Delivered-To: tjphuhs@gmail.com Received: by 2002:a5d:44c2:0:b0:439:fcfb:30e with SMTP id z2csp1310822wrr; Fri, 13 Mar 2026 14:30:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:ac8:7f0d:0:b0:509:2997:b92c with SMTP id d75a77b69052e-50957dc6a6amr65045401cf.49.1773437409771; Fri, 13 Mar 2026 14:30:09 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1773437409; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20240605; b=eF2p5ub8suGKxLtkN6uaevd13YR2jRUObEOyexvxMM1q0JfXbyp9HkgRag1OA5xH7M m6xEtp1u7ilmULkkWLrMF2NmSJ2ERdJ0xxwXwO2BllSPX/koRsyVqz9vHtzaQcxSV1kv UddpduxWLImFvfHZq/lr2Zc8CwhiOniVQSUN8mXPyZyGrW35Wg3WPAxPxmM/8eXLR9xk JSBe7vEC0/H0ROTfF69YKFAcD/qNwHjATo2iXNWP7AhZ+QWbaeY5eahUQuUZevgpEU4X SpbOWIJ+g98dsH4hOQmc2/QpD7npBsaGbLLmOT3Wrh14ZTfVNWaXSqG5qqKtKmyPaanu RARA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20240605; h=list-unsubscribe-post:list-unsubscribe:list-post:list-id :list-archive:list-url:list-owner:reply-to:in-reply-to:references :sender:feedback-id:date:message-id:to:from:subject:mime-version :dkim-signature:dkim-signature; bh=PTnJ7hA2gT0n23O6ZyyIm0aeA2esjHtMlPeNBoFcIZ0=; fh=9zP21OW67FFZD2VV42mGudo540Qp4aalMWxJB5kMYug=; b=Tyeo3R28Q8OyrjvinkvUz4VEJLCj02pNQ9x6zd+cSNXn5FZgS3CqgcskNTajBwZf/7 f6SyxONv94akAVNMsA/ogAwKBJ9ZUsVX+0CJyQu4OVtkGlIQPoAaiQajY970nqffz3cs AfdfqAOOD3h4U5KKQgW+DAWtVDPoEs/N3HIe4SiaiwxGFRhAwQKvxmDtwwWN+dQfRYUU NsWmla0Ndj8QriiVjbMipFcMWDO0IT744eV64p5eJwf88hpeAGTvUKIKdxEicUK7GvMj skODIPuPwzqQBuhqjSfcml4ueHZ0kpqVZD5hMbOI/X8qkvxTOks5GVXHkaboOwrqy76I zYvQ==; dara=google.com ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@mg2.substack.com header.s=mailo header.b=M1AxJhuX; dkim=pass header.i=@mailgun.org header.s=mg header.b=nkZUp9vm; spf=pass (google.com: domain of bounce+a6cce7.4d1858-tjphuhs=gmail.com@mg2.substack.com designates 159.112.244.56 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="bounce+a6cce7.4d1858-tjphuhs=gmail.com@mg2.substack.com"; dmarc=pass (p=REJECT sp=REJECT dis=NONE) header.from=substack.com Return-Path: Received: from v556.v5375b7fa.use4.send.mailgun.net (v556.v5375b7fa.use4.send.mailgun.net. [159.112.244.56]) by mx.google.com with UTF8SMTPS id d75a77b69052e-50939eb7518si98065151cf.57.2026.03.13.14.30.09 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 13 Mar 2026 14:30:09 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of bounce+a6cce7.4d1858-tjphuhs=gmail.com@mg2.substack.com designates 159.112.244.56 as permitted sender) client-ip=159.112.244.56; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@mg2.substack.com header.s=mailo header.b=M1AxJhuX; dkim=pass header.i=@mailgun.org header.s=mg header.b=nkZUp9vm; spf=pass (google.com: domain of bounce+a6cce7.4d1858-tjphuhs=gmail.com@mg2.substack.com designates 159.112.244.56 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="bounce+a6cce7.4d1858-tjphuhs=gmail.com@mg2.substack.com"; dmarc=pass (p=REJECT sp=REJECT dis=NONE) header.from=substack.com DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; v=1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mg2.substack.com; q=dns/txt; s=mailo; t=1773437409; x=1773444609; h=List-Unsubscribe-Post: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: List-Archive: List-Owner: Reply-To: In-Reply-To: References: Sender: Sender: Date: Message-Id: To: To: From: From: Subject: Subject: Content-Type: Mime-Version: X-Feedback-Id; bh=PTnJ7hA2gT0n23O6ZyyIm0aeA2esjHtMlPeNBoFcIZ0=; b=M1AxJhuXoYgSVX5vVjKyzr+Lsy6cB8x+Se0kHPTNq7+DGPgr33D7ocwt+4Hxpo98DU5IQfVL+vKAUfjU7TiTiHScN3hM4uHnGjJL6Pi4rb6wR0a6O8I6aio1UHlrmG4SPZCowsSe3W2RmVSM0CCzkV3HvVE2ol8voJSjKDiArU8= DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; v=1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mailgun.org; q=dns/txt; s=mg; t=1773437409; x=1773444609; h=List-Unsubscribe-Post: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: List-Archive: List-Owner: Reply-To: In-Reply-To: References: Sender: Sender: Date: Message-Id: To: To: From: From: Subject: Subject: Content-Type: Mime-Version: X-Feedback-Id; bh=PTnJ7hA2gT0n23O6ZyyIm0aeA2esjHtMlPeNBoFcIZ0=; b=nkZUp9vmiAD5JpPRV0tMWtKf7sjnr8ZaSaRE66WSfqAXIbL9RfnVAfGZm7TeQSAY/qxOLllCzMLjfsL2KQRrNd12I929uIcYa7KjyUia9VxcNuZqwruTeQVQU0vntL8gOJerd8OVefprPhUJ/cEyLCXqazQNIn9qX6hui/wqy3M= X-Mailgun-Sid: WyIxODZiYSIsInRqcGh1aHNAZ21haWwuY29tIiwiNGQxODU4Il0= X-Feedback-Id: postmaster@mg2.substack.com:post:5a78b6d5cd16820001f2a9d4:mailgun Received: by 8e38f0a8ea58f4100bbd4953c834616a02aba84dcfb8fa805e5d3f450b49d127 with HTTP id 69b481e14588859df721e092; Fri, 13 Mar 2026 21:30:08 GMT X-Mailgun-Sending-Ip: 159.112.244.56 X-Mailgun-Batch-Id: 69b481e1f7f3a8e2a2eb71fa Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="1f4e0b8e817555210c35126d31269c5de203bdb5b711e3d4ed66cd3013b1" Subject: Lilly Flags New Court Ruling as Telehealth GLP-1 Lawsuits Begin to Converge From: Dave Knapp from On The Pen To: tjphuhs@gmail.com X-Mailgun-Tag: post X-Mailgun-Track-Clicks: false Message-Id: <20260313212955.3.9b59474b23614917@mg2.substack.com> Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2026 21:29:55 +0000 Feedback-Id: post-190881828:cat-post:pub-4808993:substack Sender: Dave Knapp from On The Pen References: In-Reply-To: Reply-To: Dave Knapp from On The Pen List-Owner: List-Url: List-Archive: List-Id: List-Post: List-Unsubscribe: List-Unsubscribe-Post: List-Unsubscribe=One-Click X-Mailgun-Variables: {"category": "post", "email_generated_at": "1773437408946", "is_freemail": "true", "post_audience": "everyone", "post_id": "190881828", "post_type": "newsletter", "pub_community_enabled": "true", "publication_id": "4808993", "subdomain": "onthepen", "user_id": "273622398"} --1f4e0b8e817555210c35126d31269c5de203bdb5b711e3d4ed66cd3013b1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable View this post on the web at https://onthepen.substack.com/p/lilly-flags-ne= w-court-ruling-as-telehealth Eli Lilly quietly filed a Statement of Recent Decision this week in its law= suit against Mochi Health, pointing the judge to a recent federal ruling th= at could influence how the case proceeds. The move is procedural but strate= gic, and it signals that the pharmaceutical companies bringing these lawsui= ts are closely watching each other=E2=80=99s court battles for any preceden= t that might help their arguments. A Statement of Recent Decision is essentially a way for lawyers to tell the= court that a judge somewhere else has just ruled on a similar legal questi= on. Lilly=E2=80=99s filing highlights a recent decision issued in Novo Nord= isk v. Aios (Fella Health), where a federal judge declined to dismiss Novo= =E2=80=99s lawsuit against a telehealth company accused of promoting compou= nded GLP-1 medications using marketing language tied to branded drugs. The reason Lilly believes that ruling matters is simple. The core allegatio= ns in the Novo case closely resemble the claims Lilly is pursuing in its ow= n lawsuit against Mochi Health. Both cases revolve around how telehealth companies market compounded versio= ns of GLP-1 medications. Pharmaceutical companies have argued that certain = marketing practices blur the line between compounded medications and FDA ap= proved products by referencing