4 ms·
> If you have a smoking epidemic, better lung cancer treatment is not the right answer. You’re correct, but Ozempic isn’t a lung cancer treatment, it’s a supre
by mullingitover 2y ago
> If you have a smoking epidemic, better lung cancer treatment is not the right answer.
You’re correct, but Ozempic isn’t a lung cancer treatment, it’s a supremely successful smoking cessation aid. I don’t understand how you’re struggling with this metaphor as a Science STEM PhD in Science.
Obesity is a physics problem: you can gain weight on the healthiest food imaginable, and you can lose weight on a diet of marshmallows. Ozempic attacks the lack of control over the calorie input, the only thing that ultimately matters in this equation.
- Beijinger 2y agoLook, I gave this as a metaphor. Better anti-lung cancer drugs (not Ozempic) are not the right answer to the smoking problem. Neither is Ozempic the right answer to the epidemic. I don't oppose Ozempic, neither would I better anti-lung cancer drugs, and both should be covered by insurance. But both "solutions" would not address the underlying problem? Is this so hard to understand? A 5th grader should understand this.
- mlyle 2y ago> Ozempic attacks the lack of control over the calorie input, the only thing that ultimately matters in this equation. But in fairness, there's a complex etiology behind the lack of control of the calorie input, and attacking causes a bit earlier in the chain could make even more sense, no? I'm not saying Ozempic is bad-- it's quite a good thing. But to the extent that it lowers our desire to really figure out these causes and deal with them, that's unfortunate.