Aren't most of the health benefits they list in the article the benefits (or reversing the impacts) of a healthier metabolic system? Apnea, fatty liver, and cancer risk are all linked to obesity.

I know there are other positive side-effects of GLP-1s, but those are not necessarily beneficial to most people. For example, much of the side-benefits are things like reduced addiction, smoking, drugs, alcohol. If you don't have an addiction, do you need addiction medication?

My personal belief's get in the way here as I think the methods we use to define dosage of pharmaceuticals and therapeutics is antiquated. We essentially titrate to the point where we see negative side-effects and then back off.

So before we can go to the "should everyone be taking GLP-1s", I think we need to be looking at "how much would benefit this person at this exact moment". The answer may be zero.

Is anyone actively working on this? (not just for GLP-1s).

I work in neurotech developing closed-loop neurostimulations, we only stimulate what we can measure and when we are looking for a specific response from that individual. I believe this is the future of medicine beyond just neurostimulation.

The basic concept, "put a new compound in everybody's bodies" because it makes them better suited for thier environment is entirely reasonable.

Humans didn't evolve in the context of plentiful food. It's one of the ways our success took us to a place our bodies are maladapted to. Genetic pressures will solve the problem eventually. Memetic measures have seen some success.

Like "flouride in the water", it is going to require a lot of work to justify that "exposing everyone is univerally good" but it is a possible reasonable and safe path eventually.

Not that it was altruism, but I do have thank the early adopters on HN on the pros and cons of GLP-1s.

It’s been quite effective even on the lowest doses. At some point I need to try the cheaper oral medications as its only a matter of time before my insurance cuts me off (a $1000 month).