Ep. 18: My Brother-in-Law Joined the Chat

EPISODE DESCRIPTION

As a teacher, parent, and mental health professional, David shares what he’s seeing firsthand when it comes to kids and social media, why he has mixed feelings about government bans, and how schools are navigating the growing push to keep phones out of the classroom.

We also dive into AI’s expanding role in healthcare, the surprising ways GLP-1 medications like Ozempic and Mounjaro may be helping beyond weight loss, and whether using them is “cheating” or simply leveling the playing field.

Referenced in this episode

• Good Morning America: “Should Kids Be Banned from Social Media?”https://youtu.be/ZS1ivHjFhgk?is=Zq4ms7y0znz9Wq6F

• NBC News: “AI Helps Diagnose Rare Diseases at Boston Children’s Hospital” https://youtu.be/J65hHZa8oic?is=cgzFdxk0yItivEc0

• The Washington Post: 13 surprising ways GLP-1s may benefit the body, according to science https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2026/03/27/glp1-ozempic-benefits/

• The Washington Post: Science around GLP-1 drugs and cancer is suddenly getting a lot more interesting https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2026/06/03/science-around-glp-1-drugs-cancer-is-suddenly-getting-lot-more-interesting/

---

TRANSCRIPT

Matti: David, before we get started, I’m just going to plug the show for a second. For anyone listening who hasn’t subscribed, please subscribe on Spotify or Apple. You’ll get notified whenever a new episode drops—which is every Sunday—and then you can decide if you want to listen. At least you’ll know it’s there.

And if you’re enjoying the show, I’d really appreciate a five-star review on either or both platforms. Every subscription and review really helps.

Hey, David.

David: Hey, Matti. What’s going on?

Matti: Not too much. How are you?

David: Great. I’m really excited to be here. Thanks so much for asking me to be part of It’s Gonna Be Fine.

Matti: I’m excited you’re here too. There are a couple of things happening in the news that make this the perfect episode for you because you’re a father, a teacher, and a mental health professional. So naturally, we’re going to talk about social media and kids.

David: Amazing. So looksmaxxing again.

Matti: Gosh… I hate that word now.

Before we jump into it, I have some statistics I want to share. But first, when you hear the phrase social media and kids, what’s your immediate reaction?

Social Media and Kids

David: Honestly, at this point they’re almost inseparable.

Children—especially teenagers and adolescents—organize so much of their lives around social media. That’s where they interact with each other, where their friend groups exist, where conversations happen. Whether it’s WhatsApp groups, Snapchat, or whatever platform they’re using, social media has become one of the defining features of adolescence today.

When you talk about teenagers, social media is right at the top of the list of things that matter to them.

Matti: I watched a news segment about this, and one of the things they said really stuck with me. They said social media isn’t just something kids use anymore—it’s become part of who they are.

Like you said, they organize their worlds around it. It’s not something they can simply avoid anymore.

Do you see that in your school?

David: Definitely.

Just so your listeners know, I’m a father, but my oldest is only eight, so thankfully we’re not dealing with social media at home quite yet.

But as a high school teacher, I see it every day. I’ve been teaching for nearly twenty years—

Matti: God, you’re old.

David: (Laughs)

If you think about it, that almost perfectly lines up with the rise and takeover of social media.

I’ve watched it become more and more central in students’ lives. And now I’m also seeing the backlash, with schools starting to move in the opposite direction by banning phones.

It’s interesting how much of that conversation is really driven by social media.

Matti: Okay, here are a few numbers.

American teenagers are spending an average of five hours a day on social media. I’m assuming that’s their entire day—not just after school—because otherwise that’s basically their whole evening.

David: Presumably.

Although honestly, even if it were just their evenings, I wouldn’t be shocked.

Matti: There was also an Australian study—which is interesting because Australia has already started restricting social media for younger users—that found spending more than two hours a day on social media was associated with higher rates of depressive symptoms and poorer well-being.

The highest-risk group was kids between the ages of twelve and thirteen, so those early middle school years.

