You’re going to have to be more specific, because I am sure you are not arguing against the concept of medicine.

I argue that medicine still does not have enough accumulated knowledge about the complexity of the human body to be playing God with a single pill.

You may begin your argument now

There is no god. So I argue that medicine is at least just as potent as nothing.

Maybe ... maybe not.

Modern medicine does have magic pills for many illnesses; for example, antibiotics are magical for many bacterial infections, many vaccines are almost magical too.

OTOH, many pills will have undesired side-effects, and the body is in a complex dynamic equilibrium, so it may happen that blocking GLP-1 may have side effects.

Eventually, we'll all die, but I'm optimistic that GLP-1 will lead to a better equilibrium. Preliminary evidence says it will. I'm not as confident as the author though :)

You're right, but the way you're going about it isn't.

Any single pill? Or is your objection specific to this one? (That iirc is actually an injection, not a pill, but w/e)

You don’t believe the medicine that billions of people take to treat diseases that would’ve otherwise demonstrably killed them is “accumulated knowledge” enough? From insulin to antibiotics, we have sufficient evidence that many types of medicine DO work. Nobody is “playing god” (whatever that means), it’s just reproducible and consistent data

Patented medicines aren't medicine, they're poisons.

Always have been. Always will be.

You can achieve better effects than this poison simply by eating closer to how humans ate in the 1800's.

[0] https://breckyunits.com/patentsArePoison.html

Try telling a type 1 diabetic patient to eat like it's the 1800s

> a type 1 diabetic patient

Are you sure there is such a thing?

Yes.

And what biological test can one conduct that proves this, and is unchangeable over time?

Are diabetics biased in this way when they take insulin? Or where is your cutoff?

How many average person years does an intervention need to save before it meets your approval?

Untreated diabetics can die within a week. Are we facing the same sort of problem here?

No, but same thing with different numbers.

Like I asked, where's our cutoff? If obesity on average kills you a couple of decades earlier than otherwise, does treatment for that meet your approval?

> No, but same thing

They're either the same or they're different.

> Like I asked, where's our cutoff?

Exigency of loss of life.

> kills you a couple of decades earlier

Staying obese into old age carries risks. There are multiple ways to manage that risk. None of it is as exigent as other conditions.

> does treatment for that meet your approval?

Universally? No.

>> Like I asked, where's our cutoff?

> Exigency of loss of life.

Cool. How about cancer treatment? Some of those you can live with for some months/years. We allowed to treat anyway when the outcomes are better?

> Staying obese into old age carries risks. There are multiple ways to manage that risk. None of it is as exigent as other conditions.

And why should this not be one of the ways to manage that risk? The biggest difference seems to be that it actually works, on average, unlike some other common treatments like telling people to eat less and exercise more.