
A lifelong prescription for a problem no one is trying to solve: a root-cause and risk-benefit reckoning
magine your smoke alarm goes off in the middle of the night. You have two choices. You can find the fire. Or you can buy a subscription service that injects a chemical into the alarm once a week so it stops making noise, while the house keeps burning.
For a growing share of the population, the second option is now the standard of care.
Around 12% of U.S. adults are now taking a GLP-1 drug like Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro, or Zepbound (Associated Press, citing KFF). In 2025 alone, Eli Lilly’s tirzepatide franchise brought in about $36.5 billion, outselling Keytruda, the cancer drug long considered the most lucrative product in pharmaceutical history (BioSpace). The leading medical societies now say these drugs, once started, are meant for “long-term or lifelong use” (Obesity, 2026).
Read that again. Lifelong. For a condition that barely existed at population scale two generations ago.
That is the absurdity I want to examine. My argument is not that these drugs do nothing; they clearly change the numbers on the scale and on the lab report. My argument is that they do nothing to address why those numbers went wrong in the first place. And once you see the full ledger of risks against that backdrop, the approach looks less like a medical breakthrough and more like an elaborate, profitable way of not asking the obvious question.
https://sayerji.substack.com/p/silencing-the-alarm-why-glp-1-drugs