CurlySlacker42
Explorer
Gift link to article: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/18/...e_code=1.rFA.BoVF.jM01MgRhLDWF&smid=url-share
I don’t care for alarmist articles like this.
I don’t care for alarmist articles like this.
NYT Thriving Black Market for a powerful Weight Loss Drug
- Thread starter CurlySlacker42
- Start date
spanky2026
Explorer
Amusing that pieces like this toss in just 1 sentence of token acknowledgment about the obvious issue nobody wants to name: the reason folks go grey rather than sticking with big pharma. Cost and getting a prescription? Hardly brought up at all. Nah, better to focus on the terrifying criminal Underworld, ooooh.
trojanpeptide
Explorer
the Times...
enough said
enough said
CurlySlacker42
Explorer
While the piece itself steers clear of the subject, the comment section takes it on.
“If health insurance didnt keep forcing people off these amazing meds or not allowing people to try them at all, maybe there wouldn't be so many who are so desperate that they feel they must turn to compounding or the black market. And, this is not even counting all those who don't have health insurance at all. The man in the article, at 447 pounds, was clearly not being helped enough by his doctors or his insurance. What is someone like that man, supposed to do, then? Diets, calorie counting and exercise do not work for the severely overweight.”
But that comment misses the mark entirely.
Insurers have every reason not to hand Big Pharma <$1K monthly for each patient.
Given that 75% of US adults are overweight or worse, plus a generous stretch of guaranteed exclusivity on sales, Big Pharma stands to rake in an enormous windfall—recouping all R&D and FDA costs many times over—even at a far lower price point. And Big Insurance would almost certainly greenlight just about anyone without much fuss.
mybodyisasewer
Explorer
My goodness, the sheer amount of work they put into twisting every detail with evasive phrasing and emotionally charged wording. It starts with the headline calling it a "black market," even though a grey market and a black market are plainly not the same thing. Anyone who has brought in a JDM Skyline can tell you that. "What they believe to be retatrutide" — as though independent lab testing were somehow fictional. Ms. Blum strains to make it sound as frightening as she can.
The piece also hands Eli a platform:
That statement is absurd on its face. Reta is a molecule. Its structure is known. There is only 1 structure. It can be synthesized, tested, and measured. That is like Dasani saying nobody can copy their H2O molecule. Only Dasani sells authentic H2O. And naturally, Ms. Blum offers zero challenge, letting them close out that part of the article.
Some loophole. Try applying that logic to any other dangerous item: "Gerber markets their knives as not for honor killings — a disclaimer that may let them exploit a loophole in knife regulation."
Do you see how shutting this "loophole" would mean assigning intent to people who have shown none? That is called projection.
As I kept reading, it became exhausting. Whole paragraphs devoted to praising FDA approval, cautioning about the fallout from breaking their rules. Fearmongering shows up in their long-winded account of law enforcement actions. The fearmongering does not stop there:
Even if that number is accurate, it means reta has already preserved more lives than it has destroyed, making it a net positive. Notice they cite no fatalities. They provide NO specific detail whatsoever, because they know what would happen if they examined those 40 cases...
Ultimately, the writer and her outlet are paid promoters. Dani Blum is an assistant editor at Forbes, and her journalistic record is mostly frivolous topics.
The NYT is led by A. G. Sulzberger, and his sister, Gabrielle Sulzberger, sits on the Eli Lilly board of directors. She has also been on the boards of Mastercard and Whole Foods.
These are not honest actors, and I am fed up with everything being propaganda.
The piece also hands Eli a platform:
That statement is absurd on its face. Reta is a molecule. Its structure is known. There is only 1 structure. It can be synthesized, tested, and measured. That is like Dasani saying nobody can copy their H2O molecule. Only Dasani sells authentic H2O. And naturally, Ms. Blum offers zero challenge, letting them close out that part of the article.
Some loophole. Try applying that logic to any other dangerous item: "Gerber markets their knives as not for honor killings — a disclaimer that may let them exploit a loophole in knife regulation."
Do you see how shutting this "loophole" would mean assigning intent to people who have shown none? That is called projection.
As I kept reading, it became exhausting. Whole paragraphs devoted to praising FDA approval, cautioning about the fallout from breaking their rules. Fearmongering shows up in their long-winded account of law enforcement actions. The fearmongering does not stop there:
Even if that number is accurate, it means reta has already preserved more lives than it has destroyed, making it a net positive. Notice they cite no fatalities. They provide NO specific detail whatsoever, because they know what would happen if they examined those 40 cases...
Ultimately, the writer and her outlet are paid promoters. Dani Blum is an assistant editor at Forbes, and her journalistic record is mostly frivolous topics.
The NYT is led by A. G. Sulzberger, and his sister, Gabrielle Sulzberger, sits on the Eli Lilly board of directors. She has also been on the boards of Mastercard and Whole Foods.
These are not honest actors, and I am fed up with everything being propaganda.
spanky2026
Explorer
Yes, exactly — say it louder for the people in the back!
trojanpeptide
Explorer
Did you skip over my comment?
CurlySlacker42
Explorer
That's fair. Do you figure the cost of these glp1s will drop at some point?
CurlySlacker42
Explorer
“Eli Lilly's board of directors includes Gabrielle Sulzberger”
Talk about a conflict of interest, huh?????
A fresh delivery mechanism will be patented on top of the existing drug, and then a rationale will be "found" claiming that older delivery approaches are unsafe — leading to bans or at minimum strong discouragement.
On top of that, naturally, there's everything new and improved in development that renders the previous drugs seem obsolete (never mind that they continue to work fine for plenty of people). As things stand even within the grey market, semaglutide options are basically nowhere to be found.
CurlySlacker42
Explorer
With Semaglutide, I dealt with some pretty unpleasant gastrointestinal issues; Tirzepatide, on the other hand, has produced only minor side effects for me. My guess is that plenty of others have gone through something comparable.
TooGood76
Explorer
Right now, how the public views insurance companies is higher than it has been in a generation. Sure, they spend heavily on lobbying, but my read is that fixing this will soon turn into a real campaign issue, and the support that comes from pushing insurance reform will force some movement in the industry — maybe not massive movement, but meaningful, and naturally it won't happen overnight.
On top of that, I think pharma will be pushing for the same thing. At this point, what keeps Lilly and Novo from making even more money is insurers saying no to covering these drugs. From interviews I've come across with the Lilly CEO, he clearly gets this, and you can be sure they are cutting checks to politicians to make something happen — the return is simply too big to ignore.
Also, when a medication's patent does finally lapse, additional rules exist that shield the company that gets to market with a generic first — which naturally makes other generic makers think twice about trying to compete.
Two examples make the point. In India, sema lost patent protection this year. For years beforehand, Indian generic companies had been gearing up for that expiry, and many generics hit the market on day one. From what I can tell, a month's supply runs about $20-$30. NN registered a series of new patents and even took generic makers to court, but under Indian law none of that held up.
In the US, liraglutide (a weaker drug than even sema) lost patent protection in 2017. The same NN playbook that failed in India succeeded in the US under our rules, and NN managed to stretch the patent out to 2024. What does generic victoza cost in the US today, two years on? $200-$300 a month. Never mind Saxenda, the weight-loss version — they likely have years left on that one.
No one should hold their breath waiting for a generic glp-1 at any sensible cash price. Ever.