Controversial Aid Plan For Gaza Revealed In New Document, Includes American CEOs & Banks

 Via Middle East Eye

The organization set to administer Israel's controversial plan to take control of humanitarian aid distribution in Gaza will use private contractors to secure hubs where Palestinians will receive 1,750 kcal meals that will cost donors a little more than a dollar each.

Details about the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) strategy for Gaza are laid out in a 14-page document circulating amongst aid organizations working on Gaza and seen by Middle East Eye.

The hitherto unknown nonprofit, which was registered in Switzerland in February, has been touted as the umbrella body that will seemingly take over humanitarian operations in Gaza while inviting NGOs to "take advantage" of its "logistics, security and transparency frameworks".

Via AFP

The pitch-like document offers detailed information about how the foundation, largely led by Americans and involving a mix of disaster relief, security and financial experts, will operate and how it is organized, though some details appear yet to be finalized. The document is undated.

The new details have emerged as UN agencies and international aid organizations, which have roundly rejected the plan that GHF would administer, reportedly coming under pressure from the US government to participate. Earlier this week, Amnesty Switzerland raised concerns that, based on the information available, GHF could be risking contributing to international crimes through its services. 

The Israeli operation appears to already be underway. Israel security cabinet approved its plan on Sunday with satellite evidence emerging on Wednesday suggesting that work has already begun to build the humanitarian hubs from which aid will be distributed.

'New operating model'

According to the document, the foundation says it is offering "a new operating model", blaming aid diversion, active combat and "restricted access" as reasons why millions of civilians have been left without food, water and other supplies.

It does not specify the blockades on aid that Israel has put in place, including over the past two months, that have led the enclave’s population to the brink of mass starvation. Instead, it says Hamas and criminal organizations have intercepted, taxed and resold aid, and that Israeli "domestic security concerns and political pressure limit Gaza access and drive risk-averse policy toward humanitarian organizations".

The document repeatedly frames one of the main issues the foundation serves as fixing “eroded donor confidence”, saying it was established to “restore that vital lifeline through an independent, rigorously audited model that gets assistance directly – and only – to those in need”.

GHF says it is set to establish four “secure distribution sites” that will each serve 300,000 people “with capacity to expand past 2 million”. Pre-packaged rations, hygiene kits and medical supplies will be delivered to the sites via armored vehicles “through tightly controlled corridors, monitored in real time to prevent diversion”.

“At just US $1.3 per meal… donors can see immediate, measurable impact,” the document says, later indicating that each meal will be 1,750 kcal.

It is unclear how many meals would be provided daily, though it is suggested that donors might be offered a chance to fund "a family-box" which would contain 50 meals at a time. The World Food Programme aims to provide recipients of food aid with at least 2,100 kcal per day.

The Israeli military will “not be stationed at or near” the sites. Instead, security will be provided by “experienced professionals, including personnel who previously secured the Netzarim Corridor during the recent ceasefire”. The document says aid will be distributed “without regard to identity, origin or affiliation” and "delivered purely based on need, with community dignity and safety as top priorities".

Some pro-Palestinian advocates have warned over a US-controlled aid scheme, after Trump White House blasted a 'compromised' UNRWA:

Breaking: Israel has just bombed an aid center in northern Gaza, killing dozens of civilians. In doing so, it paves the way to force the population into submission to the U.S. starvation plan through a private company, ending the role of UNRWA and international agencies. pic.twitter.com/KoUDSCypVa

— Ramy Abdu| رامي عبده (@RamAbdu) May 9, 2025

GHF and its partners are said to be “actively engaging local communities to generate support” for its operations and will train “additional local champions” to expand the programme.

“This effort aims not only to safeguard humanitarian access, but to ethically empower traditional community leaders to reestablish constructive influence supporting the organic restoration of local communities,” the document says.

American executives

GHF’s board of directors includes Nate Mook, the former CEO of World Central Kitchen and a special advisor on Ukraine to the Howard G Buffett Foundation.

