The US Leads The World In The Weight-Loss Injection Boom

Novo Nordisk’s obesity-drug franchise has surged at a remarkable pace. In just four years, revenue from its weight-management treatments ballooned roughly tenfold - from about $1.3 billion in 2021 to approximately $12.4 billion in 2025. The growth has been fueled largely by Wegovy, the company’s blockbuster weight-loss drug built around the active ingredient semaglutide and marketed as a once-weekly injection.

Semaglutide itself was originally developed to treat type 2 diabetes and continues to be sold under the brand name Ozempic for that purpose. The primary difference between the two products lies in dosage. As Statista notes, Wegovy is formulated at higher semaglutide levels for weight management, while Ozempic is designed for blood-sugar control in diabetic patients. In practice, however, Ozempic has frequently been prescribed off-label for weight loss - a practice that is restricted or prohibited in several European Union countries.

Regardless of branding, the United States has emerged as Novo Nordisk’s most important market. According to the company’s 2025 annual report, the U.S. accounts for the overwhelming share of sales for both Ozempic and Wegovy. For drugs marketed specifically for weight loss, more than 60% of global revenue comes from the American market - a reflection of both the country’s large pharmaceutical sector and its high obesity rates, which have helped make the U.S. the epicenter of the global GLP-1 boom.

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/06/2026 - 05:45

'Mr. Gold' Warns Of 'System Reset' As Silver Lights Fuse Of Derivatives Time-Bomb

Authored by Greg Hunter via usawatchdog.com,

Financial writer and precious metals expert Bill Holter (aka Mr. Gold) predicted that by March, silver would likely suffer a failure to deliver physical metal at COMEX. In other words, demand for physical silver will swamp the existing supply. The math is scary and simple, and Holter breaks it down, “The registered inventory at COMEX in silver is 86 million ounces. On the second day of March, there are already 52 million ounces of silver standing for delivery. That leaves 30 million to 35 million ounces unspoken for. . .. This looks dicey. If they have 52 million ounces standing for delivery now, where is it going to be at the end of the month? If silver fails to deliver, then what you are going to have in the gold market is buyers stepping up that normally would not even buy and ask for delivery. . .. The bottom line is if silver fails to deliver, gold will fail to deliver in 24 hours. Once that happens, then confidence breaks. . .. You are looking at two quadrillion dollars in derivatives in a global economy with $350 trillion in debt with an underlying $100 trillion annual GDP. The math does not work. I think silver, and I have said this for many years, silver will be the spark or the fuse that lights off gold, which then lights off the derivatives time bomb. Warren Buffett calls derivatives weapons of mass financial destruction.”

Mr. Gold thinks, “When the system resets, governments will start a money print fest that will touch off global hyperinflation. . .. The pure math of debt outstanding is that it cannot be repaid in current terms. It will be hyperinflation of the things we need and hyper-deflation of the things we already have. . .. How is somebody going to buy your house if the capital is not there? If the capital is not there, then the price is going to have to come down. . .. It is highly likely that silver will kick off the demise of the financial system.”

Mr. Gold thinks this kind of global debt will go bad fast. Holter warns, “When this thing cascades and collapses, you are either in place, or you are out of place. If you are out of place, you will not be able to repair your mistake. It will be a lifetime mistake to have not gotten ready. Let me just say there is a difference in being early and being wrong. In 2000 to 2005, if you were buying gold or you were buying silver, you were an idiot, a complete idiot, and people thought you walked around with a tin foil hat on. . .. Now, we are at the point where the best place to have invested your money since January 2000 would be in gold or silver. When Noah was running around building his ark, he looked wrong. He was not wrong–he was just early."

Watch:

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/06/2026 - 05:00

Stop The War... Because 'Global Warming'!!!

Via notalotofpeopleknowthat blog,

Apparently our climate propagandists are not bothered about the Mad Mullahs!

War makes climate change worse in many ways, and vice versa.

The US-Israel attacks on Iran that began over the weekend have killed hundreds of civilians and sent oil prices soaring, but this war also promises to unleash massive amounts of planet-warming gases at a time when civilization is already hurtling toward irreversible climate breakdown.

Not every story about the Iran war needs to make the climate connection, but climate change is essential context if the public and policymakers are to understand the full dimensions of this conflict.

Join Covering Climate Now and a panel of experts for a discussion about the geopolitical and climate implications of the war on Iran, which has one of the world’s largest oil reserves.

Their only concern is that a war might put a bit more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere!

They would no doubt be much happier with a nuclear winter!