clinical trial data from branded drugs or us= ing phrases that imply equivalence with those products. That issue has been quietly building for months, and it is exactly the type= of behavior federal regulators have begun scrutinizing closely over the pa= st few weeks. Three weeks ago, On The Pen exclusively reported that the FDA had sent a la= rge wave of letters to telehealth and compounding related companies operati= ng in the GLP-1 space. The letters questioned a range of marketing practice= s, including companies labeling medication vials with telehealth brand name= s and promotional language suggesting compounded medications contained the = =E2=80=9Csame active ingredient=E2=80=9D as drugs like Ozempic. The scope of that enforcement effort became clearer shortly afterward. A fo= llow up report identified 29 telehealth and compounding related companies t= hat had received letters from the FDA, many of which operate in the same ec= osystem now being challenged in pharmaceutical lawsuits. That regulatory backdrop is important because federal courts have historica= lly been cautious about stepping into disputes that fall within the FDA=E2= =80=99s enforcement authority. In several previous cases involving pharmace= utical marketing claims, judges have ruled that questions about drug labeli= ng and promotional language are issues that regulators, not courts, are typ= ically responsible for policing. The emerging overlap between these lawsuits and FDA enforcement raises a na= tural question. If the FDA is already examining how compounded GLP-1 medica= tions are being marketed, could that strengthen the arguments pharmaceutica= l companies are making in court? It is not a simple answer. On one hand, the existence of regulatory scrutin= y could reinforce the pharmaceutical companies=E2=80=99 claim that certain = marketing practices are problematic. If federal regulators are questioning = the same types of language appearing in telehealth promotions, plaintiffs c= ould argue that it supports their broader concerns about how compounded med= ications are being positioned in the marketplace. On the other hand, the same enforcement activity could cut the opposite dir= ection. Defendants in these lawsuits have repeatedly argued that disputes a= bout drug marketing and labeling belong with the FDA, not with private comp= anies filing lawsuits under advertising or competition laws. Courts will ul= timately decide where that boundary sits. For now, Lilly=E2=80=99s filing signals that the legal battles unfolding ac= ross the GLP-1 ecosystem are beginning to intersect. Regulatory actions, ph= armaceutical lawsuits, and telehealth business models are all colliding in = a way that could shape how compounded obesity medications are marketed in t= he future. The next major test in this battle arrives on April 9th, when a federal jud= ge in San Francisco will hear arguments on Mochi Health=E2=80=99s motion to= dismiss. Lilly=E2=80=99s new filing makes one thing clear. The company wan= ts the court to look closely at the Novo ruling and conclude that the Mochi= case should move forward as well. Whether the judge agrees could determine= whether this fight stays procedural or enters the far more revealing phase= of litigation. IF YOU BELIEVE IN OUR WORK, PLEASE HELP SUPPORT IT BY BECOMING A FOUNDING M= EMBER TODAY. FOUNDING MEMBERS AT THE $250 LEVEL WILL HAVE THEIR NAMES PLAC= ED ON =E2=80=9CTHE PEN WALL=E2=80=9D IN OUR NEW STUDIO WE ARE BUILDING. EVE= RY DOLLAR MADE BETWEEN NOW AND OUR LAUNCH WILL GO TOWARDS HELPING US TURN T= HIS INTO THE FIRST EVER