Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The problem is the human existing in a modern environment that is hostile to it. GLP-1s enable the human to more effectively operate in said environment. It patches malfunctioning reward centers (addiction and food compulsion), it reduces overall inflammation, it provide cardiovascular protective properties.

As kubectl_h mentions [1], the future is better understanding and fine tuning the mechanisms responsible. I think gene therapy is the end goal (permanent fix vs chronic maintenance with GLP-1s), but others have indicated in previous threads that might not be possible. We need more information and research. This is only the beginning of the "Aha!" moment (The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not “Eureka” but “That's funny...” —Isaac Asimov).

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41989101



> in a modern environment that is hostile to it.

Our ancient environment was hostile as well.

> It patches malfunctioning reward centers

It has an impact on them. It does not "patch" them. This is not a rational way to describe any drug.

> it reduces overall inflammation

It can inhibit certain inflammatory pathways.

> it provide cardiovascular protective properties.

It reduces the number of cardiovascular events. Whether that number is normal to begin with is not considered here.

> We need more information and research.

You certainly do.


You're free to your opinion (legit, no snark intended), the market will deliver to the demand. The cost benefit ratio is obvious, even accounting for potential side effects at scale.

https://www.axios.com/2024/01/18/ozempic-wegovy-weight-loss-...

https://www.axios.com/2024/01/19/weight-loss-drugs-america-o...

https://recursiveadaptation.com/p/the-growing-scientific-cas...

https://www.jpmorgan.com/insights/global-research/current-ev...

Edit: I simply do not understand the hostility towards this simple intervention, my apologies.


> You're free to your opinion

Oh. Thank you. That's very generous. I assumed we started from that position but apparently not.

> the market will deliver to the demand.

Yes, because our healthcare market is perfect, and we should acquiesce to it's demands. The same could be said of opioid pain killers.

> The cost benefit ratio is obvious

Which entities cost benefit ratio, exactly? The patients? Are you _sure_ you have data which allows you to say that?

> even accounting for potential side effects at scale.

You're free to your opinion. The market will repeat history.


You seem hostile to this possible solution. Can you explain why?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: