This whole article is rage bait and deeply slanted while dressed up as "the real truth." When in actuality, here's what people need to know:

The author is a therapist. People who are doing fine on Ozempic don't show up at a therapist's office. His anecdotes about patients losing their sense of humor or staring blankly at their gardens are compelling, but he never tells you how many of his patients on semaglutide are thriving. He's generalizing from the problem cases without giving you a denominator.

"Dopamine doesn't discriminate" is a great line but neuroscientifically sloppy. GLP-1 receptors don't just turn one big dopamine dial down. It's more like a mixing board than a volume knob, which means targeted effects are plausible, not just blanket personality erasure. The metaphor works rhetorically but misleads scientifically.

He says "some studies show more depression, some show less" and then spends 4,000 words treating the scary version as the real one. That's not balanced analysis. If you're going to cite contradictory research, you have to engage with effect sizes and population differences, not just gesture at the contradiction and then pick a side.

He frames the exclusion of psychiatric patients from clinical trials as a uniquely reckless Ozempic decision. It's not. Most drug trials exclude psychiatric populations. It's a systemic problem in pharma that predates GLP-1 drugs by decades. Post-marketing surveillance exists precisely because trials can't cover everyone.

He spends one paragraph acknowledging that untreated obesity and type 2 diabetes kill people, and that these drugs represent genuine medical progress. Then he writes 4,000 more words about the risks. The cardiovascular and kidney protection data for these drugs is substantial and well-documented. You wouldn't know that from reading this article.

Finally, he's right that Novo Nordisk's $26B in revenue should make us skeptical of industry-funded research. But "Ozempic is scary" content prints engagement on Substack too, with 1,661 likes and 301 restacks on this piece alone. He's performing in the same attention economy he critiques.