PRODUCTION STUDIO DEDICATED TO OBESITY MEDICINE NEW= S. IF YOU BELIEVE IN IT, CONSIDER =E2=80=9CPUTTING YOUR NAME ON IT=E2=80=9D= TODAY! Unsubscribe https://substack.com/redirect/2/eyJlIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9vbnRoZXBlbi5= zdWJzdGFjay5jb20vYWN0aW9uL2Rpc2FibGVfZW1haWw_dG9rZW49ZXlKMWMyVnlYMmxrSWpveU= 56TTJNakl6T1Rnc0luQnZjM1JmYVdRaU9qRTVNRGc0TVRneU9Dd2lhV0YwSWpveE56Y3pORE0zT= kRBNExDSmxlSEFpT2pFNE1EUTVOek0wTURnc0ltbHpjeUk2SW5CMVlpMDBPREE0T1Rreklpd2lj= M1ZpSWpvaVpHbHpZV0pzWlY5bGJXRnBiQ0o5LlF6VGhUWXBLbGd5TlVMWmhFSUZTdHBJZXlIR2t= mWjlIaHZ4cS1jN0VkQ28iLCJwIjoxOTA4ODE4MjgsInMiOjQ4MDg5OTMsImYiOnRydWUsInUiOj= I3MzYyMjM5OCwiaWF0IjoxNzczNDM3NDA4LCJleHAiOjIwODkwMTM0MDgsImlzcyI6InB1Yi0wI= iwic3ViIjoibGluay1yZWRpcmVjdCJ9.WsT-rH001nrOXjr33ecA0wpGGF45OyWFWWK-yWJxiok= ? --1f4e0b8e817555210c35126d31269c5de203bdb5b711e3d4ed66cd3013b1 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Lilly Flags New Court Ru= ling as Telehealth GLP-1 Lawsuits Begin to Converge3D""
Another federal judge just refused to throw out a nearly identical tel= ehealth GLP-1 lawsuit. Lilly is now telling the court the same reasoning sh= ould apply to Mochi.
͏     ­͏     = 73;͏     ­͏     ­͏   &#= 8199; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏ =     ­͏     ­͏     = 3;͏     ­͏     ­͏   = 199; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏ &= nbsp;   ­͏     ­͏     ­= ;͏     ­͏     ­͏   Q= 99; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏ &n= bsp;   ­͏     ­͏     ­= ͏     ­͏     ­͏   ̳= 9; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏ &nb= sp;   ­͏     ­͏     ­&= #847;     ­͏     ­͏    = ; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏ &nbs= p;   ­͏     ­͏     ­&#= 847;     ­͏     ­͏    = ­͏     ­͏     ­͏  = ;   ­͏     ­͏     ­= 47;     ­͏     ­͏     = ­͏     ­͏     ­͏  =   ­͏     ­͏     ­T= 7;     ­͏     ­͏     &= #173;͏     ­͏     ­͏   =   ­͏     ­͏     ­͏= ;     ­͏     ­͏     &#= 173;͏     ­͏     ­͏   &= #8199; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏=     ­͏     ­͏     = 73;͏     ­͏     ­͏   &#= 8199; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏ =     ­͏     ­͏     = 3;͏     ­͏     ­͏   = 199; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏ &= nbsp;   ­͏     ­͏     ­= ;͏     ­͏     ­͏   Q= 99; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏ &n= bsp;   ­͏     ­͏     ­= ͏     ­͏     ­͏   ̳= 9; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏ &nb= sp;   ­͏     ­͏     ­&= #847;     ­͏     ­͏    = ; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏ &nbs= p;   ­͏     ­͏     ­&#= 847;     ­͏     ­͏    = ­͏     ­͏     ­͏  = ;   ­͏     ­͏     ­= 47;     ­͏     ­͏     = ­͏     ­͏     ­͏  =   ­͏     ­͏     ­T= 7;     ­͏     ­͏     &= #173;͏     ­͏     ­͏   =   ­͏     ­͏     ­͏= ;     ­͏     ­͏     &#= 173;͏     ­͏     ­͏   &= #8199; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏=     ­͏     ­͏     = 73;͏     ­͏     ­͏   &#= 8199; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏ =     ­͏     ­͏     = 3;͏     ­͏     ­͏   = 199; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏ &= nbsp;   ­͏     ­͏     ­= ;͏     ­͏     ­͏   Q= 99; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏ &n= bsp;   ­͏     ­͏     ­= ͏     ­͏     ­͏   ̳= 9; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏ &nb= sp;   ­͏     ­͏     ­&= #847;     ­͏     ­͏    = ; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏ &nbs= p;   ­͏     ­͏     ­&#= 847;     ­͏     ­͏    = ­͏     ­͏     ­͏  = ;   ­͏     ­͏     ­
=
Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more
<= /td>