It also includes Loik Henderson, who is said to be a legal and business professional with 20 years experience including to Fortune 500 companies; Raisa Sheynberg, a vice president of government affairs and policy at Mastercard who previously led Facebook's Libra cryptocurrency project and also worked on national security and economic policy for the US government; and Jonathan Foster, founder and managing director of Current Capital Partners LLC.

The foundation will be run by three Americans with disaster relief experience, led by executive director Jake Wood, founder and former CEO of Team Rubicon, a US-based disaster relief organization. Wood is a Marine Corps veteran and the founder of Groundswell, a platform “reinventing employee giving through donor-advised funds”.

Chief operating officer David Burke is a “strategic operations expert” who previously worked at Team Rubicon and is also a Marine Corps veteran.

John Acree, a former USAID official, will serve as head of mission. In addition to experience in disaster response and civil-military coordination, the document notes that he served as “chief of party” on US government contracts in Latin America and the Caribbean worth more than $45m.

An advisory board includes Bill Miller, a former UN and US State Department official, and retired Lt General Mark Schwartz, a former US security coordinator for Israel and the Palestinian Authority. David Beasley, the former governor of South Carolina and former executive director of the UN World Food Programme, is listed as “to be finalised” as a potential board member.

The document suggests that major donors are “invited to nominate additional candidates for board membership”. It also says discussions are underway with “prominent Palestinians” to join the board.

'Every dollar traceable'

The document focuses repeatedly on how GHF will be transparent, saying it has secured banking with US-based Truist Bank and JPMorgan Chase. “Real-time monitoring and beneficiary feedback loop into public dashboards so every dollar is traceable and every outcome verifiable,” it says.

Truist, it notes, has “demonstrated its commitment to humanitarian and disaster relief efforts” including through committing $725m to recovery initiatives in North Carolina after Hurricane Helene last year.

A separate Swiss GHF affiliate is being created “to address donors who would prefer to participate outside of the US structure”.

Goldman Sachs is said to have made a verbal commitment to establish a bank account for the entity “which should be completed shortly". It also says it is “in the process of retaining one of the world’s most respected audit and assurance firms” to provide third-party oversight of its financial and operational practices, and that it is also in discussion with accounting firm Deloitte.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/israels-controversial-aid-plan-gaza-revealed-new-document-includes-american-ceos-banks

Pakistan says it has launched military offensive against India

Pakistan has launched attacks on "multiple targets" across India, according to the media wing of Pakistan's military.

In a statement, Pakistan said it has unleashed Operation Bunyan ul Marsoos (Solid Wall of Steel) in response to what it calls "continuous provocation" by India.

"Multiple targets in this operation are being engaged all across India," the statement added.

Pakistan's military said it used medium-range Fateh missiles to strike a missile storage facility and airbases in Pathankot and Udhampur.

The AP news agency said loud explosions have been heard in Indian-controlled Kashmir, in the disputed region's two big cities of Srinagar and Jammu, and the garrison town of Udhampur.



Meanwhile, an Indian military source told Reuters that India has launched air operations in Pakistan, although no further details were given.

Pakistan's military posted footage on X showing missiles being fired from what appeared to be a mobile launcher.

Image:Pic: MilitaryPakISPR

The operations mark the latest escalation in a conflict triggered by a deadly attack last month in India-controlled Kashmir.

Most of the 26 civilians killed were Hindu Indian tourists. India blames Pakistan for backing the assault, an accusation Islamabad rejects.


State-run Pakistan television said retaliatory attacks were under way after India fired missiles at three air bases inside Pakistan on Friday, although Pakistan insisted most of the missiles had been intercepted.

The G7 group of advanced economies, which includes Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the US and Britain, urged maximum restraint from both India and Pakistan.

"We call for immediate de-escalation and encourage both countries to engage in direct dialogue towards a peaceful outcome," a statement issued on Friday said.

https://news.sky.com/story/pakistan-launches-military-operation-against-india-13364836

Hawaii in $700 million settlement with Bristol-Myers, Sanofi over Plavix warning label

 Hawaii will receive $700 million from pharmaceutical giants Bristol Myers Squibb and Sanofi in a landmark settlement over the blood thinner Plavix, Gov. Josh Green announced today — one of the largest payouts in state history.

The settlement ends over a decade of litigation over the companies’ failure to warn that Plavix was less effective or ineffective in Asian American, Pacific Islander and Native Hawaiian populations. The drug, which relies on liver enzyme activation, was prescribed more than 837,000 times in Hawaii between 1998 and 2010.

“After nearly a decade of litigation … the state has reached a landmark settlement,” Green said at a news conference this afternoon. “It’s a historic result that we’re grateful for.”

On May 21, 2024, a Hawaii Circuit Court judge awarded the state $916 million  Opens in a new tabin a decade-old case alleging unfair and deceptive practices against the makers of the drug Plavix, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sanofi.

Rather than continue through appeals, the parties agreed to the $700 million settlement announced today to ensure a faster payout. The agreement divides the total amount equally between Bristol-Myers and Sanofi, with the money scheduled to be paid via wire transfer by June 9, officials said.

Hawaii Attorney General Anne Lopez said today that the result sends a message to corporations operating in the islands. “The attorney general’s office will be relentless in our pursuit of compliance with our consumer protection laws,” she said.

The state’s lawsuit, filed in 2014 with the help of two private law firms, alleged that Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sanofi failed to disclose that their drug was less effective in patients with certain liver-enzyme mutations more prevalent in people of Asian and Pacific Islander descent representing up to 30% of people who took the drug in Hawaii.

After the 2024 award, officials with the drugmakers said in a statement that they strongly disagree with the court’s penalty and that they would appeal the decision. “The unprecedented penalties awarded in this case are unwarranted and out of proportion,” the companies said. “The overwhelming body of scientific evidence demonstrates that Plavix is a safe and effective therapy, regardless of a patient’s race or genetics.”

The case, closely watched nationwide, raised concerns over racial disparities in pharmaceutical efficacy and transparency.

Green credited the Attorney General’s Office and outside counsel, including attorney Rick Fried, for their role in securing the deal.

“It’s been 13 years — we’ve been working on this two trials up to the Supreme Court and back. We were going back again, and we finally were able to work out this resolution,” he said today.

Officials say the funds will support public health and underfunded health services across the state. “This result will help the people of Hawaii,” Green said.

The two companies began selling Plavix in 1998 as a better but more expensive alternative to aspirin for reducing heart attacks, strokes, blood clots and vascular death.

In 2010, Bristol Myers Squibb and Sanofi were required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to add a “black box” warning on the label about diminished effectiveness for poor metabolizers of the drug with certain genes. The disclosure prompted the state’s lawsuit.

https://www.staradvertiser.com/2025/05/09/breaking-news/drugmakers-to-pay-hawaii-700m-to-settle-lawsuit-over-blood-thinner/

US FAA to meet with airlines about temporary Newark flight cuts

 The Federal Aviation Administration said late on Friday it plans to meet with major airlines on Wednesday about potential temporary cuts in flights at New Jersey's Newark Liberty International Airport to address recent major disruptions.

Earlier this week, Transportation Department Secretary Sean Duffy said the Federal Aviation Administration was working with airlines to cut flights at Newark after hundreds of flights were disrupted since April 28.

United Airlines, the largest airline at Newark, last week cut 10% of its flights there after prior significant cuts. On some recent days, flights have been delayed five hours or more, on average.

On Friday, the Philadelphia facility that guides air traffic in and out of Newark airport suffered a new 90-second communications outage, the second in two weeks.

The Newark airport has been hit by runway construction, FAA equipment outages and air traffic control staffing shortages that prompted urgent calls from lawmakers for investigations and new funding for Newark, the busy airport just outside New York.

United said it has historically flown 440 flights daily out of Newark, but after cutting flights earlier this spring due to the runway construction and the latest cuts, it is now down to 293.

The FAA last year relocated control of the Newark airspace to Philadelphia to address staffing and congested New York City area traffic.

United CEO Scott Kirby wants Duffy to designate Newark as a slot controlled airport, which would allow the FAA to limit the number of departing or arriving flights due to congestion and capacity constraints to prevent delays.