David: The first question I’d ask is whether those studies are showing correlation or causation.

It could simply be that kids who are already depressed spend more time on social media because they don’t have a lot of people to talk to.

That said, I don’t think we even have to settle that question to understand why social media could contribute to anxiety or depression.

Platforms like Instagram and TikTok encourage people to present the highlight reel of their lives. Everyone is curating the very best three percent of who they are.

If that’s all you’re seeing from everyone else while you’re comparing it to your own everyday life, it’s pretty easy to understand how a teenager—who’s still figuring out the world—could start feeling anxious or depressed.

Matti: Are you worried about your own kids?

I know they’re still young, but are you already thinking about this?

David: Definitely.

Matti: Do you have a game plan yet?

David: Not exactly.

One of the classes I teach is health, so we talk about phones and social media all the time. There’s one idea I bring up that my students absolutely hate.

I ask them, “What if your parents had access to your phone whenever they wanted?”

The reaction is immediate.

“That’s terrible.”

“You don’t trust your kids.”

“What about privacy?”

I’m not saying that’s necessarily what I’ll do with my own children, but after everything I’ve seen during my career, I understand why parents would want some visibility.

The reality is that so much of kids’ lives now happens on their phones instead of in front of their parents.

When we were growing up, our parents generally knew what was happening because it happened where they could see it.

Now, kids are getting bullied online. Their reputations can be destroyed online. Horrible things can spread about them, and their parents may have absolutely no idea it’s happening.

Matti: That’s what really strikes me.

When we were growing up, having your reputation publicly destroyed was something that happened to celebrities or politicians. You had to be famous.

Now an eleven-year-old can experience that.

It’s awful.

David: And there’s no grace anymore.

I’m sure I made plenty of stupid decisions as a kid. The difference is they weren’t permanently documented or instantly shared with twenty thousand people who didn’t even know I existed.

Today, your mistake can spread before you’ve even had a chance to realize you made one.

Matti: There’s so much conversation now about how there’s almost no privacy left because everything gets documented.

I’ve talked about that on this show before, and honestly, there’s something really unsettling about it.

I should also mention that I have a vested interest in how you handle this as a parent… because those kids happen to be my nieces and nephew.

So whatever you decide, I hope you get it right.

David: Fair enough.

When it comes to government bans on social media—which I know we’re about to get into—that’s where my opinion starts to change a little.

Should Governments Ban Social Media for Kids?

Matti: Let’s talk about that.

Australia already has restrictions in place. The UK is trying to pass legislation that would ban certain social media platforms for younger teens, and if I remember correctly, they’d like it to take effect sometime in 2027.

Here in the U.S., Florida has also stepped in. TikTok technically doesn’t allow users under a certain age according to its own policies, but because younger kids were still able to create accounts, Florida essentially said, “If you’re not going to enforce your own rules, we will.”

So why are you against these kinds of bans?

David: My first question is: How would you actually enforce it? What does that process look like? Are parents uploading birth certificates? Are you giving them to the government? To the tech companies? Who’s collecting all of that information?

That’s the first thing that makes me uncomfortable.

The second issue is censorship. This feels much broader than something like a movie rating. We’re talking about the government saying, “Every fifteen-year-old is prohibited from using Instagram.”

That opens the door to more government involvement in deciding what people can and can’t access. I have a small libertarian streak in me, so my instinct is to pump the brakes. Because once one government starts deciding what’s unhealthy enough to ban, eventually another government—maybe one you don’t agree with—gets to make those decisions too.

Regardless of where you fall politically, you probably don’t want the other side deciding what you’re allowed to consume.

Matti: So part of it is the censorship itself, but part of it is simply the logistics. How do you even enforce something like this?

David: Exactly. Would you want Facebook asking you for your birth certificate?

Matti: I don’t love the idea of uploading my birth certificate either, although we upload our IDs for a lot of things these days.

David: That’s true. But imagine giving companies like Facebook or other massive tech platforms access to millions upon millions of driver’s licenses and birth certificates. That makes me uneasy.

