Surgery Industry Study Concludes Surgery Is Best; Nation Asked Not To Think About It Too Hard

NEW YORK — In findings that surprised absolutely no one who read past the headline, a new study funded by the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery has concluded that bariatric surgery is superior to weight-loss medications, a result the organization described as "significant" and definitely not "the entire point of funding the study in the first place."

The research, presented at the ASMBS annual conference to an audience of surgeons nodding in agreement with the surgeons presenting, found that patients who underwent stomach-reducing operations lost 25.7% of their body weight over two years, compared to just 5.3% for those prescribed GLP-1 medications like Ozempic.

"This is very important research," said ASMBS President Ann M. Rogers, who was reportedly "not involved in the study" in the same way the sun is "not involved" in daylight. "The data clearly shows that surgery produces superior outcomes. We are as surprised as anyone to learn this at our own conference about our own specialty funded by our own organization."

The study's methodology involved matching surgery patients with medication patients based on age, BMI, and blood sugar levels. Researchers notably did not control for income, insurance status, out-of-pocket costs, employment stability, pharmacy access, or any factor that might explain why 70% of patients abandon medications that cost upwards of $1,200 per month.

"We controlled for everything except the things that matter," explained lead researcher Dr. Karan Chhabra, who acknowledged that future studies might examine "the role out-of-pocket costs play in treatment success" — future studies being where inconvenient truths traditionally go to die.

Perhaps the study's most illuminating finding was that surgery shows better "adherence" rates than medication. Experts note this is because surgery, being irreversible, cannot technically be "discontinued" — a property the medical community has rebranded as "durability" rather than "permanence that prevents patient agency."

"The surgery always gave the best results," said NYU surgical resident Avery Brown. "Patients really commit to having a large portion of their stomach removed. You rarely see that level of dedication with a once-weekly injection, which patients can simply stop taking when they lose their job or their insurance declines coverage."

"GLP-1 patients may need to adjust their expectations, adhere more closely to treatment, or opt for metabolic and bariatric surgery to achieve desired results." — Dr. Avery Brown, surgical resident, recommending surgery

Brown's colleague Dr. Chhabra noted that the same patients who cannot be trusted to take a weekly injection will, according to the study's assumptions, absolutely maintain strict post-surgical dietary restrictions, exercise regimens, and vitamin supplementation protocols for the remainder of their reconfigured existence.

"The surgery apparently removes the part of the brain responsible for quitting things," Chhabra did not say, but might as well have.

The conflict of interest was disclosed in paragraph 19 of the original report using the phrase "worth noting," the journalism equivalent of mumbling. The study was funded by a surgery organization, conducted by surgery residents, presented at a surgery conference, and praised by the surgery organization's president, whom the article helpfully noted was "not involved."

"This is not corruption," explained one bioethicist who requested anonymity. "It's something worse: It's normal. The surgeon believes surgery is best. He's probably right, from where he's standing. That's the problem. Everyone's standing somewhere."

Notably absent from the study was any serious discussion of the intervention that costs nothing, requires no appointment, cannot be patented, and therefore does not get studied, funded, or presented at conferences in Las Vegas.

"Diet and exercise" appeared in the article exactly once — as a post-surgical requirement. The solution that doesn't generate revenue was mentioned only as support for solutions that do.

"We've tried nothing, and we're all out of ideas," said the nation, reaching for its wallet.

When reached for comment, a spokesperson for the pharmaceutical industry noted, "At least when we fund studies that find our products work, our products actually work in the study. These guys funded a study where the pills barely worked and still had to put 'surgery wins' in the headline. That's honestly impressive."

The study did not ask why 70% of patients quit their medication. It just counted them as failures.

The game was rigged from the start. But sure, let's blame adherence.

An earlier version of this article described the study as "independent." We regret the error, our failure to read past the abstract, and whatever journalism school did to us.