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

I don't see it that way. Obesity is caused by deteriorating diets and lack of exercise. I don't think the solution is to keep the poor diet and lack of movement and treat only the resulting obesity. That's WALL-E, not paradise.

Many things get better with time and progress but I don't think our current lifestyles are some kind of evolutionary peak.

>and the US just forced TikTok to sell based on national security concerns

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.

But when are those changes going to happen? Ozempic is available today.

> What do you think the ultimate causes of poor diet and lack of movement are?

Cheap and plentiful high-calorie food and you're not forced to move if you've got a desk job. That might be modern but that doesn't mean it's better.

> 5% weight loss at the end of the day, and no cardio metabolic improvement [0]. So basically the net change was super small and cosmetic. I understand this could still be useful for very specific cases, but it's more of a niche that we're willing to admit.

Hey 5% weight loss is pretty good! And remember, there maybe a period of time where the process repeats after getting off (no research to support this yet).

Also, I think you're under-estimating the psychological benefits. The lessened/blunted impulses to eat/do other addictive things might prove to be way more valuable in the time frame than simply the weight loss.

Also, note that the 5% is basically the worst case -- it's possible for more motivated people to keep more than that off, especially if they change their lifestyles appropriately, and importantly the drugs help people get in a headspace to do that.

> I hear you, I and I think we'll see more and more diverse drugs with different mechanisms. I'm just not sure we should be saying "this time it's different" every single time when we could take more measured approach before pushing it to the masses. Right now we're already in the YOLO phase waiting to see how it will pan out now that everyone and their dog want the miracle weight loss drug.

Yeah but I'd say this time it is different -- we've literally never had any weight loss drug that was this effective with so few side effects, and is well studied and essentially has an arms race between the largest pharma companies in the world to produce.

I agree with you though -- it's not a miracle drug, but it's the closest we've seen so far, so that's worth celebrating.

Personally I don't think anyone has to push this drug -- the masses are demanding it -- it's just that only rich people/lucky people with good health plans can afford it so far.