Three months after stopping the medication, his weight went from 150 jin back up to 210 jin—heavier than before the injections.
The man in Hangzhou was 33 and 1.8 meters tall. A pre-marital health check had flagged insulin resistance, and after an evaluation, his doctor put him on tirzepatide. The wedding was over, so he stopped the injections. Three months. Just three months. Twenty jin came back, plus another six. The doctor put it bluntly: what he lost wasn’t just fat—he lost muscle too. With less muscle, his basal metabolic rate dropped. Once the medication wore off, his appetite returned, and most of what he gained back was fat. That’s really how it goes.
A lot of people think the risks of these drugs are written in the package insert. In reality, the risks are written into the timeline.
Across the Pacific, in the same month, 247 lawsuits had piled up in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, under MDL No. 3163. They were consolidated on December 15 last year; by October 1, that was the total. The lawsuits are about something else: the warning that should have been there, but wasn’t.
There’s a striking figure in the evidence. A July 2024 study in JAMA Ophthalmology followed more than 16,000 patients. The cumulative incidence of optic nerve disorders was 8.9% among those taking the medication, versus 1.8% among those who weren’t. Neither figure is large. But the risk was 4.28 times higher among people with diabetes, and 7.64 times higher among those taking it for weight loss.
And yet the two package inserts don’t say the same thing. In June 2025, Europe classified it as very rare—about one case in 10,000 people. But whoever it happens to, it’s 100%. The U.S. label was updated this May, adding only a sentence telling patients to inform their doctor if they notice any changes in vision. The word NAION didn’t appear. Not once. The WHO also issued a warning last year.
So who’s responsible?
Don’t rush to take sides. This eye condition isn’t unique to weight-loss drugs. People with obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, or sleep apnea are already at higher risk—and they happen to be the main group getting these injections. It’s difficult for observational studies to fully eliminate those confounding factors. In the end, what matters is how the court determines causation. None of the cases has gone to trial yet. The earliest trial is scheduled for 2028; expert reports are due by midyear, and after that, the parties will still have to argue over whether the experts can testify in court.
I looked over the timeline and noticed something else. This drug is sold on the basis of “keep taking it”—one injection after another. Rebound weight gain after stopping has been a consistent finding in clinical trials; it’s not a matter of people failing to control themselves. The charges are monthly, while the risks are measured over years. Those are two entirely different ledgers.
The same structure exists on-chain. Returns arrive that day; the risk sits there for years, until some future liquidation. At least pharmaceutical companies can take a seat in the defendant’s dock. There’s no such thing on-chain. No defendant at all. When a protocol fails, all you can do is fork, liquidate, or replace the contract address. No one will add a line about side effects to the disclosure for your position. No one.
If you’re still taking the injections, it’s worth checking the date you last weighed yourself. As for whether those 247 lawsuits can win, there’s no clear answer.
$BTC $USDC $ETH
#减肥 #GLP1 #PharmaceuticalLitigation
The man in Hangzhou was 33 and 1.8 meters tall. A pre-marital health check had flagged insulin resistance, and after an evaluation, his doctor put him on tirzepatide. The wedding was over, so he stopped the injections. Three months. Just three months. Twenty jin came back, plus another six. The doctor put it bluntly: what he lost wasn’t just fat—he lost muscle too. With less muscle, his basal metabolic rate dropped. Once the medication wore off, his appetite returned, and most of what he gained back was fat. That’s really how it goes.
A lot of people think the risks of these drugs are written in the package insert. In reality, the risks are written into the timeline.
Across the Pacific, in the same month, 247 lawsuits had piled up in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, under MDL No. 3163. They were consolidated on December 15 last year; by October 1, that was the total. The lawsuits are about something else: the warning that should have been there, but wasn’t.
There’s a striking figure in the evidence. A July 2024 study in JAMA Ophthalmology followed more than 16,000 patients. The cumulative incidence of optic nerve disorders was 8.9% among those taking the medication, versus 1.8% among those who weren’t. Neither figure is large. But the risk was 4.28 times higher among people with diabetes, and 7.64 times higher among those taking it for weight loss.
And yet the two package inserts don’t say the same thing. In June 2025, Europe classified it as very rare—about one case in 10,000 people. But whoever it happens to, it’s 100%. The U.S. label was updated this May, adding only a sentence telling patients to inform their doctor if they notice any changes in vision. The word NAION didn’t appear. Not once. The WHO also issued a warning last year.
So who’s responsible?
Don’t rush to take sides. This eye condition isn’t unique to weight-loss drugs. People with obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, or sleep apnea are already at higher risk—and they happen to be the main group getting these injections. It’s difficult for observational studies to fully eliminate those confounding factors. In the end, what matters is how the court determines causation. None of the cases has gone to trial yet. The earliest trial is scheduled for 2028; expert reports are due by midyear, and after that, the parties will still have to argue over whether the experts can testify in court.
I looked over the timeline and noticed something else. This drug is sold on the basis of “keep taking it”—one injection after another. Rebound weight gain after stopping has been a consistent finding in clinical trials; it’s not a matter of people failing to control themselves. The charges are monthly, while the risks are measured over years. Those are two entirely different ledgers.
The same structure exists on-chain. Returns arrive that day; the risk sits there for years, until some future liquidation. At least pharmaceutical companies can take a seat in the defendant’s dock. There’s no such thing on-chain. No defendant at all. When a protocol fails, all you can do is fork, liquidate, or replace the contract address. No one will add a line about side effects to the disclosure for your position. No one.
If you’re still taking the injections, it’s worth checking the date you last weighed yourself. As for whether those 247 lawsuits can win, there’s no clear answer.
$BTC $USDC $ETH
#减肥 #GLP1 #PharmaceuticalLitigation