Lilly Flags New C= ourt Ruling as Telehealth GLP-1 Lawsuits Begin to Converge

Another fede= ral judge just refused to throw out a nearly identical telehealth GLP-1 law= suit. Lilly is now telling the court the same reasoning should apply to Moc= hi.

<= /tr>
 

Eli Lilly quietly filed a Statement of Recent Decis= ion this week in its lawsuit against Mochi Health, pointing the judge to a = recent federal ruling that could influence how the case proceeds. The move = is procedural but strategic, and it signals that the pharmaceutical compani= es bringing these lawsuits are closely watching each other’s court ba= ttles for any precedent that might help their arguments.

<= img class=3D"icon" src=3D"https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!x1tS!,w_3= 6,c_scale,f_png,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack.com= %2Ficon%2FLucideComments%3Fv%3D4%26height%3D36%26fill%3Dnone%26stroke%3D%25= 23808080%26strokeWidth%3D2" width=3D"18" height=3D"18" style=3D"border: non= e;vertical-align: middle;max-width: 18px" alt=3D"">
3D""
<= /table>
<= img class=3D"icon" src=3D"https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!5EGt!,w_3= 6,c_scale,f_png,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack.com= %2Ficon%2FNoteForwardIcon%3Fv%3D4%26height%3D36%26fill%3Dnone%26stroke%3D%2= 523808080%26strokeWidth%3D2" width=3D"18" height=3D"18" style=3D"border: no= ne;vertical-align: middle;max-width: 18px" alt=3D"">
=
<= tr>
READ IN APP3D""
 

3D""
Eli Lilly And Company V Mochi= Health Cor...
154KB ∙ PDF file
Download

A Statement of Recent De= cision is essentially a way for lawyers to tell the court that a judge some= where else has just ruled on a similar legal question. Lilly’s filing= highlights a recent decision issued in Novo Nordisk v. Aios (Fella Health)= , where a federal judge declined to dismiss Novo’s lawsuit against a = telehealth company accused of promoting compounded GLP-1 medications using = marketing language tied to branded drugs.

The reason Lilly = believes that ruling matters is simple. The core allegations in the Novo ca= se closely resemble the claims Lilly is pursuing in its own lawsuit against= Mochi Health.

Both cases revolve around how telehealth com= panies market compounded versions of GLP-1 medications. Pharmaceutical comp= anies have argued that certain marketing practices blur the line between co= mpounded medications and FDA approved products by referencing clinical tria= l data from branded drugs or using phrases that imply equivalence with thos= e products.

That issue has been quietly building for months= , and it is exactly the type of behavior federal regulators have begun scru= tinizing closely over the past few weeks.

Three weeks ago, = On The Pen exclusively reported that the FDA had sent a large wave of lette= rs to telehealth and compounding related companies operating in the GLP-1 s= pace. The letters questioned a range of marketing practices, including comp= anies labeling medication vials with telehealth brand names and promotional= language suggesting compounded medications contained the “same activ= e ingredient” as drugs like Ozempic.