At least it will lower global warming.

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/06/2026 - 04:15

The Planned "NATO Bank" Is Expected To Finance Europe's Impending Arms Race With Russia

Authored by Andrew Korybko,

The Russian-Polish security dilemma will likely serve as the impetus for fully unleashing and properly managing the capabilities of European NATO as a whole per the US’ National Defense Strategy.

RT drew attention in late January to a report by Izvestia about the West’s alleged plans to launch a “Defense, Security, and Resilience Bank” (DSRB) by 2027. Their article relies on in-depth research by the Atlantic Council, which came up with the idea of what was at first called the “NATO Bank”. The purpose is to provide “low-interest loans for defense modernization”, thus facilitating the goal of NATO members spending 5% of GDP on defense without significantly curtailing social and infrastructure spending.

Instead of slashing such programs to redirect funds to defense at the risk of helping populist-nationalists during the next elections and/or provoking unrest, they’d only spend a fraction of the principal each year servicing their DSRB loan instead of paying the cost upfront as if it was part of their annual expenditures. The Executive Summary of the Atlantic Council’s in-depth research hyperlinked to above also notes that “An additional critical function of the DSR bank would be to underwrite the risk for commercial banks”.

This would then “enabl[e] them to extend financing to defense companies across the supply chain.” The supplementary purpose is to finance large-scale orders that these companies themselves are unable to afford on their own and most member states can’t finance either without potential populist pushback. Defense companies can then expand production, pump out the requested military-technical equipment at scale, and then sell it at a much more affordable price for accelerating NATO’s planned militarization.

The bloc’s Eastern Flank, which largely overlaps with the Polish-led “Three Seas Initiative”, is expected to benefit the most. Poland is already poised to receive €44 billion in loans from the EU’s €150 billion “Security Action For Europe” program (SAFE, which is part of the €800 billion “ReArm Europe Plan”). This should help modernize its embarrassingly underdeveloped military-industrial complex and thus enable Poland to serve as the regional core of associated processes across the rest of the Eastern Flank.

The aforesaid role would become much more likely if it and Lithuania succeed in creating a defense-centric cross-border economic zone across the Suwalki Corridor/Gap like the latter just proposed. The US National Defense Strategy assessed that “European NATO dwarfs Russia in economic scale, population, and, thus, latent military power.” This potential just needs to be fully unleashed and properly managed. Poland could pioneer the way if it allows the US to advise it on the optimal use of SAFE and DSRB loans.

It was already assessed that “Poland Will Play A Central Role In Advancing The US’ National Security Strategy In Europe” so it therefore naturally follows that it’ll play a central role in the National Defense Strategy too. Poland already spends more of its GDP on defense than any other NATO member at 4.8%, however, so anything much more might result in curtailing social and infrastructure spending, but therein lies the importance of the DSRB for enabling Poland to avert that trade-off as was explained.

Poland’s debt-to-GDP is 55.1%, which is far below the EU’s 80.7%, so it could take on more debt through these means without too much socio-political discomfort. This is feasible after Poland just became a $1 trillion economy. Any additional military spending fueled by the DSRB would further accelerate Poland’s unprecedented militarization, which has led to it having the EU’s largest army at over 215,000 troops, with plans to reach 300,000 by 2030 and half a million by 2039 (200,000 of which would be reservists).

From Russia’s perspective, this poses a serious threat to Kaliningrad and allied Belarus, ergo why it’s expected to correspondingly bolster its forces there in response. That could also include the deployment of more strategic arms to Belarus like tactical nukes, hypersonic Oreshniks, and/or whatever else it might develop by then. Such responses are in turn expected to be portrayed by Poland as the reason for its unprecedented militarization that policymakers might then demand to be sped up even further.

The Russian-Polish security dilemma, which is due to their millennium-old rivalry and the US’ empowering of Poland as an anti-Russian proxy, will likely serve as the impetus for fully unleashing and properly managing the capabilities of European NATO as a whole per the US’ National Defense Strategy. Any progress in this direction would compel Russia to keep pace with this hostile bloc’s Polish-led militarization, therefore resulting in its own continued militarization and consequently an arms race.

Unlike European NATO members which will have to take out loans to finance this, hence the purpose of the DSRB, Russia can finance everything on its own. This places Russia in a much better financial position than its adversaries, some of whom are expected to struggle with balancing their perceived military priorities with their objective socio-economic ones.

Accordingly, Russia has the edge in this impending arms race with Europe, but the EU’s potential federalization could narrow the gap if it ever happens.

