3 ms·

These are drugs designed to fight back against the food industry and its abusive practices which damaged the lives of millions of people without consequences.

• dylan604 2y ago
  Fight back against? I would say it is actually enabling. A fight back would be regulations that prevent the food industry from making anything other than food. And no, food product is not food. So this drug doesn't actually fight or make the food industry to change. It allows them to continue operating as they like.
  • littlestymaar 2y ago
    These drugs reduce the appetite of the people taking it, which drives sales low: https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/05/investing/ozempic-food-companies/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/05/investing/ozempic-food-co... But yes, regulating the food industry would have achieved the same health effect than these “miracle drugs” for much cheaper and less adverse effects… But they are too big of a lobby to be targeted by governments unfortunately.
    • dylan604 2y ago
      So it's a symbiotic relationship to the food industry, not fighting back. In this way, the food industry can continue to earn profits off its products while bigPharma now as a new revenue stream that benefits from results of the food industry's decisions. Again, I do not see this as fighting back in any shape. It's some clever people seeing a way to profit off of the other industry.
      • jf22 2y ago
        An appetite suppressant does not have a symbiotic relationship with the food industry.
        • dylan604 2y ago
          i meant about the company relationship (badly worded) not their end products
• thefz 2y ago
  > These are drugs designed to fight back against the food industry So you are fighting against big food by rerouting your money to big pharma? What a win...
  • littlestymaar 2y ago
    Walt Street must eat something they'd say. But yes that's the core problem here, it is only happening because the money ends up elsewhere. Saving lives alone isn't interesting enough