zlacker

>>giulio+(OP)
I do think this could only be temporary victory over the food industry by the pharmacology industry. It's only a matter of time until food additives or varieties are discovered that partially ameliorate the effects of ozempic.

>>reedf1+w4
... do you have any evidence to back up this claim?

>>dizlex+R4
It's a prediction. Not a terribly unreasonable one as far as I can see. If a drug can move 5% of the ~trillion dollars spent on groceries in the US, there's a lot of money available for clawing those 5% back.

Demanding evidence for predictions like this is a bit... hm. Arrogant, maybe. A prediction is a commitment. We want people to make predictions. The evidence we get when those predictions come true or not. Would you be willing to make the opposite prediction?

>>vinter+b7
Wanting evidence for random claims is arrogant? I'd say magical thinking is whats arrogant.

>>idiots+P8
A prediction is not a claim.

Predictions operate on events that will happen in the future.

Proofs typically operate on things that already exist.