Matti: Dating apps actually do this now. On a lot of them, you can become an ID-verified user by uploading government identification. It’s become surprisingly common. That doesn’t make you feel any better?

David: Not really. I’d rather the tech companies not have my personal information if I can avoid it.

Matti: You know, I didn’t realize this was such a big part of your personality. I didn’t know you were this concerned about surveillance.

David: Does it surprise you?

Matti: A little. You’re such a relaxed person in general.

David: I try not to become a conspiracy theorist, but I also don’t want to hand over more information than I absolutely have to.

One thing that really changed my perspective happened this year at school. Our entire school system decided to go completely phone-free.

Previously, we had rules like, “No phones during class.” This year it became: no phones at all. Students lock them away at the beginning of the day and get them back when school ends.

Before the year started, everyone thought it was going to be a disaster. We expected students to rebel. Instead, by the third day, it was completely normal. There was almost no resistance.

Matti: Really? The whole year?

David: The whole year.

And I think the reason it worked is because everyone was doing it together. There was no fear of missing out. Nobody was wondering what everyone else was doing because everyone else’s phone was locked away too.

That really showed me something. It’s not just that phones are addictive—it’s that phones become addictive because of the social component. Remove the social aspect, and suddenly the phone itself loses much of its pull.

Honestly, a lot of students ended up saying they actually liked it better.

Matti: That’s fascinating.

One of the biggest objections I’ve heard to phone bans is from parents. They’ll say, “How am I supposed to reach my child during the day?” How has your school handled that?

David: Students still have computers and tablets. They’re just not allowed to have phones.

The computers use the school’s internet, which blocks social media. If parents need to reach their kids, they email them. If it’s urgent, students can always go to the office and make a phone call. It’s really not a problem. It’s just different.

Matti: So if governments shouldn’t be making these decisions, then ultimately it comes down to parents?

David: I think so.

If you’re going to give your child a smartphone—which most parents eventually do—it’s almost unfair to say, “You can have the phone, but you can’t have social media.”

But I still think parents need to be actively involved. That’s why I brought up checking your child’s phone earlier. Not because you’re trying to police every conversation, but because you want to make sure everything is okay.

I’ve seen too many situations where parents had absolutely no idea what was happening online until things had already spiraled.

Keeping Up With Your Kids Online

Matti: You mentioned looksmaxxing earlier, and that reminded me of something from our previous episode about it.

One of the teenagers featured in that news story said he had blocked his parents from seeing his social media. They had no idea he was participating in any of it.

I would think, at the very least, you’d want to follow your kids online. Whatever platform they’re using, I’d want to see what they’re posting.

Although I do have one complaint: I hate that they call them “followers.”

You know who has followers?

Cults.

David: But that’s part of the challenge. Most parents aren’t even on the platforms their kids use. Maybe they’re on Instagram, but how many parents have Snapchat? How many are actually using TikTok?

Matti: Well, if you’re going to let your kids use those apps, maybe parents should join them too.

Not to post constantly, but at least to understand what’s happening.

David: Maybe.

But Snapchat, especially… I still barely understand how it works. And honestly, if an adult suddenly joins Snapchat, it almost feels… creepy.

You kind of wonder, “Why are you here?”

Matti: That’s fair.

How does Snapchat even work? Is it mostly messaging?

David: From what I understand, there’s messaging, there are stories people can post, and that’s where a lot of kids communicate.

Again, I’m not on it, so I’m hardly an expert. But I think that’s exactly the issue.

Kids are spending their time on platforms that many parents don’t even know how to use. It’s uncomfortable for adults to jump into those spaces, which makes it even harder to know what’s happening.

Matti: That actually reminds me of one of our cousins.

Years ago, when her kids became teenagers, I noticed she had joined Facebook. I remember saying, “Oh, you’re on Facebook now?”

She told me, “I’m only here to keep an eye on what my kids are doing. I don’t really use it.”

I always thought that was incredibly smart.

