The Guardian has reported this morning that:
People on weight loss drugs regain all the weight they have lost within a year of stopping the medication, analysis has shown.
Analysis of 11 studies of older and newer GLP-1 weight loss drugs by the University of Oxford found that patients typically lost 8kg on weight loss jabs but returned to their original weight within 10 months of stopping them.
The study, presented at the European Congress on Obesity, found that even for those taking newer, higher-dose weight loss drugs such as Wegovy and Mounjaro, people put weight back on once they stopped treatment.
Why note this? That is because what this evidence makes very clear is what I have been suggesting on this blog for a while, and that is that the purpose of these drugs is not to solve the problem of obesity. It is instead intended to create a new form of dependency, or even addiction. In this case, this dependency is on the weight loss drugs that the person becomes totally reliant upon to maintain their body image, and so their mental health, whatever the physical health side effects might be (and they can be serious, with significant potential long-term costs to the NHS).
The serious medical side effects of these drugs are ignored by most of their users. They want the dopamine hit of being slimmer without having to adjust their lifestyles, or to address the other addictions that they must shake off if they are to achieve sustainable weight loss. Those addictions are most especially to sugar and carbohydrates.
The GLP-1 drug industry is not, I suggest, interested in the side effects of its drugs. These are, as far as it is concerned, an economic externality that they can ignore as someone else (the state) will bear that cost.
And they are definitely not interested in suggesting that the other addictions that those who become dependent on their drugs might have be addressed, because if they were, then the steady flow of new sugar and carbohydrate addicts on which their business model now depends will be impacted.
Most bizarrely, the NHS, whose job it should be to see through all this and rise above it, very clearly does not do so. It has been captured by commercial interests whose only interest is in promoting addiction or dependency, at the very least.
All the GLP-1 drugs have done is add another drug on which people can become dependent, quite possibly for life, to the vast array that the NHS already spends a fortune on to keep the medical-pharmaceutical industry in the extraordinary level of profits to which it has become accustomed, without ever actually solving almost any of our real health problems, to all of which it turns a blind eye, as to address them would reduce their future earnings.
There is a sickness at the heart of the NHS in the form of drug companies, who are fleecing us all.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
There is pretty good evidence that long term use of some drugs such as aspirin or statins can have benefits in people with cardiovascular problems, which is most people when we get older. Generics (after patent expiry) can be very cheap. There can be side effects, but as the drugs have been used for a long time we have a clear picture of that. As with all things there is a balance of risk and reward, between one action and another, or action and inaction.
There are some pretty clear health impacts from being overweight. If people had the ability to eat better and exercise more then they could be doing that already. No doubt we need more research on the long term use of GLP-1 agonists, but perhaps for some people achieving and maintaining a lower weight in that way is better than not.
Put it another way. I am not encouraging anyone to start vaping, or chewing nicotine, or wearing nicotine patches. But if you are a habitual cigarette smoker already, they could be part of a process towards stopping. Even if you never manage to stop the replacement, it is probably better than not. Even if we distrust the “big pharma” companies that manufacture the alternatives, and the cost of providing them, and would prefer that people “just” (ha ha) use willpower to overcome their addiction.
Re statins, these are lipid lowering. People with higher lipids have longer life expectancy.
Depends on which type of lipids (lipoproteins) predominate in any given person.
From Wikipedia:
Lipoproteins may be classified as five major groups, listed from larger and lower density to smaller and higher density. Lipoproteins are larger and less dense when the fat to protein ratio is increased. They are classified on the basis of electrophoresis, ultracentrifugation and nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy via the Vantera Analyzer.
*Chylomicrons carry triglycerides (fat) from the intestines to the liver, to skeletal muscle, and to adipose tissue.
*Very-low-density lipoproteins (VLDL) carry (newly synthesised) triglycerides from the liver to adipose tissue.
*Intermediate-density lipoproteins (IDL) are intermediate between VLDL and LDL. They are not usually detectable in the blood when fasting.
*Low-density lipoproteins (LDL) carry 3,000 to 6,000 fat molecules (phospholipids, cholesterol, triglycerides, etc.) around the body. LDL particles are sometimes referred to as “bad” lipoprotein because concentrations of two kinds of LDL (sd-LDL and LPA), correlate with atherosclerosis progression. In healthy individuals, most LDL is large and buoyant (lb LDL).