Reuters first reported last week that major U.S. airlines have asked the FAA to extend cuts to minimum flight requirements at congested New York City-area airports through October 2027, citing severe air traffic controller staffing shortages.

https://www.aol.com/us-faa-meet-airlines-temporary-013130867.html

Leaked: Science Mag's Batsh*t Insane Interview With NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya

 by Paul D. Thacker via The DisInformation Chronicle,

“Jocelyn, you know, I just, I'm really uncomfortable with this conversation because you're like actually spreading rumors that you don't know anything about.”

The charge from NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya came during an uncomfortable and confusing interview with Science Magazine reporter Jocelyn Kaiser last week. The DisInformation Chronicle is releasing a recording of the interview and a transcript.

During almost 20 minutes of back and forth, Kaiser pressed Bhattacharya several times to account for canceled grants as well as news accounts of turmoil inside the agency, while Bhattacharya asked Kaiser to clarify and explain exactly what she was asking. Kaiser’s interview then ended up in two Science Magazine articles that falsely implied Bhattacharya misled Kaiser about a new policy on NIH grants.

Confusing, contentious exchange

Skipping about in a rambling, meandering path, much of the Kaiser interview concerned reports of problems that Bhattacharya claimed he had fixed in his first month as director. However, a proposed policy to ensure that subawards to foreign universities were better managed seemed to take center stage.

KAISER: Okay, so since you brought it up, kind of skipping around here, but so as you know, as you may not have seen the story. But we had heard it too, that there's going to be a policy canceling collaborations, foreign collaborations.

BHATTACHARYA: No, that's false.

KAISER: Is there going to be some sort of policy that...

BHATTACHARYA: There was a policy, there's going to be policy on tracking subawards.

KAISER: What does it mean?

BHATTACHARYA: I mean, if you're going to give a subaward, we should be able—the NIH and the government should be able see where the money's going.

Later in the interview, Kaiser noted that Nature Magazine ran an article on a proposed NIH policy that reported all foreign grants might end.

“I mean, Nature also is spreading rumors, right?” Bhattacharya responded. “There's no announced policy about, what did you say, like ‘halt foreign collaborations.’ Not true.”

Based upon unnamed sources but headlined as an “exclusive,” Nature Magazine reported that the NIH was threatening thousands of global health projects by ceasing foreign awards to laboratories and hospitals outside the United States. Further down in the piece, Nature reported that it was unclear from sources whether the policy “would apply to all research funds to non-US institutions or only ‘subawards’, which are NIH funds that a US researcher can give to an international collaborator to help complete a project.”

Confusion over whether the upcoming NIH policy would cover all research funds or just subawards continued throughout Science Magazine’s interview, with Bhattacharya telling Kaiser she would have to wait until the policy is announced. “There's no intent to cancel the foreign collaborations, it's just not true,” Bhattacharya said. “That's just a rumor being spread falsely by Nature. And now apparently, I hope you don't spread it.”

Shortly after the interview, the NIH published their new policy which only covers subawards. “NIH continues to support direct foreign awards,” the policy reads.

“’This is insane:’ New NIH policy on funding foreign scientists stirs outrage,” reported Science Magazine’ headline. Hinting to readers that Bhattacharya lied to Kaiser in his interview, Science Magazine falsely implied that Nature Magazine had reported the upcoming policy would only concern subawards.

Concerns about subaward changes grew earlier this week, with Nature reporting on an apparent draft of the policy on Wednesday, before it was finalized. NIH’s new director, Jayanta “Jay” Bhattacharya, dismissed the report as “rumors” in an interview with Science on Thursday morning, hours before he announced the new policy.

In a post on Bluesky, Science reporter Jon Cohen also implied that Bhattacharya had lied during the interview.

During Kaiser’s interview, Bhattacharya can be heard explaining that changes in subawards were partly spurred by problems encountered with EcoHealth Alliance, a nonprofit run by Peter Daszak which gave an NIH subaward to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. In the last week of the Biden Administration, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) debarred EcoHealth Alliance and Peter Daszak from receiving federal funds, in part because EcoHealth Alliance had been unable to provide records from the Wuhan Institute of Virology “in response to NIH’s multiple safety-related requests.”