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/06/2026 - 03:30

The Roman Empire Peaked In 117 AD

What did Ancient Rome look like at its peak in 117 AD? 

The map below from Visual Capitalist shows the maximum territorial extent ever achieved by the Roman Empire, just after their successful wars in the east, where Emperor Trajan captured Dacia (Romania), Armenia, Mesopotamia, Assyria, and the Parthian capital of Ctesiphon (in modern-day Iraq).

Click on the map to expand...

As Visual Capitalist explains further, although Trajan is rated as one of the best Roman Emperors by historians and was considered one of the strongest military leaders in Roman history, the reality is that the peak he achieved was very short-lived.

We’ll dig into that and more as we explain this map, which covers one of the most interesting periods in history, leveraging classical and modern sources including Cassius Dio, Plutarch, Cambridge Ancient History, Walter Scheidel, Fergus Millar, Adrian Goldsworthy, Anthony Everitt, and Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Trajan: The First Emperor Born Outside of Italy

Trajan was born in Italica, Spain, near modern-day Seville. He was a career soldier and became an extremely competent and respected general. He was adopted as the heir to the childless Nerva, and became emperor after Nerva’s passing in 98 AD.

Once emperor, Trajan was famous for his civic investment and military expansion. He built roads, harbors, aqueducts, and the Forum of Trajan in Rome—but he also conquered distant lands decisively.

The Roman Empire at its Overextended Peak

Various limits—cultural, geographical, logistical, and administrative—seem to prevent historical empires from achieving infinite expansion.

Trajan tested these limits and eventually came upon the breaking point. Dacia (Romania) was arguably his greatest military achievement and remained a Roman province for almost two centuries after. His experiments to the East, however, were less of a slam dunk.

His battles with Parthia (the other Mediterranean superpower at the time) led to quick expansion into Armenia, Mesopotamia, and Assyria. However, these vast territorial gains were fragile:

• Supply lines were long, exposed, and costly.
• Massive revolts broke out in Judea and across the Jewish diaspora, in Libya, Egypt, and Cyprus.
• Parthia remained intact as a power, despite symbolic defeats.

In hindsight, the map captures not just Rome’s greatest triumph—but the moment it became overextended.

Could Trajan hold it together as the empire came under strain?

The End of Trajan’s Reign, and a New Imperial Strategy

Conquering territory and holding it are two very different challenges.

With troops diverted across multiple fronts, the new gains quickly started unraveling for Trajan. At the same time, now in his early 60s, his health also began to fail. As he was returning to Rome, he stopped in Cilicia (modern-day southern Türkiye), where he passed away.

Hadrian, the following emperor, immediately recognized that the empire had tested its limits and now needed to consolidate. He built Hadrian’s Wall in the UK, and abandoned most of Trajan’s eastern conquests to focus on stabilization.

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/06/2026 - 02:45

With Europe Vulnerable To An Energy Crisis, Putin Says Russia May Pull The Plug On Gas Supplies To Europe

Via Remix News,

The Russian government, along with domestic energy companies, is examining whether or not to immediately withdraw from the European market, Russian President Vladimir Putin said in a statement to Rossiya 1 television on Wednesday evening.

Putin appears to be reacting to the indication from Brussels that Russian energy may, after all, be needed in the short term, due to the war in Iran and closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

However, Putin may just decide to pull the plug now and start transitioning to other countries and regions that are not threatening a ban, reports Hirado.

“They (…) plan to introduce restrictions on the purchase of Russian gas, including liquefied gas, starting in a month, (March) 25. A year later, in (20)27, further restrictions will come into effect, up to a complete ban.

Now other markets are opening up. And perhaps it would be more beneficial for us to stop deliveries to the European market now.

To move to those markets that are opening up and gain a foothold there,” he said.

The move comes at time when gas prices are surging across Europe, leaving the EU vulnerable to a further supply shock.

Putin made clear that no decision has been made in the case.

“We will see what will happen in this area,” he said, “but this is a very dangerous game, especially today.”

 “According to the data available to our services, just as they once blew up the Nord Streams, now in Kyiv, with the support of some Western services, they are preparing to blow up the Blue Stream and the Turkish Stream. We have informed our Turkish friends about this matter,” he said.

The Russian president also called the attack on a Russian gas tanker in the Mediterranean Sea an act of terrorism.

Putin additionally called Russia a reliable supplier, explaining that the increase in European gas prices is not directly related to supplies, because they have not decreased overall, but rather the result of the general situation on the world market.

Read more here...

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/06/2026 - 02:00