Weight loss medications have been around for decades, but the latest generation of drugs has created a frenzy like never before. Initially developed to manage diabetes, medications such as Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro, and Zepbound have been repurposed for weight loss, with some users reporting dramatic results. These GLP-1 receptor agonists work by mimicking gut hormones that help regulate appetite and insulin levels. As their popularity reaches stratospheric levels, questions are now being asked: Are the drugs a breakthrough, or is the situation more complex?

These medications work by making people feel fuller sooner and for a longer period of time. Research indicates that people on Wegovy (semaglutide) lose about 12% of their weight, while those on Zepbound (tirzepatide) lose about 18%. Besides losing weight, these drugs also appear to have other health benefits like lowering blood pressure, decreasing the risk of heart attacks and strokes, and even potentially treating neurological disorders like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's.

Although these medications have promising outcomes, they do carry potential risks. The most prevalent side effects are nausea, vomiting, fatigue, diarrhea, and constipation. Although most individuals adapt to the medication with time, some develop severe reactions. There have been lawsuits filed against pharmaceutical firms by patients who suffered serious gastrointestinal disorders like stomach paralysis and bowel blockages.

The other increasing concern is the psychological one. Patients are urged to stay on the drugs even in the face of adverse effects, which makes them have terrible experiences that degrade their quality of life. Consequently, a large percentage of users drop the medication within several months. A recent survey in the journal Obesity revealed that 19% of people put on these medications were still on them after a year.

GLP-1 medications have been approved by the FDA only for obese patients (BMI of 30 or higher) or those with weight-related conditions such as hypertension. Yet, high demand has resulted in off-label prescribing on a large scale, with people getting them even if they do not qualify. This demand has created national shortages, and the FDA has permitted compounding pharmacies to make generic versions.

Even though they work, access is not an option for most. Insurance only covers them minimally, and Medicare will only pay for weight loss medication if it is for diabetes. With the average cost being $1,300 per month, people from low-income communities, statistically with higher obesity rates, can't afford these drugs.

Weight Loss Drugs: Expectations vs. Reality

Although these drugs are beneficial for one's health, their use in cosmetic weight loss has also come into limelight. Social media is full of sensationalized "before and after" pictures, which create unrealistic hopes. But the so-called "Ozempic face" has been a harsh reminder that weight loss is not necessarily translated into a healthier and younger looks.

Do You Have to Take These Weight Loss Medications Forever?

One of the most contentious issues with GLP-1 medications is the long-term commitment they necessitate. Recent studies suggest that those who stop taking these medications tend to regain the weight lost. The human body, evolved over time, is programmed to store fat effectively—rendering long-term weight loss a life-long struggle for many.

While lifestyle changes like diet and exercise are crucial aspects of weight control, they're usually not enough by themselves for people with obesity. The question is: Are these drugs a short-term solution, or are they a lifetime solution? And more so, should patients be required to continue taking them for the rest of their lives to keep the weight off?

Do You Have to Take These Weight Loss Drugs Forever?

GLP-1 drugs have unquestionably revolutionized the weight loss scenario, giving hope to millions. Yet, they are far from a silver bullet. The cost, access concerns, side effects, and long-term dependence are all valid issues. Although they do possess undeniable advantages, their efficacy and sustainability are based on the patient's capacity to follow the regimen and accept possible risks.

Before they decide, people need to balance the pros against the cons and seek the advice of healthcare professionals to see whether these drugs fit into their health agenda. As science continues to develop, the future of GLP-1s is potentially even brighter—but for now, they are both a revolutionary solution and a highly contentious issue in the battle against obesity.

What's Next for Weight Loss Drugs Worldwide?

While pharmaceutical manufacturers continue to innovate and perfect weight loss drugs, future research will be what decides their long-term effect. US pharma major Eli Lilly launched the much-awaited diabetes and obesity management drug Mounjaro in India on Thursday at one-fifth of the US price. With obesity rates rising in India, the market for weight loss drugs has grown exponentially in the country. Novo Nordisk's oral semaglutide tablet, Rybelsus, launched in India in January 2022, has already captured nearly 65 per cent of the anti-obesity drugs market, which includes other weight-loss medications such as dulaglutide, orlistat, and liraglutide.

Washington is gearing up to drop part two of its “Make America Healthy Again” agenda, and expectations are high. The first MAHA assessment, delivered to the White House this spring, framed a blunt thesis — American children are getting sicker, faster, and the drivers are mostly man-made. The follow-up “Strategy” report, due to be unveiled after it’s transmitted to the White House, is supposed to move from diagnosis to action. If you care about what kids eat, breathe, watch, and are prescribed, this matters.

Below is what the first report already established, what the new one is likely to do with it, and why the battles ahead won’t be tidy.