“You wrote about the EcoHealth Alliance,” Bhattacharya told Kaiser, in the interview.

“I did, yeah. Straight, I mean,” Kaiser responded.

“It wasn't all that straight,” Bhattacharya replied.

Unfortunately, Science Magazine lived up to Bhattacharya’s characterization with reporting that wasn’t all that straight about EcoHealth Alliance.

Straight out of Science

Science Magazine’s lead reporter on the new NIH subaward policy is Jon Cohen, a science writer with a rather tattered history of ethics. In 2023, Tablet reported that an anonymous whistleblower emailed Cohen “a grenade of an allegation” claiming that the virologist authors of a prominent paper were not the true authors. Published in the journal Nature Medicine, the “Proximal Origin” paper dismissed the possibility of a Wuhan lab accident and was later promoted promoted by Francis Collins in his March 2020 NIH Director's Blog and by Anthony Fauci during a televised White House briefing the following month.

Here's Tablet’s report:

Cohen was handed an opportunity that most journalists can only dream of—a potentially career-making scoop dropped in his inbox by a seemingly knowledgeable anonymous source—and a scoop, it turns out, that was in many ways correct. But he never pursued the story.

Instead, Tablet reported, Cohen forwarded the email to the paper’s lead author, who then forwarded it on to Anthony Fauci.

The purple headline for Science Magazine’s piece “This is insane” is a quote ripped from the mouth of Gerald Keusch, a virologist and an emeritus professor at Boston University, with close ties to EcoHealth Alliance and Peter Daszak.

Due to Daszak’s undisclosed ties to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, Columbia University professor Jeffrey Sachs disbanded a Lancet task force investigating the origins of Covid virus in 2021. Specifically, Daszak had not disclosed that several hundred thousand dollars of an EcoHealth Allliance NIH grant had been sent to the Wuhan Institute of Virology as a subaward. Sachs also discovered that emails showed Daszak had orchestrated a February 2020 statement in the Lancet alleging that it was a “conspiracy theory” to argue that the pandemic could have started from a laboratory leak in Wuhan.

Keusch had signed onto Daszak’s “conspiracy theory” Lancet letter and was a co-investigator on an NIH grant to EcoHealth Alliance when Sachs shut the task force down. HHS suspended the EcoHealth grant with Keusch as co-investigator in March 2024, some months before debarring Daszak and EcoHealth Alliance.

Despite this history, Science Magazine quoted Keusch as an unbiased source, who claimed that “no compelling evidence supports the allegation that the virus leaked from WIV.”

A few minutes on Google finds several reports undermining Keusch’s claim.

In the final months of the Biden administration, the CIA assessed that the COVID virus is "more likely" to have leaked from a Chinese lab than to have come from animals. The current CIA director released the report in January. Both British and German intelligence were reported in March to have concluded back in 2020 that the virus likely leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. And the French National Academy of Medicine released a report last month that found “a body of facts and arguments” support the conclusion that he SARS-CoV-2 pandemic originated from a leak at a Chinese laboratory in Wuhan.

Keusch was also caught in a House report released last year coordinating with the NIH’s David Morens to keep EcoHealth Alliance funded and to hide government records of this collusion. NIH scientists are required produce emails and other records under the Freedom of Information Act.

For example, the New York Times reported:

“I learned from our foia lady here how to make emails disappear after i am foia’d but before the search starts, so i think we are all safe,” Dr. David Morens, a former senior adviser to Dr. Fauci, wrote in February 2021. That email chain included Dr. Gerald Keusch, a scientist and former N.I.H. official, and Peter Daszak, the president of EcoHealth Alliance, a virus-hunting nonprofit group whose work with Chinese scientists has drawn scrutiny from lawmakers.

“Plus i deleted most of those earlier emails after sending them to gmail,” Dr. Morens added, referring to his personal Gmail account.

In emails released by House investigators, Keusch and Morens also shared ideas to pressure NIH leadership to fund EcoHealth Alliance. This included writing essays and placing stories with writers Jon Cohen and Meredith Wadman at Science Magazine.