**large buoyant LDL (lb LDL) particles
**small dense LDL (sd LDL) particles
*Lipoprotein(a) (LPA) is a lipoprotein particle of a certain phenotype
*High-density lipoproteins (HDL) collect fat molecules from the body’s cells/tissues and take them back to the liver. HDLs are sometimes referred to as “good” lipoprotein because higher concentrations correlate with low rates of atherosclerosis progression and/or regression.
LDL is the main reason for statins
When I saw the article yesterday, I wondered if someone has researched the cohort being studied for blood sugar levels and any altered tendency to type 2 diabetes, while losing weight on the injections, (and less overall food intake) but no changes in dietary composition or other lifestyle changes? (they still eat the same rubbish food but less of it due to reduced hunger)
Losing weight will help with hip/knee/ankle osteoarthritis and possibly blood pressure, maybe even some cancers, but unless it reduces the diabetes epidemic, then the NHS won’t benefit much.
Of course, all this regaining of weight after Wegovy ceases, does count as “growth” I suppose, so McTeam will be happy.
There are major complications with heart disease and more. There are also mental ill health complications.
I think I have seen, in the last week, a report that these jabs can reduce cancer risk. It may be a bit obvious, but if major risk factors for cancer are UPF consumption and obesity, and these things reduce UPF consumption and obesity, is it those reductions that reduce cancer risk, rather than the jabs per se?
They reduce cancver risk by reducing insulin.
Bizarrely, we give diabetics more insulin….when their bodies already produce too much, and there is no routine testing of insulin levels in the UK, which lets this happen.
Actually, type 2 diabetes (type 1 is very different) rarely requires that extra insulin: it needs dietary change. But that is not what is prescribed.
Investment to make money – not to solve problems.
Hell on earth.
and as part of the nefarious communication system promoting these drugs – who does the BBC turn to for authoritative comment ? none other than ‘academic’ Sir John Bell of Oxford who has thousands / millions in various pharmaceutic companies.
He even had the luxury of when being pushed to say these miracle drugs would extend lives and save the NHS = being able to say ‘ well , it has yet to be fully demonstrated’ (a coded ‘but probably yes’?)
I do not trust him.
Great article, I fully agree. GLP medications, like most other medications mask the root cause and only treat the symptoms. As someone who has struggled with my weight for most of my life, it wasn’t until I reached out to a nutritionist that I started to understand how to eat. 20kg down later (and counting) I feel I am finally in a position to be able to understand food a lot better and make better choices (though sadly not always). Luckily, I am able to afford to do that – not everyone is in the same position.
Obesity and its related illnesses is a massive strain on society – it requires something that we as readers of this blog know the government won’t do as they, more often than not, don’t look an the non tangible benefits – everything now is a financial transaction – I’m talking about investing in educating people how to eat properly from a young age, stopping the culture of healthy foods costing 3 to 4 times what a fried meal with chips and a fizzy drink will cost. Subsidising gyms and activities that people can enjoy.
But one point I think should also be highlighted is, despite advances in technology which was supposedly going to make our lives easier and free up time, the cost of living is rapidly increasing. Everyone (unless born into extreme wealth or a Royal) is required to work – it is difficult to have a decent standard of living if one person stays at home. This results in people having very little time. A healthy homecooked meal when you get in from work at around 630-7 isn’t easy – so many people understandably take the convenient option instead.
Thanks
When working full time, I used to prepare a meal in more portions than necessary, freeze the extra portions until needed, pop what was needed for the evening into the slow cooker, and a meal was ready when back from work – now of course, you can use a microwave – it is just a discipline of planning – far healthier and far cheaper. One pot meals are delicious and can be nutritious.
Agreed.
The slow cooker was my friend when my guys were teenagers.
Thank you, Richard.
Not unrelated: https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2025/05/wall-street-journal-reports-unitedhealth-under-criminal-investigation-for-medicare-fraud.html.
United Health is a big donor to some Labour politicians. Former staff are or have been NHS executives.
I’ll take a read
Interesting, Colonel Smithers. So when the first case against United Health in 2011 was in court, it looks like Lord Stevens was the CEO. Is that right? Is that why he left? And why did he them become CEO of the NHS?
https://www.hsj.co.uk/policy-and-regulation/timeline-simon-stevens-in-the-nhs/7029995.article
These drugs are being promoted as wonder drugs to cure/prevent every know ailment.
