's the stick. The US has zero power jurisdiction over China just as the reverse is true, but can police its own market and thus say "comply or lose access to our market". Same as how the EU is pushing stuff like the DMA. Since the US market is valuable that's a sizable stick, but TikTok very likely even if they lose will tell the USG to pound sand and just leave, but Congress/WH wouldn't mind that.

But here the whole point is that people desperately want this product. So if Novo said "no, and we're ceasing all sales in the US" they'd take a major financial hit sure, but there'd also be massive blow back in domestic and international politics. It would definitely be questioned on various US/EU trade agreements which would have messy legal implications, and invite tit-for-tat. Nationalizing foreign IP would implicate a bunch of treaties and US itself pushed hard and benefits from.

But putting all that aside and pretending it was all domestic (or going specifically after domestic components), there is still the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment. The government could legally seize it using eminent domain powers, though it'd no doubt face as good a legal fight as the highest paid law firms could put on. But I don't think there's any doubt this would be a clear case of public use and courts have approved vastly more dubious and worse takings.

However, there's no dispute government would then have to pay the entire fair market value for it, whatever anyone else would have to pay to buy the whole shebang right now. Novo as traded on the NYSE has a market cap of over $430 billion, and a sizable chunk of that is from this product which has sold well enough to measurably boost the entire Danish economy. The stock has nearly tripled in just the last year and half or so. Even if the US part of that one component was "only" 25%, $100b is not nothing, not even for the USG. And FMV might well be double or more.

There would be other legal avenues to explore but that's a big one, and in turn it's not actually clear it'd save the US any money which is kind of the point, eminent domain isn't supposed to be used that way but for some critical greater good. You can gain control but you have to pay for it.

Are there competitors or are they under patent protection?

They're not buying generics, and even at a 20% discount will get hosed compared to the $7 generics

Once demand is met, there starts to be an argument for lowering the price and growing the market. Getting the price down to half the current price is when we start to see health benefits that outweigh the cost of treatment and an obvious win for insurance companies to start covering it for everyone.

But until there is supply, lowering cost just means more people fighting over the same supply, not more people getting access.

In the meantime overweight people are going to take what they can get.

Yes, but note that there are other more legitimate alternatives like gastric bypass, etc!

> Last time I looked into it the "loss" is only happening while taking the medication and you get back to normal once you stop, regardless of how long you’ve been taking it. So if stabilizing at a thinner state is your goal, the drug would be mostly useless or you should be ready to take the rest of your life.

This is untrue -- most people do not bounce all the way back to their original weight once they stop, and simply having the space from what seems to anecdotally be quite annoying symptoms ("food noise") might be well worth it.

https://glp1.guide/content/do-people-regain-all-the-weight-l...

> Going only a tad too far, it feels like recomming meth for its energizing and diet effects, that's not something we want at wide scale.

It's absolutely not this -- there are studies and trials on how GLP1 RAs work, their effects, and at this point they are a go-to effective treatment for type 2 diabetes, and the FDA has just approved them for heart disease.

The way they work is not completely known (for example the mental effects seem to be underweighted), but the mechanism of action is completely different a drug like meth.

What it can do is help one "bootstrap" into healthy habits. Someone who is sufficiently overweight might suffer injuries from exercising, which makes it difficult to lose that weight. Someone who's drank a soda every morning for decades might break the habit if they stop for long enough.

Why does it feel like recommending meth? Are they similar in addiction and harmful effects?

I worry that framing the goal as, "a lasting way to shift that to something healthier", will prime you to switch from one addiction to another. I would prefer for you to frame it as diversifying the sources of pleasure in your life and becoming able to take pleasure (and consequent to take interest) in practical things that you currently experience as tedious obstacles that must be endured so that you can get your next drink.

There's a heuristic that goes, "Shortcuts will catch up to people eventually," but I'm ok with letting the evidence bear that out.

Would you same the same thing about insulin or statins or even caffeine? Why couldn’t something like Ozempic be something you take long term?

GLP-1 looks increasingly like a miracle drug. We see problems of addiction and obesity skyrocketing across the developing world. It’s not cost free, but it’s a hell of a lot better than the majority of America, China and India becoming potatoes.

When vitamins were discovered, there was similar moralising about there being no free lunch. With the benefit of hindsight those concerns were misfounded. Perhaps Ozempic has terrible side effects that haven’t been noticed since 2005. Given that timeline, however, we can confidently say someone obese taking the drug is better off with it.

> never cures it

I have friends who took it, lost weight and then stopped. The rebound was real but nowhere close to what they lost. (The lifestyle changes also mostly stuck.) For all practical purposes, their fatness was cured.

> when probably 99% of cases could be reversed naturally

Scientifically unfounded.

> when probably 99% of cases could be reversed naturally.

What does that even mean? We aren't 'naturally' exposed to such calorie dense foods all the time and aren't 'naturally' supposed to be able to get any food with so little effort. What is natural about processed foods?

I agree. People did not need these drugs in the past but instead of fixing the social and economic structures which caused the obesity epidemic we tell people to take drugs to manage.

Oh, and take Adderall so you can focus. Again, nobody needed this in the past.

And Xanax to manage the anxiety people did not use to have either.

Feel unhappy and alone? They will make a pill for that too.

"Brave New World" turned out to be even more prophetic than "1984".