“I did try to get Jon Cohen and Meredith Wadman moving on a new article,” Keusch wrote in an April 2021 email to Morens, “but as you know they both declined at this point because it was not news.”

Some months after attempting to place a story in Science with Cohen and Wadman, Keusch emailed Morens that the Washington Post had rejected an essay he had submitted to defend EcoHealth Alliance. However, Keusch wrote, Science Magazine’s Jon Cohen had helped him find a possible home for the essay at Science and suggested that he also try a columnist at the LA Times.

A few days ago, Kaiser published excerpts of her confusing interview with Bhattacharya. In the article, Kaiser again falsely stated that Bhattacharya had dismissed as rumors “Nature news article reporting that NIH planned to suspend subawards for foreign collaborations.” In fact, Nature had speculated the new policy might end all foreign awards.

“Again, the policy is in process,” Bhattacharya said during the interview with Kaiser. “But the aim of the policy ultimately is so that we can track subawards.”

Click here and scroll down listen to the leaked interview plus transcript...

https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/leaked-science-mags-batsht-insane-interview-nih-director-jay-bhattacharya

Low Hospitalization ,Death Rates in COVID-19 Patients Treated With Early Ambulatory, Supportive Care

 A Case Series and Observational Study

Author(s): Brian M. Tyson, George Fareed, Emmanuel Beltran Gutierrez, Robert Villegas, Edgar Josue Anaya Gomez, Paloma Serrano Lopez, Ernesto Breton Herrera, Miriam Arlet Gutierrez Castro, Jesus Palomera III, Christiany Alexandrah Morales, Ana Mariella Escutia Gonzalez, Fabiola Tyson, Mathew Crawford

Published: May 7, 2025

https://doi.org/10.71189/JIM/2025/V01N02A06

Abstract:

This study evaluates early ambulatory protocols for treating 4376 COVID-19 patients at All Valley Urgent Care (AVUC) facilities in Imperial County, California, and compares outcomes with other patients in the same region during a nearly identical period. The goal was to contribute to evidence on whether early outpatient treatment reduces hospitalization and mortality rates. The protocols, based on data from neighboring countries, included Protocol 1 (a multivitamin pack, selective use of hydroxychloroquine, two antibiotics, and inhaled steroids) and Protocol 2 (which added ivermectin). Results were stratified by disease severity at presentation. The average patient age was 40.5 years; 12.8% of patients were under 20 years old. For the 3962 mild COVID-19 patients treated early, no deaths occurred, compared to a 3.03% mortality rate (2.25% risk-adjusted) in the same county during the same period. Hospitalization rates for this group were 0.05%, compared to 22.68% (20.76% risk-adjusted) in the general population. When treated within 7 days, patients had a 100% success rate, while those treated later had a 99.9% success rate. Mild symptom patients had lower hospitalization (OR = 0.0293; P < .0001) and mortality (OR = 0.0000; P = .0008) rates. These results suggest the multidrug protocols significantly reduced adverse outcomes, with no serious side effects observed during follow-up (3–14 days).

https://journalofindependentmedicine.org/articles/v01n02a06/

The New Hunger Games: GLP Lawsuits

 Unless you’ve been living in Bilbo Baggins’ Hobbit-burrow, you surely know that GLP1s (Glucagon-like peptide-1) and their “cousin,” GIP (glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide), e.g., Ozempic, Munjaro, Zepbound, etc. have upended the medical- pharmaceutical world and its aesthetic counterpart. Currently five preparations are available to treat Type 2 diabetes and three for weight loss. Nine new GLP-1 drugs are in development by 34 companies, although many are in China.

The drugs are delivering not only for on-label usage but in their off-label capacity as well. Clinical trials are demonstrating highly effective results treating (and even reversing) liver disease,  specifically (MASH), formerly non-alcoholic fatty liver disease,  reducing heart attacks, strokes, kidney damage, and joint pain from carrying around excess poundage of adipose (fat) tissue, and even lowering the risk of dementia and Alzheimer’s Disease. While the newly-svelte are pummeling the clothe-racks and taking to Tik-Tok to parade their new silhouette, the medical results are equally striking: 

“We’ve never seen anything like this. There was a 44% reduction in major cardiovascular issues. There was substantial reduction in osteoporosis, …[and] pneumonia …..”