Main stream media ignores the side effects, the long term risks to users, the dependency problems and the massive NHS costs, drug company profits.
What a bonkers world.
There are already lawsuits against diet drug manufactures because of the potential side effects caused by these drugs, often more severe and more frequent than described.
It is of no surprise that the mass media are pushing these substances, who make a lot of money from advertising.
Diet and nutrition are far better at addressing obesity, as long as you ignore the food manufacturer’s guidelines (alcohol, ultraprocessed foods, sugars and carbs)
Sources
Ozempic Lawsuit Overview, https://www.robertkinglawfirm.com/personal-injury/ozempic-lawsuit/
https://www.lawsuit-information-center.com/ozempic-gastroparesis-lawsuit.html
https://www.drugwatch.com/legal/ozempic-lawsuit/
Thanks for posting the link to the You Tube of the presentation at the Cato Institute, Ian. Incredible stuff, but speaking as a retired academic not surprising that research – or lack of it – was used in this way. And once a theory/approach dominates in a particular field it’s easy to freeze out or exclude alternative views. As Richard knows as well as I do with regard to the ‘science’ of economics in particular, where any argument that was neoliberal – or tried to present the real world – as in political economy – got pretty much nowhere, while ‘econometric’ and such stuff was allowed to dominate.
Agreed, entirely.
James O’Brien on LBC is discussing/debating this very topic right now (11:30am) on his morning radio show and the calls from listeners who are or have taken the drugs echo and underscore a lot of your comments above based on their own lived-in experience.
On the wider question about role/responsibility of NHS, how do you think this should be tackled effectively? I totally agree with you about changing lifestyles, food addiction, mental health, psychology, exercise, avoid sugar and carbohydrates, etc etc all which can and should really help achieve sustainable weight loss and manage cravings etc.
How/What can the NHS do immediately and/or over a relatively short period of time to actually solve our real health problems? For example, should the drugs be means tested and/or only given on the condition that the patient also undergoes other treatment/therapy/counselling and/or implements changes to diet/lifestyle and are able to demonstrate they have been following the guidance on nutrition/lifestyle etc and dealing with their mental health.
I think this is hard.
I had to bnreak my addiction to cakes, and I have largely eliminated bread. I used to run on buns, as a friend said.
I am now 8kg down. Ths discipline is worth it, and I eat a lot more fat, which seems to be just fine. Call it cheese, whoch i have always loved. If is a bit more expensive, but massively cheaper than weight loss drugs.
The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat, and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet by Nina Teicholz (2014)
https://amzn.eu/d/00f8y1c
Big Fat Nutrition Policy | Nina Teicholz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzQAHITIUhg
These ideas are working for me – and I feel bette for it, sleep better and have the energy to do quite a lot.
It’s well known that many struggle to keep weight off after dieting anyway, so having lost weight without having to build that self-control is always going to be harder.
I do have some questions about the study, though. Obviously guidelines are that people shouldn’t be on the drugs for more than 2 years. I wonder whether that will change as longer-term effects become better understood, and particularly as tablet rather than injection forms become available. Perhaps spending longer at a lower weight (e.g. 5 years) would prove more likely to result in fully established patterns that maintain the weight loss better.
Aside from that, there’s also the question of whether 2 years at a healthier weight has benefits even if weight is later regained, or conversely, whether that rapid loss and regain creates harm compared to a more stable weight. Equally, whether there’s any studies with control groups that didn’t diet and what the average weight change was there – if someone returns to their previous weight but would have got even heavier otherwise they’re still benefiting.
Ultimately long-term dependence on weight loss drugs is not desirable, but it may still be the lesser of 2 evils compared to untreated obesity.
Its an old quote but a good one; “a patient cured, is a customer lost.” Big Pharma exists to make a profit, nothing else.
Ownership of big businesses like food and pharmaceuticals is probably one big web, your article seems to suggest. I hadn’t considered that before. Literally sickening, particularly as anyone on a very tight budget is bound to eat more carbohydrate and less vegetables, protein and sound fat, due to the price of real food.
