NEW YORK — In a groundbreaking study that has shocked absolutely no one paying attention, the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery has released research conclusively demonstrating that metabolic and bariatric surgery is superior to GLP-1 medications like Ozempic — a finding that the organization, which represents surgeons who perform metabolic and bariatric surgery for a living, has described as "entirely objective and not at all motivated by anything."

The study, presented at the Society's own annual meeting, compared patients who underwent sleeve gastrectomy and gastric bypass operations against patients taking semaglutide or tirzepatide. The surgery group lost an average of 25.7 percent of their body weight over two years, while the medication group lost 5.3 percent — a disparity researchers attributed to medication non-compliance rather than, say, comparing permanent organ removal to an optional daily pill.

"We were as surprised as anyone," said Dr. Certainly Not Biased, adjusting his surgical mask and boat payment schedule simultaneously. "Who could have predicted that the intervention you literally cannot discontinue would show better long-term adherence than the one patients can simply stop taking when they experience side effects, supply shortages, or receive their pharmacy bill?"

The study acknowledged that approximately 70% of GLP-1 patients discontinue treatment within one year — a figure the researchers chose to bury approximately seven paragraphs into their findings before expressing theatrical shock that the surgery group showed better outcomes. In related findings, researchers confirmed that people who cancel their gym memberships show less fitness improvement than people whose legs were surgically replaced with treadmills.

Clinical trials have shown weight loss between 15 and 21 percent for GLP-1 medications, but researchers dismissed these results as "not real world," preferring instead to rely on data from the real world where the surgery industry's revenue projections live. Studies conducted in controlled conditions were characterized as "fantasy," while research funded by direct competitors was presented as unvarnished truth.

"Patients need to adjust their expectations," explained NYU surgical resident Avery Brown, addressing a crowd of people who cannot adjust their surgically modified digestive systems. "They could also adhere more closely to treatment, or simply opt for the more economical option of permanent surgical intervention." Dr. Brown did not elaborate on whether patients experiencing $1,000/month out-of-pocket costs had considered simply having more money.

The researchers carefully matched patients by age, BMI, and blood sugar levels, though notably did not control for several potentially relevant variables, including: insurance coverage continuity, Ozempic shortage availability, whether the patient still possesses their original stomach configuration, ability to eat more than three ounces of food without physical consequences, and the existence of a "stop surgery" button.

The study did include one (1) sentence acknowledging that surgery is "invasive, permanent, and still requires patients to stick to strict diet and exercise routines" — a disclaimer that has been placed in witness protection between two stock photos and followed immediately by five paragraphs of surgeons explaining that actually surgery is extremely good and pills are for people who lack commitment.

"While we're not outright dismissing GLP-1 medications," the study authors carefully noted, in the same tone a Pepsi-funded study might use to not outright dismiss Coca-Cola while concluding it causes mild psychosis and Pepsi cures cancer. "Both patient groups lose weight. It's just that surgery is much more effective and durable." The word "durable," in this context, meaning "you cannot undo it even if you wanted to."

With GLP-1 prescriptions having doubled between 2022 and 2023, bariatric surgeons have been forced to take dramatic action: funding studies. Industry insiders report that surgical practices nationwide have experienced what one administrator described as "a modest downturn in elective digestive system rearrangements," prompting urgent scientific inquiry into why patients keep choosing the option that doesn't involve general anesthesia and permanent anatomical changes.

ASMBS President Ann M. Rogers, who was not involved in the study but is involved in the organization that funded it and would benefit from its conclusions, praised the findings. "This is exactly the kind of unbiased research our field needs," she said. "People need to understand that the treatment we sell is better than the treatment other people sell. This is simply science."

Researchers have promised future studies examining "what healthcare providers can do to optimize GLP-1 outcomes" — a question they will continue exploring right up until the moment it threatens surgical revenue, at which point the research will conclude that actually surgery is still better and please stop asking questions.

The study has been widely praised by surgeons, surgical device manufacturers, surgical practice administrators, and a surprising number of researchers whose funding sources contain the word "surgical."

The National Association of Realtors contributed to this report with their upcoming study on whether renting or buying is the better choice. Spoiler: it's buying.