- Greg Case, CEO of Aon, an employer benefits services firm.

While employee health expenses do skyrocket during the first two years of use (incident to increased physician monitoring); afterward, the return for the outlay is astronomical. According to one study that evaluated 139,000 U.S.-based workers who took GLP-1 medications between 2022 and 2024, health payment increases declined by 50% (from 14% to a 7% increase).

Cracks in the  Yellow Brick Road

Alas, not all is rosy in Emerald City.  Patients are complaining of Ozempic face and Ozempic butt developing as the fat supporting the outer skin layer rapidly “melts” away, leaving sagging skin. But, there is good news: a new niche market for entrepreneurs rushing to address the sags and bags by providing face creams, ointments, fillers, and surgery. More concerning is protein loss (due to muscle mass reduction), although solutions for prevention are now appearing. However, more serious situations have also surfaced.  Like many new drugs, risks of depression and suicidal ideation have been reported:

“despite the hype surrounding the positive clinical outcomes of GLP1 receptor agonists…We urge the clinical prescribing community to proceed with caution to avoid another tragic wave of ‘people dying to lose weight.’” 

- Dr. Kenneth Blum, Research Professor at Western University Health Sciences. 

Other serious sequelae have also been reported, including a rare type of blindness called non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION), where the optic nerve is damaged due to a sudden decrease in blood flow, resulting in vision loss. 

 In late April, two plaintiffs filed suit in New Jersey, complaining they suffered bilateral and irreversible blindness due to NAION after a few months of semaglutide (Ozempic and Wegovy) use. They allege that the manufacturer, Novo Nordisk, was liable for failing to warn of  “the complications and devastating effects” of the drug, citing a 2025 article in JAMA ostensibly in support. 

Novo Nordisk disputes the claim, noting that the condition is rare and unrelated to the drug, and provides both internal studies and research from the University of Southern Denmark in support. It normally would be expected that FDA scientists would have vetted the evidence, both literature and clinical trials, before granting approval, which it did in 2017 for Type 2 diabetes and in June 2021 for weight loss, and agreed the drugs were safe as labeled.

“Wegovy’s safety and efficacy were studied in four 68-week trials. Three were randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (including 16 weeks of dose increases) and one was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized withdrawal trial in which patients receiving Wegovy either continued with the treatment or switched to a placebo. More than 2,600 patients received Wegovy for up to 68 weeks in these four studies and more than 1,500 patients received placebo.” 

– Food and Drug Administration

One New Jersey plaintiff began Ozempic use in November 2023 and was diagnosed with NAION by June 2024. The JAMA Opthalmology study was not published until February 2025. Given its release date, holding the manufacturers liable based on that information (even if it was relevant) would be a stretch. 

Further, the study researched people who were prescribed the drug for diabetes, and NAION is considered an independent risk of diabetes, irrespective of semaglutide use. Additionally, the JAMA study is a retrospective observational meta-analysis, rather low down on the reliability totem pole as epidemiological studies go. And its conclusion is anything but conclusive:

“Results of this study suggest a modest increase in the risk of NAION among individuals with T2D associated with semaglutide use, smaller than that previously reported, and warranting further investigation into the clinical implications of this association.”

Notwithstanding their findings, the study authors report that “The American Diabetes Association recommends GLP-1s as a preferred therapy for patients with T2D with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, or obesity.” 

This is the stuff that propels lawsuits, whether truly causally related or a convenient excuse on which to blame a life-shattering condition, inviting (pressuring) a settlement from a manufacturer eager to avoid adverse publicity. And the cases against GLP-1/GIP manufacturers are mounting.