If your child knows there’s a chance Mom or Dad might see what they’re post, maybe they’re a little more thoughtful before hitting “Publish.”

David: Maybe.

But honestly, I think people focus too much on what kids are posting.

A lot of the danger isn’t what they’re putting online—it’s what other people are sending them.

So much of social media is private messaging.

Then there’s another issue that doesn’t get talked about enough: the algorithm.

The algorithm decides what you see, what keeps your attention, what slowly shapes your thinking. That’s incredibly powerful, especially when you’re talking about platforms like TikTok.

Matti: I’m sensing a theme with you.

David: Exactly.

Maybe my concerns about surveillance aren’t completely unrelated after all.

Matti: So where are you on the worry scale when it comes to your own kids?

Are we talking ten out of ten? Six? Somewhere in between?

David: Probably an eight.

But maybe I’m an eight about a lot of things because… they’re my kids.

I’m not panicking, and I’m certainly not losing sleep every night over it. But I’ve seen enough during my years at school to know these things can spiral very quickly.

Kids get bullied. Rumors spread. One bad decision gets amplified to thousands of people before they’ve even had a chance to process what happened.

For every situation that reaches the school’s attention, I’m sure there are plenty more that never do.

I just wish it were more normal for parents to stay involved—not by policing every interaction, but simply checking in from time to time and making sure everything is okay.

If we can do that…

I’m sure it’s gonna be fine.

Matti: Hey! That’s my line.

But you actually made me think of something.

It’s going to be interesting ten or fifteen years from now, when the parents themselves grew up on social media.

I wonder if they’ll approach all of this completely differently than today’s parents… like yourself.

David: That’s actually a great point.

I honestly hope that all the teenagers who think my opinions sound completely ridiculous today… end up saying the exact same things when they have kids.

Can AI Actually Help Kids?

Matti: Here’s some good news involving technology.

Boston Children’s Hospital has started using AI to help diagnose rare diseases in children. They’re using OpenAI’s o3 model—not some exclusive medical AI that only elite hospitals can access, but something that’s broadly available.

The hospital specializes in genetics, so doctors upload a child’s genomic data and ask AI to look for patterns that might explain what’s causing the illness. In one report I read, it helped diagnose eighteen children with rare conditions. Some of those kids had gone more than fifteen years without an answer.

A doctor they interviewed called it a game changer because hospitals without massive research budgets can now access the same technology.

Knowing you, though, I imagine the phrase “uploading someone’s genome to AI” makes you a little uncomfortable.

David: My first question would be: are we talking about someone who’s actually sick?

Matti: Yes. These are kids who are already dealing with unexplained illnesses.

David: Then absolutely.

If someone is genuinely sick and this technology might help find an answer, you’ve got to do what you’ve got to do.

Maybe this sounds inconsistent, but because of HIPAA and the safeguards hospitals already have in place, I trust a hospital a lot more than I trust Elon Musk with Twitter.

Matti: It’s called X, David.

David: I know.

Matti: Serious question though… are they still called tweets?

David: That’s actually a great question.

I think they are still called tweets, even though it’s X. Which is… not exactly consistent.

Matti: I’m only just starting to use Twitter—I mean X.

I never really got into it before, but I’ve found it’s actually pretty useful for finding content to talk about on the podcast.

David: Twitter is probably my primary social media platform.

I love it… and I hate it.

I mainly use it for news. I don’t really post anything, but the algorithm got very good at figuring out exactly what I wanted to read. Eventually it started feeding me a nonstop stream of stories that left me feeling anxious and negative.

I realized it was affecting my mood.

Matti: I remember this.

I think this was sometime around late 2023 or early 2024. You ended up deleting it from your phone because it was just bombarding you all day.

David: Exactly.

I still have an account, but I only use it on my computer now.

That little bit of extra friction makes a huge difference. Every once in a while I’ll reinstall it on my phone, and then a few days later I realize it’s taking over my attention again, so I delete it.

Since I made that change, it’s spent far more time off my phone than on it.

Matti: I remember we were both dealing with that around the same time.