The White House’s MAHA Assessment was explicit: the United States faces a childhood chronic disease crisis and four forces are doing the heavy lifting — ultra-processed foods, cumulative chemical exposures, inactivity and chronic stress in a digital era, and over-medicalization of kids. It also laid out the machinery: an executive order created a Commission chaired by the Health and Human Services Secretary, tasked to deliver an assessment within 100 days and a strategy within 180 days, with the President’s senior health, science, and budget leaders named as members.

A few data points stood out. The Assessment claims more than 40 percent of U.S. children have at least one chronic condition; it attributes nearly 70 percent of kids’ calories to ultra-processed foods; and it argues that regulatory gaps allow cumulative chemical exposures to stack up in ways our policies haven’t kept pace with. It also points to soaring screen time, sleep loss, and stress, and warns that a culture of “treat first, ask later” has normalized aggressive medication in pediatrics.

The White House

That framing signals where the Strategy is headed. Let’s break it down into five likely reveals.

1) A push to de-normalize ultra-processed foods in federal programs

Expect the Strategy to take aim at ultra-processed foods (UPFs) across the programs Washington controls or influences — school meals, WIC, SNAP, and federal procurement. The Assessment spends an entire section on UPFs, arguing they displace nutrient-dense foods and expose kids to additives and sweeteners that track with obesity and metabolic disease. It cites the “nearly 70 percent” figure for children’s calories from UPFs and positions whole foods as the default standard. That sets up obvious levers: revising food specifications in school nutrition, tightening allowable additives in federally funded meals, and incentivizing regional supply chains for minimally processed foods.

Here’s what that could look like in practice: higher reimbursement tiers for scratch-cooked menus; procurement standards that limit defined UPF categories; clearer front-of-package transparency tied to federal vending or contracting; and pilot funds for districts to install basic cooking capacity. Because the Assessment explicitly links diet quality with chronic disease trajectories, the Strategy will likely argue these are health spend-avoidance, not just nutrition line items.

2) Chemicals: from single-substance safety to cumulative risk

Another likely pillar is an attempt to modernize how agencies evaluate environmental exposures. The Assessment flags that children are uniquely vulnerable to a growing “aggregation” of synthetic chemicals, and suggests current frameworks don’t adequately capture cumulative or mixture effects. Translation: don’t be surprised if the Strategy proposes a cross-agency effort to incorporate cumulative risk methodology, faster review cycles for chemicals common in food contact materials or school environments, and a more aggressive stance on data transparency around exposure sources.

Politically, this is the hottest burner. Farm groups already bristled at the Assessment’s references to studies linking common pesticides with cancer and liver problems. Expect the Strategy to thread the needle: phase-ins, exemptions for certain crops, and “safer substitution” funds for growers, while still signaling a turn away from chemicals with weak pediatric safety margins. The Assessment’s section on “corporate capture” and regulatory conflicts of interest previews tougher conflict-of-interest guardrails, which could extend to advisory panels and grantmaking.

3) Digital-age health: screen time, sleep, and movement standards with teeth

The Assessment ties a “decline of physical activity,” chronic stress, rising screen use, and sleep deprivation to worsening pediatric health. If the Strategy builds on that, look for concrete targets: daily movement minutes in schools, device-free windows for homework platforms, and funding for safe routes and after-school sport access in low-income districts. It may also propose standardizing sleep education and mental health screening in pediatric primary care tied to reimbursement, treating movement and sleep as vital signs rather than nice-to-haves.

To avoid culture-war potholes, the Strategy will likely focus on harms that enjoy broad consensus — sleep debt, musculoskeletal issues, sedentary behavior — rather than content moderation. Still, you can expect language urging “age-appropriate design” and data-minimizing defaults for platforms used in schools.

4) Reining in over-medicalization: audit the incentives, elevate prevention

One of the Assessment’s most provocative claims is that American children are “on too much medicine,” driven in part by research, regulatory, and clinical incentives that reward treatment over prevention. That sets the stage for a Strategy that asks payers to reimburse prevention like care: nutrition counseling, family-based lifestyle interventions, metabolic screening for high-risk kids, and deprescribing reviews. Expect pilots that tie Medicaid and CHIP dollars to prevention outcomes, encourage collaborative care models, and require pediatric-specific evidence for high-volume prescribing categories.

Don’t be surprised if the Strategy also calls for stronger disclosure and firewall rules around financial conflicts in guideline writing and clinical education, consistent with the Assessment’s “revolving door” critique. The goal is not to stigmatize necessary medicine, but to flip default settings so the first move is to address root causes when appropriate.