Seven other injuries are being claimed:

• Gastroparesis or stomach paralysis – the signature injury of the litigation
• Hospitalization for over one day for GI issues
• Esophageal injury requiring surgery
• Ileus or bowel obstruction
• DVT and related injuries, including death
• Pulmonary aspiration
• Gallbladder injury with surgery 

As of May 2, 1,685 active cases had been filed in a Multi-District Litigation (in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, a plaintiffs’ litigation haven), a jump of over 500 filings from the prior month —one of the sharpest increases across any current mass tort litigation. 

The claim raises a broad barrage of claims for failure to disclose dangers incident to use. On April 22, the court heard a motion by defendants Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk seeking to dismiss the complaint on lack of specific misrepresentations (We should be hearing shortly; stay tuned). The plaintiffs’ bar dismisses their assault, claiming:

“These drugs were marketed to the public in a uniform, heavily branded manner. Plaintiffs contend that these promotions, which saturated digital, print, and broadcast media, consistently omitted meaningful warnings—an omission that became especially problematic as internal safety signals and international regulatory developments surfaced.”

Knew or Shoulda Known

To prevail in a failure to warn case, the plaintiffs must do more than flag wave “The Drugs Are Dangerous.” Typically, they must establish that the defendants had actual knowledge of the dangers- or should have known of these – meaning they should have investigated further based on troubling (but not necessarily indicting) information. The claimed harm must be detailed – as the disclosure requirement also centers on the risk-utility-and magnitude of reasonably anticipated harm – which varies by the harm arguably concealed. 

It is highly unlikely GLP-1/GIP manufacturers had any actual knowledge of any of the harms claimed (although not impossible). [1] The real question facing the court would be: should they have known (and undertaken further research) an allegation seemingly hovering around the Zantac cases. We won’t have definitive answers until discovery is completed if the case gets that far. The published literature doesn’t seem to establish a basis for conducting further tests or investigation, although whether internal information raises that specter remains to be seen. 

Further, the harms the manufacturer must investigate must be specific- and this is where the plaintiffs’ lawyers go astray. To prove such a claim, clinical studies must demonstrate that these risks are realistic enough to warrant warnings. To conduct such tests, the precise endpoint (harm) being alleged to justify the warning must be delineated. i.e., does consumption of this product increase a particular risk? What risk? If a disease is claimed, the parameters for diagnosing that disease must be detailed in order to establish the reliability of the results (are we all diagnosing the same condition?). (A prospective cohort study, like the NHANES study, may disclose this information- but its results wouldn’t be available for years).

I Woulda Done It Anyway 

Even if the plaintiffs can establish that a reasonable manufacturer would have investigated and that had they done so, they would have been on notice that these drugs do cause the claimed conditions prior to the plaintiff’s consumption, the plaintiff would have to prove that had they known the risks, they would have eschewed consumption.

The decision must be made prospectively; the plaintiffs must prove they would have declined the drug had they known of the risk prior to consumption – not after the harm occurred. Monday morning quarterbacking isn’t accepted. So, what would you have done – had you not known the future, is the critical question.

Given the huge demonstrable benefits of the drugs, the rarity of the claimed events, and that gorgeous size eight dress hanging in your closet that you can now wear after 20 years, to me, it would be a hard sell.

GLP-1 drugs may be reshaping medicine and sculpting bodies—but the lawsuits are reshaping the narrative. As science surges ahead, the people ask: at what cost, and the lawyers ask at what premium?

 

[1] In one reported set of cases involving MER-29 (used to treat arthritis), the manufacturer, Richardson Merrell, made a calculated cost-benefit analysis that they would lose less in lawsuits than they would if they disclosed the known hazard- blindness. In a related set of cases, DuPont’s apparent knowledge, at least by the 1990s, of the dangers of dumping its C-8 (PFOA) chemical has been impressively established.

Dr. Barbara Pfeffer Billauer, JD MA (Occ. Health) Ph.D. is Professor of Law and Bioethics in the International Program in Bioethics of the University of Porto and Research Professor of Scientific Statecraft at the Institute of World Politics in Washington DC. She is a member of the National Science Writers Association and on the Board of Editors at the Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics

https://www.acsh.org/news/2025/05/08/new-hunger-games-glp-lawsuits-49462