David: Exactly.

But speaking of AI, we actually had an AI expert come speak at my school. He works for one of the major AI companies, and he said something that really stuck with me.

He said:

AI isn’t going to replace your job. Someone who knows how to use AI is going to replace your job if you don’t.

I thought that was exactly the right way to think about it.

Twenty years ago, the same thing happened with the internet. If one person knew how to use it and another didn’t, the person with that skill had an enormous advantage.

AI is a tool.

You have to learn how to use the tool, but if you make the tool everything, you’re missing something important. You still need the human side too.

Matti: I actually saw a prediction recently that many of the jobs being replaced by AI today could come back in the next few years because companies are realizing they still need people who know how to manage the technology.

It reminded me of what happened after COVID. Companies laid people off, then turned around a year later and started hiring again.

Technology tends to move in cycles.

David: That’s happened throughout history. When they invented the car, all the people who built wagons and carriages went out of business.

Matti: Yeah… do you remember that well?

David:Laughs. No, but I’ve always liked that example because it’s true. Every time something new comes along, people panic. We assume it’s going to change everything forever and destroy entire industries.

Sometimes it does change things. But society adapts. People figure it out, new jobs emerge, and eventually we move forward.

Matti: You actually brought up an interesting point earlier about privacy. If a hospital is going to upload a child’s genome into an AI system, presumably they’d need the parents’ consent before doing something like that.

David: I would imagine so. That’s actually one of the reasons I’ve never done 23andMe. People hand over their entire genetic code to a private company because it sounds interesting, but once you’ve done that… they have it forever.

Maybe I’m just overly cautious, but if I can keep something that personal private, I’d rather do that. With a hospital treating an illness, though, that’s different.

Matti: That’s funny, because on one hand 23andMe sounds incredibly cool. You think, “Wow, I can learn where my ancestors came from.”

Then you stop for five seconds and realize… wait a minute. I’m handing over my DNA. There have even been stories about data breaches involving companies like that.

David: Exactly.

Matti: This is the part of you where… well, never mind. I’m not going there.

David:Laughs. Now I’m curious. You’ll have to tell me offline.

Matti: I definitely will.

The Ozempic Conversation

Matti: Speaking of health, though, there’s another story I’ve been following.

GLP-1 medications like Ozempic, Wegovy, and Mounjaro were originally developed for diabetes and later became famous for weight loss. But researchers are now asking a much bigger question: Are these actually becoming disease-modifying drugs?

Recent studies suggest they may help with kidney disease, heart disease, fatty liver disease, and sleep apnea. One study found fewer kidney complications among people with Type 2 diabetes taking GLP-1s. Another found about a twenty percent reduction in major cardiovascular events among overweight adults with heart disease. There have also been improvements in fatty liver disease, and some of these medications are now FDA-approved for treating sleep apnea.

I should point out that some of these studies were funded by the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture the drugs, so that’s worth keeping in mind. Still, it raises an interesting question: how can one medication seem to affect so many different systems in the body?

David: Well, I’m definitely not a doctor, but at least some of those make intuitive sense to me.

Heart disease, sleep apnea, even fatty liver disease are all closely associated with obesity. If someone loses a significant amount of weight, you’d expect many of those related conditions to improve too. That part doesn’t seem especially surprising.

Matti: That’s fair. But here’s where it gets even more interesting.

Researchers are also looking at whether these drugs might help with arthritis, addiction, Alzheimer’s disease, and dementia.

David: Wow. What a miracle drug.

Matti: The theory is fascinating.

Some researchers think the anti-inflammatory effects may explain improvements in conditions like arthritis. Others think the medications affect the brain’s reward system. That’s one reason people eat less—they simply don’t get the same reward from food.

The question now is whether that same mechanism also reduces cravings for alcohol, gambling, and other addictive behaviors. On the flip side, some patients report feeling emotionally flat or less motivated because it may not just be food that’s becoming less rewarding—it could be reward itself.

It’s still early research, but it’s opening up some really interesting questions.