$HIMS $LLY $N= VO 🚨 OTP EXCLUSIVE BREAKING: LARGE NUMBER OF FDA LETTERS SENT TO GL= P-1 TELEHEALTH COMPANIES. - QUESTIONING MARKETING PRACTICES (labeling vials= with telehealth names when they don’t originate from the telehealth = company itself) - USING PHRASES LIKE: “Same active
3D"X
On The Pen™
@ManOnThePen
=
=
9:59 PM · Feb 20, 20= 26 · 15.8K Views
5 Replies · 7 Re= posts · 58 Likes

The scope of that enforcement effort became clearer shortly after= ward. A follow up report identified 29 telehealth and compounding related c= ompanies that had received letters from the FDA, many of which operate in t= he same ecosystem now being challenged in pharmaceutical lawsuits.

3D"X=
=
On The Pen™
@ManOnThePen
=
BREAKING 🚨 🚨 🚨 FULL LIST OF 29 COMPOUN= D/TELEHEALTH COMPANIES WHO RECEIVED FDA LETTERS (AS PREVIOUSLY EXCLUSIVELY = REPORTED BY ON THE PEN) • 24HrDoc, Inc. dba 24HrDoc • Alan Heal= th Technologies Inc. dba Alan • Aspen Aesthetics dba Fifty 410 •= ; Belle Health LLC dba Belle
6:41 PM · Mar 3, 2026 · 21.9K Views
15 Rep= lies · 4 Reposts · 57 Likes

That regulatory ba= ckdrop is important because federal courts have historically been cautious = about stepping into disputes that fall within the FDA’s enforcement a= uthority. In several previous cases involving pharmaceutical marketing clai= ms, judges have ruled that questions about drug labeling and promotional la= nguage are issues that regulators, not courts, are typically responsible fo= r policing.

The emerging overlap between these lawsuits and= FDA enforcement raises a natural question. If the FDA is already examining= how compounded GLP-1 medications are being marketed, could that strengthen= the arguments pharmaceutical companies are making in court?

On the ot= her hand, the same enforcement activity could cut the opposite direction. D= efendants in these lawsuits have repeatedly argued that disputes about drug= marketing and labeling belong with the FDA, not with private companies fil= ing lawsuits under advertising or competition laws. Courts will ultimately = decide where that boundary sits.

For now, Lilly’s fil= ing signals that the legal battles unfolding across the GLP-1 ecosystem are= beginning to intersect. Regulatory actions, pharmaceutical lawsuits, and t= elehealth business models are all colliding in a way that could shape how c= ompounded obesity medications are marketed in the future.

<= span>The next major test in this battle arrives on April 9th, when a federa= l judge in San Francisco will hear arguments on Mochi Health’s motion= to dismiss. Lilly’s new filing makes one thing clear. The company wa= nts the court to look closely at the Novo ruling and conclude that the Moch= i case should move forward as well. Whether the judge agrees could determin= e whether this fight stays procedural or enters the far more revealing phas= e of litigation.

<= strong>IF YOU BELIEVE IN OUR WORK, PLEASE HELP SUPPORT IT BY BECOMING A FOU= NDING MEMBER TODAY. FOUNDING MEMBERS AT THE $250 LEVEL WILL HAVE THEIR NAM= ES PLACED ON “THE PEN WALL” IN OUR NEW STUDIO WE ARE BUILDING. = EVERY DOLLAR MADE BETWEEN NOW AND OUR LAUNCH WILL GO TOWARDS HELPING US TUR= N THIS INTO THE FIRST EVER PRODUCTION STUDIO DEDICATED TO OBESITY MEDICINE = NEWS. IF YOU BELIEVE IN IT, CONSIDER “PUTTING YOUR NAME ON IT” = TODAY!
Upgrade to paid

VISIT OUR SPONSORS!

=
=3D""
=
3D""
=

You’re currently a free subscriber to On The Pen. Fo= r premium access to insider articles, upgrade to paid.

Upgrade to paid
=
 
<= td width=3D"8" style=3D"min-width:8px;">
= 3D""Like
3D""Comment
3D""Restack
 

© 2026 David KnappOn The Pen, PO Box 541, Cedar Falls, IA 50613
Unsubscribe

3D"Start

3D""3D"" --1f4e0b8e817555210c35126d31269c5de203bdb5b711e3d4ed66cd3013b1--