I recently said at my GP surgery that I would not take statins. Then I thought why did I say that? The doctor is bound to recommend them, being tramelled by guidelines. Should have kept quiet. Can doctors exercise their own judgement on these matters any more? Or is it all thresholds and recommended drugs? A terrible situation to be put in, soul-destroying.
The picture you paint of drug-dependent people unable to get better is dystopian, and I fear you are right. The Eatwell plate will still be carbs from 12 o’clock to 4:30 for the foreseeable future.
A doctor who refused to prescribe statins would not last for long.
I will not go near GPs becuase I do not want to come away with the ten repeat prescriptions they think all men of 67 should be on.
I have every confidence in my GP, and in the 3 repeat prescriptions I am on at age 69. One to help prevent the recurrence of a serious illness I had in 2016 (those end next year) and 2 to prevent my osteopenia (partly caused by the first drug) developing into osteoporosis.
All fully explained and agreed before being accepted.
I do accept, however, that GP’s can be guilty of over-prescribing, partly because they don’t have the time to do anything else.
I know someone who would agree with you on the last issue.
I think you’re being a bit unfair on GPs, Richard. Certainly the ones at my practice. I’m a couple of years older than you and recently had a health (‘well man’) check. I saw a different GP to the one I saw a year ago, and on neither occasion have they suggested anything more than the two types of medication that I’ve taken for a while. One’s to help control one of the after effects of having my prostate removed. And the other is the lowest dose of statin it’s possible to get. The latter because at one time my ‘bad’ cholesterol was a bit high, and that dose is enough – but no more – to keep it ok. Indeed, this time around I asked about dropping the post prostate med as I wasn’t sure it was that effective (and I know it’s an expensive drug as it’s not one of those out of patent), and the GP was more than happy for me to drop it for a trial period and see what happened (it turned out it was working). My wife’s at the same practice and her experience is the same. That said, I fully appreciate that under time pressure and faced with a patient who has various ailments prescription drugs can be an quick and easy solution – and one that most people nowadays might expect/demand as an outcome of a visit to their GP.
My guess is a) you’e fit and b) lucky and c) able to negotiate the NHS. The norm for a man of our age is high. I asked ChatGPT and got this:
The medications prescribed to individuals in this age group often address the following health issues:
• High Blood Pressure (Hypertension): Treated with medications such as ACE inhibitors, calcium-channel blockers, or diuretics. 
• High Cholesterol: Managed using statins. 
• Type 2 Diabetes: Controlled with drugs like metformin or other glucose-lowering agents.
• Heart Conditions: Conditions like atrial fibrillation may require anticoagulants (e.g., warfarin or DOACs) and beta-blockers. 
• Osteoporosis: Prevented or treated with bisphosphonates and vitamin D supplements.
• Chronic Pain or Arthritis: Managed with paracetamol, and occasionally NSAIDs, though these are used cautiously due to potential side effects.
• Mental Health Conditions: Depression or anxiety may be treated with antidepressants.
• Prostate Issues: Medications like alpha-blockers are used for benign prostatic hyperplasia.
• Gastrointestinal Protection: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are prescribed to protect the stomach, especially when using NSAIDs.
Manuy of these will require multiple drugs, and many are over presecribed.
See: “Designed by the food industry for wealth, not health: the ‘Eatwell Guide’” (2016)
by Zoe Harcombe at https://www.zoeharcombe.com/2017/07/designed-by-the-food-industry-for-wealth-not-health-the-eatwell-guide/
yes sadly the unremitting increase in type 2 diabetes, obesity and the widest array of other metabolic-related conditions seems to date back to the introduction of the good old ‘Eat Well’ Plate. Introduced in the early 80s in the absence of an evidence base with barely an update since. Generations assume it must be true as it’s all they’ve ever heard on what a ‘healthy balanced diet’ is supposed to look like. So many of our models that guide people to supposed health are protected ferociously by the drugs industry – not because they are good for us but because they’re good for profits. Instead of allowing alternative hypotheses to be tested over the years, all the research monies have been constrained to the narrowest avenues. So instead of finding solutions the entire medical-industrial complex has succeeded in turning most people into sickly cash cows. Richard – is your household familiar with the work of Malcom Kendrick? Highly recommended and inspiring – try The Clot Thickens…
Thank you, Ian Tresman, that’s a good article. I read up on all this over a decade ago, and it is still not much seen, let alone mainstream.