GLP-1s, Food Noise & Willpower

David: It’s interesting because I wonder why most people are taking these medications.

Are they taking them because of all these potential health benefits… or are they taking them because they want to lose twenty pounds?

Matti: My guess is it’s still mostly diabetes and weight loss.

I think doctors are starting to prescribe them for other conditions—sleep apnea, for example—but I still think the vast majority of people are taking them for blood sugar regulation or obesity.

David: It’s funny because my wife and I have actually talked about this.

She’s very skeptical of these drugs because we still don’t know what the long-term side effects might be. I thought you had told me they’ve been used for diabetes for quite a while and that there weren’t any major concerns.

Matti: They’ve been around for a number of years, but not decades.

Originally they were diabetes medications, and then doctors realized people were losing a lot of weight on them. That’s really when they exploded in popularity.

There have been weight-loss drugs in the past that turned out to be dangerous, so you’re right—we simply don’t have fifty or sixty years of long-term data yet. But if someone needs treatment now, they can’t exactly wait half a century for the research to finish.

David: That’s true.

Although if someone is using these purely for weight loss… maybe what they really need is healthier eating and more exercise.

Matti: Let me challenge you on that.

What if the struggle isn’t just discipline?

What if it’s biological?

Let’s say someone constantly feels pulled toward food. If these medications quiet that part of the brain and finally put them on a level playing field, couldn’t they actually make healthy choices more easily?

David: That’s interesting.

Let me ask you something.

Do you think it’s cheating?

If someone loses weight with Ozempic instead of diet and exercise, should people see that differently? Should there be any social stigma around it?

Matti: I actually think people misunderstand how these medications work.

They’re not magic injections where you take one shot and suddenly become thin.

The reason they work is that they change your relationship with food. They make it easier to make healthy choices because your brain isn’t fighting you every step of the way.

David: I don’t know exactly what you mean by that.

Matti: Have you ever heard the term food noise?

David: No.

Matti: Food noise is how people describe constantly thinking about food.

You’re trying to eat healthy, but you’re negotiating with yourself all day.

“Don’t eat the cookies.”

“The cookies are right there.”

You close the cupboard… then open it again… then close it again.

It’s this nonstop mental tug-of-war.

What many people report is that these medications simply turn that volume down. The food is still there, but it’s no longer occupying every thought.

That’s why I don’t think it’s just about taking a shortcut. For some people, it feels like they’re finally operating the way others who don’t necessarily struggle have been all along.

I also agree there are probably people taking these medications who don’t really need them. But I think there are a lot of people who genuinely struggle with something deeper than simply lacking willpower.

David: That’s a fair point.

My first reaction is almost that the reason doesn’t even matter because being overweight comes with so many health risks. Whether someone starts for aesthetic reasons or medical reasons, if they end up healthier, that’s obviously a good thing.

At the same time, I still think there’s something valuable about the process itself.

Learning self-control. Building healthier habits. Creating an exercise routine. Those things matter too.

You can reach the destination, but the journey teaches you something.

Matti: Would you say the same thing to someone struggling with alcoholism?

Would you tell them they simply need more willpower?

David: Not exactly.

I think people in recovery probably have some of the strongest willpower in the world because they’re rebuilding it every single day.

Now, if you told me there was a medication that dramatically reduced alcohol cravings, I’d absolutely want them to have access to it.

I’d just be curious whether the medication alone would be enough if they never addressed the deeper issues that contributed to the addiction in the first place.

Matti: But why can’t it be both?

Why can’t someone take the medication and go through the recovery process?

David: In theory, it absolutely can.

Maybe that’s actually the ideal situation.

I’m realizing as we’re talking that I don’t have a fully settled opinion on this. We’re kind of working through it together.

If someone is already at a healthy weight and they’re using Ozempic to become dangerously thin, I think that’s a problem.

But if someone is overweight and these medications help reduce their risk of heart disease, sleep apnea, fatty liver disease, and everything else… maybe the motivation matters less than I initially thought.

