Sorry, but you’re simply incorrect about the facts. Pretending that this isn’t explicitly about weightloss when the article says as much in plain language makes me question whether or not you’re participating in this discussion in good faith. Yes it is in the context of treating diabetes, specifically the type caused by obesity, and the goal of the replacement diet is to address the obesity.
And I would once again ask for specific evidence about the effectiveness of government sponsored obesity interventions in the last 40 years. “They actually want to address the problem” is not evidence that they have done so or will anytime soon. The point of contention here is not their motivation or trustworthiness, but their effectiveness. Insisting that we “better understand the entire biochemistry of the body” is also not evidence of an effective obesity intervention.
Also extremely disingenuous to “shoo away” this point by saying they “actually get results”, when the only “results” you have provided are pasted paragraphs from this very article which only references short term testing on total meal replacement diets (which is not new information) that also acknowledges it hasn’t worked in the long term (which is also not new information).
I will say once again as I have said in literally every comment in this thread, since much of your criticism of my point seems to be dependent on ignoring this, that the problem here is not in what someone and their doctor decide to do together to treat their obesity. It’s a problem of public messaging and context. We simply can’t have headlines going around implying that shake and soup diets have achieved some advanced status considering the damage similar diet schemes have caused and continue to cause. The messaging needs to be done very carefully because we live in the real world where sensationalism can cause real harm.