5) A whole-of-government playbook — with deadlines and dashboards

The Assessment is clear about timelines: the Commission delivers an Assessment, then a Strategy. The Strategy’s credibility hinges on measurable targets, agency owners, and public reporting. Expect a “whole-of-government” matrix that assigns tasks to HHS, USDA, EPA, Education, VA, OMB, OSTP, and FDA leadership — the very roles listed in the Assessment — with 6-, 12-, and 24-month deliverables. Think: a public dashboard tracking UPF prevalence in school meals, children’s exposure biomarkers in national surveys, physical activity minutes, and antibiotic or stimulant prescribing trends in pediatrics.

Given the White House’s emphasis on “radical transparency” in the Assessment — and its explicit statement that the Strategy must be “grounded in a common scientific basis” — the rollout may include commitment to open datasets, independent replication grants, and rapid-cycle pilots with third-party evaluation. That’s how you translate rhetoric into durable policy.

The White House

What Could Spark The Biggest Debates And Controversies?

Two flashpoints are already visible. First, agriculture and chemical policy: any move perceived as undermining pesticide tools or vilifying mainstream farming will face hard pushback. Second, the food industry: voluntary pledges to tweak recipes won’t cut it for nutrition advocates, but mandatory standards risk court challenges and supply-chain friction. The Strategy’s reception will hinge on whether it pairs higher standards with real transition help — procurement guarantees for farmers, grants for school kitchens, and a phase-in timeline that’s realistic.

On screens and stress, expect fewer fireworks — parents, clinicians, and schools largely agree kids need more sleep and movement — but the implementation details matter. Unfunded mandates will stall; funded pilots with clear metrics can move.

How To Read The Report When It Releases?

When the Strategy drops, skip the slogans and scan for five things: specific agency actions, measurable targets, funding sources, timelines, and independent evaluation. If those are present — and aligned with the Assessment’s four drivers — you’re looking at more than a press conference.

If they’re vague, the headline risk is that the Strategy becomes another well-intended framework that fades by the next budget cycle.

The MAHA Assessment argued that kids’ health is failing not because we lack medical breakthroughs, but because daily exposures — to engineered foods, chemicals, screens, stress, and quick-fix prescribing — have outpaced our policies. The Strategy’s job is to reverse that equation with rules, incentives, and transparency that make the healthy choice the default in schools, clinics, and communities. If it delivers clear standards for food, modernized chemical risk policies, funded movement and sleep initiatives, and a rebalanced payment system that rewards prevention, it could mark a real turn.

Health officials are sounding the alarm across the Gulf Coast and beyond as cases of Vibrio vulnificus—a rare but lethal “flesh-eating” bacteria—are climbing to levels that have experts deeply concerned. This year alone, infections have killed multiple people in Florida, Louisiana, and North Carolina, with reports trickling in from other coastal states. For a bacterium that kills roughly one in five people it infects, this uptick is not a statistic anyone takes lightly.

Historically, Vibrio vulnificus was an uncommon public health threat, with Louisiana, for example, averaging around seven cases a year over the last decade. In 2023, that number has more than doubled to 17 confirmed infections, four of which proved fatal. Florida, a state with a much larger coastline and higher exposure risk, has already reported 16 cases and at least five deaths. North Carolina has also logged multiple cases and one confirmed death.

While these numbers may seem small compared to seasonal flu or other infections, the stakes are higher: this bacteria can destroy tissue, trigger sepsis, and kill within days. Even with hospitalization, survival is not guaranteed.

How the Flesh-Eating Bacteria Attacks?

Vibrio vulnificus is perhaps most infamous for its causing of necrotizing fasciitis—a swift, virulent infection that kills skin, fat, and muscle tissue. The "flesh-eating" moniker is no hyperbole. Once within the body, the bacteria reproduce rapidly, secreting toxins that kill surrounding tissue and break down the body's defense mechanisms. Two major routes of infection exist:

Through open sores: If you have an open cut, scrape, or even a new tattoo and come in contact with seawater or brackish water that contains the bacteria, you may be in danger.

Through infected seafood: Consuming raw or improperly cooked shellfish—particularly oysters—can deposit the bacteria right into your gut.

Once infection sets in, symptoms can appear within hours. These include redness, swelling, pain, fever, blistering lesions, and in severe cases, septic shock. Without swift medical treatment, death can occur in just a couple of days.

Why Cases Are Increasing Now?

There’s no single explanation for the spike in cases, but scientists and public health agencies are looking closely at several factors.

Warmer waters: Vibrio vulnificus thrives in warm, brackish waters. Between May and October, Gulf Coast water temperatures are ideal breeding grounds. Climate change is pushing average ocean temperatures higher, expanding the bacteria’s habitat farther north than ever before. In recent years, infections have been documented in states like Connecticut and New York—places previously considered low risk.

Storm activity: Hurricanes and tropical storms stir up coastal waters, spreading the bacteria into new areas and concentrating it in floodwaters. Florida’s “extremely active” hurricane seasons in recent years may have amplified exposure.

Environmental shifts: Researchers are investigating unusually high levels of plankton and chlorophyll in parts of Florida’s panhandle waters, which may correlate with surges in Vibrio populations.