Who knows?

Maybe growing a third eye is worth it.

GLP-1s and Cancer Research

Matti: Here’s another part that really caught my attention. Researchers are also investigating whether these medications could affect cancer.

Not that they’re replacing chemotherapy or directly attacking cancer cells—but they may actually change the environment in the body in ways that make cancer less likely to develop or spread.

One theory is that it’s simply because people lose weight. Another is that these drugs reduce inflammation, which is linked to a number of diseases, including some cancers. And then there’s a third possibility: that the medications are directly affecting cancer biology itself.

Researchers honestly aren’t sure yet.

One study from the Cleveland Clinic found that people taking GLP-1 medications were less likely to progress to metastatic lung cancer, metastatic breast cancer, metastatic colorectal cancer, and liver cancer.

So the question becomes: are they helping because people are healthier… or is there something else happening?

It’s fascinating.

David: I hope it’s true.

Can I ask you something? Has there ever been another drug like this? Something that suddenly seemed to have benefits for all kinds of different conditions? Penicillin?

Matti: Insulin comes to mind. Those were obviously revolutionary, but they were each designed for very specific purposes. This feels different because researchers keep discovering entirely new potential uses.

David: Right. Medical professionals are probably listening to this yelling at us because they actually know the answers.

I’m just a high school teacher.

But I really hope the research keeps moving in this direction. It’s amazing what scientists are able to discover.

Matti: I actually fed one of these articles into ChatGPT afterward just to help me think through it. One of the takeaways that really stuck with me was the idea that maybe these medications don’t attack cancer directly.

Instead, they may change what ChatGPT called the body’s “biological terrain”—almost creating an environment where cancer has a harder time developing or spreading. I thought that was a really interesting way to think about it.

David: That’s fascinating. And what’s funny is I don’t even think scientists completely understand how these drugs work for weight loss in the first place.

They know they affect appetite. They know they change reward pathways. But if you asked them to explain every mechanism, I don’t think they fully can.

Matti: Right. From what I’ve read, they have theories based on what patients experience, but they’re still learning.

David: That’s always amazed me. Scientists create these incredible medications, and then if you ask exactly how every piece works, sometimes the honest answer is, “We’re still figuring it out.”

It really is kind of incredible when you think about it.

Matti: I think I’ve shared this with you before—I actually tried Ozempic for a little while. I eventually stopped because I had some pretty rough side effects, but I definitely experienced what people talk about. It turns things down. I found myself much less drawn to food as a reward or a treat, and I was definitely eating less.

David: Well, maybe next time you have me on, you’ll see a much thinner version of me. I’m gonna call my doctor tomorrow. Let’s go.

Matti: You’re gonna call your doctor tomorrow?

David: I’ll see if my friend who found the free vials can hook me up.

Matti: Like… on the street? I don’t understand. Where do you get these?

David: It was very weird. He was like, “My friend had them and didn’t want them anymore, so she gave them to me.”

Matti: That’s literally medical fraud. Insurance fraud. You can’t just hand your prescription medication to someone else.

David: Yeah… well… we’re not naming names.

Matti: Fair enough.

Okay, so you’ve listened to the show—I know you’re a loyal listener—so you know how we have to end this.

After everything we’ve talked about today… social media, AI, GLP-1s…

Is it gonna be fine?

David: It’s gonna be fine.

Matti: How do you know?

David: I believe.

It’s gonna be fine.

You know what they say… Hashem chafetz.

Matti: That’s definitely getting cut.

David: That one was for you.

Matti: I know. Thank you.

Honestly, maybe it really is that simple. There’s no alternative, right?

David: Exactly. What else are we gonna do?

Matti: David, this was fun.

David: This was great. Loved every second.

Matti: Good. We’ll see you next time—with your new jawline.

David: I’m just gonna combine the Ozempic episode and the looksmaxxing episode.

Matti: There we go. Just use the hammer.

David, Thanks for doing this! And to everyone listening, we’ll see you next time.

This transcript has been edited for readability.