Thanks for writing on this subject.
To me it appears that everything in today’s world revolves around profits and more of it every year. If pharma companies need to grow and make more money then the number of sick people have to increase every year. The more sick and complex their sickness the more money these pharma companies make. Similarly if weapon manufacturers need to grow their profits we need more dead people i.e. more conflicts and wars. Sorry for being cynical and maybe too simple a generalisation- I do agree there are life saving drugs and millions of lives are being saved across the world due to advances in medical sciences and improved drugs. Having said that, my concerns are around the ethics of the pharma industry – can we put people before profits?
absolutely so. The left (though these days I really hate using the establishment’s terminology that’s designed to keep us distracted and divided) knows full well that the pharmaceutical industry is solely orientated to profit, cannot be trusted, does not have our best interests at heart… and yet just look at how we all lined up unquestioning, sleeves rolled up during the covid debacle. Next time (and we are so often told they know there’s a next time in the pipeline) let’s hope we see the bigger picture and when we are coerced, shamed, bribed into untested medical interventions that we first ask: who stands to gain?
Worth noting, the companies circling the NHS looking for privatisation are only after the long-term, persistent, and treatable conditions, the ones where the patient keeps on paying and paying. They want our diabetics, our long-term mentally ill, our asthmatics, and those with heart conditions. They want our elderly and our desperate cancer patients. They don’t like the unpredictable A&E treatments or complex disabilities requiring expensive specialist care. There’s no profit in that. They want us sick, but if we are dying, we are no use to them.
The people they don’t want are the people who doctors call those “off their legs”.
Mainly old, these people have masses of co-morbidities = complexity, and are a nigthmare to treat.
and tomorrow Parliament votes on the demonic Kim Leadbetter’s Assisted Dying Bill. Problem solved – all those costly, unproductive externalities eliminated with the squeeze of another syringe
… and hence the assisted dying bill…
Richard Murphy says:
May 15 2025 at 4:10 pm
“LDL is the main reason for statins ”
That and the fact that, over the past 30 odd years, statins have been an £800Billion benefit to big pharma.
You can go into your local, bookshop and get all sorts of guides on how to keep domestic pets and fish happy and healthy.
Go to the right places and you can get the same guides for farm animals
Now what about one for humans? All politicians to get a copy gratis
🙂
It’s another instance of Government lacking decent principles. I believe there are a wide range of measures that could be taken to shift the emphasis of medical R&D towards cure and away from long-term treatment. But they don’t seem to be on the horizon. We’re seeing fundamentally the same dereliction of duty towards citizens over and over again.
It’s another instance of Government lacking decent principles. I believe there are a wide range of measures that could be taken to shift the emphasis of medical R&D towards cure and away from long-term treatment. But they don’t seem to be on the horizon. We’re seeing fundamentally the same dereliction of duty towards citizens over and over again.
Sorry to have submitted the same comments twice. I’m struggling with a new phone.
No problem!
I believe that Ozempic has only been on the market for about 6 years and Mounjaro since 2023. Obviously clinical testing was done before their release but still seems a very short time for claims about cancer prevention etc to be taken seriously.
Weight loss – let’s call it fat loss as this is what is needed, as it’s crucial not to lose muscle when dieting, and by losing weight fast, muscle is lost. Result? Lowered metabolism, hence calorie restriction is ever more necessary to keep the weight off!
…So, the pharmaceutical companies producing these drugs are seeing their shares rise as the potential bonanza of having the obese on these drugs from childhood to death.
Slow and steady, is the only way to lose the fat, combined with healthy eating and exercise. Often psychological support is necessary, as eating is so often an emotional comfort; and getting over the processed foods – especially the sugar, carbs and fat combinations which are so addictive – unlike giving up heroin or cocaine you can’t give up food! I tried, and was a failed anorexic. Luckily.
Much to agree with.
Give up cinnamon buns.
…Maybe, a little of what you fancy is ok…and enjoy without guilt 🙂 But for some, moderation is too difficult:(
[…] By Richard Murphy, Professor of Accounting Practice at Sheffield University Management School and a director of the Corporate Accountability Network. Originally published at Funding the Future […]