For survivors, the road back to health can be long and grueling. In severe wound infections, surgeons often have to remove infected tissue, sometimes leading to amputations. One Florida patient described doctors marking the spread of infection up his leg with a pen to track its progress—three weeks of hospitalization and aggressive antibiotics eventually saved his limb. Others are not so fortunate.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), about 80,000 cases of vibriosis occur in the US each year, most linked to milder Vibrio species causing gastrointestinal illness. But Vibrio vulnificus is different: it’s less common but far deadlier. Roughly 20% of infections result in death.

Who Is At Maximum Risk of Exposure?

While anyone can contract Vibrio vulnificus, certain groups face a much higher risk of severe illness or death. These include:

• People with liver disease
• Those with weakened immune systems
• People with chronic illnesses like diabetes or cancer
• Adults over 65

For these groups, even minor exposure can quickly escalate into a life-threatening infection.

How Can You Protect Yourself?

Public health agencies are urging people—especially in Gulf Coast states—to take precautions:

• Avoid swimming in warm seawater or brackish water if you have an open wound, cut, or recent piercing/tattoo.
• Cover wounds with waterproof bandages if you must enter the water.
• Wear protective gloves when handling raw seafood.
• Cook shellfish thoroughly; avoid eating raw oysters from unknown or unsafe sources.

Seek medical attention immediately if you notice signs of infection after exposure. Early treatment with antibiotics can dramatically improve survival odds.

As global patterns change and ocean waters heat up, scientists caution that infections from Vibrio vulnificus will become increasingly prevalent in regions that aren't used to them. Local reports over the last decade indicate the bacteria spreading up the northeastern seaboard, with sporadic cases reaching as far north as New England.

This growth highlights the fact that Vibrio vulnificus is no longer simply a "Gulf Coast issue" – it's a viable threat to any warm coastal area. And with more individuals looking for beach holidays and seafood meals in warm-weather months, awareness joins prevention as paramount.

The increase in fatal Vibrio vulnificus infections is a reminder of the way evolving environmental conditions, human activity, and microbial behavior combine in perilous ways. While the infection remains rare compared to other illnesses, its high fatality rate makes it a serious public health concern.

For now, health experts aren’t calling for people to avoid the ocean entirely but they are urging caution. Cover wounds, skip the raw oysters if you’re in a high-risk group, and don’t ignore early symptoms. Infections can escalate quickly, but with swift recognition and medical treatment, many lives can be saved. The challenge is making sure people know the risk before they wade in.c

Parts of the US, particularly Fort Collins, Colorado, are currently playing host to rabbits with black tentacles that are definitely not pleasing to look at. They have got black, spike-like growths sprouting from their faces, resembling something between sea anemone tentacles and mediaeval torture devices. And officials say you should absolutely avoid touching them.

The unsettling appearance is caused by the cottontail papilloma virus (CRPV), also known as the Shope papilloma virus. This rare condition causes wart-like tumours to erupt on or around the head of a rabbit, eventually hardening into horn-like growths made of keratin, the same stuff your fingernails are made of.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) officials say they do not believe the virus can spread to humans or pets, but the advice is still clear: do not attempt to handle, rescue, or play with these unfortunate creatures.

How It Spreads

CRPV is mostly spread via blood-sucking insects like mosquitoes and ticks. Once they bite an infected rabbit, they can pass the virus to the next one they feed on. The good news is that scientists say it is almost never transmitted by direct rabbit-to-rabbit contact and there is no evidence of insect bites passing the virus to humans.

First signs include small red bumps that eventually morph into grotesque growths. In extreme cases, these tumours can get so large they block the rabbit’s vision, hearing, or even ability to eat, leading to slow starvation.

To Save or Not to Save?

On social media, the debate is heating up over whether it is more humane to euthanise severely infected wild rabbits to prevent suffering.

Animal control officials have not endorsed any such measures. Their position is simple: the virus does not pose a public health threat, and interfering with wildlife generally causes more harm than good. The standing advice is to leave the animals undisturbed and let nature take its course, however grim it might seem.

What About Pet Rabbits?

For those with pet rabbits, the threat is real but manageable. Since the virus spreads via insects, the best prevention is pest control, keeping rabbits indoors during peak mosquito activity and using protective enclosures. If a pet does become infected, veterinarians can surgically remove the growths before they become malignant. Occasionally, tumours shrink on their own, but in wild rabbits, they often grow bigger year after year.

There is no cure for CRPV in wild rabbits, and the prognosis is rarely good once the growths interfere with basic functions like eating. Wildlife officials stress that the best way to help is to keep your distance, avoid feeding or attempting to “save” them, and report sightings if local authorities request it.

These infected rabbits are a reminder of how viruses can warp the natural world in unsettling ways.