Brian Lian’s leap from Wall Street analyst to founder and CEO of Viking Therapeutics reads like the kind of American entrepreneurship story conservatives admire: spotting an opportunity, taking a risk, and building a company from the ground up. What began with a small licensing deal has turned into a public biotech with a market value around $4 billion and a pipeline squarely aimed at the booming obesity and metabolic disease market.
Viking’s lead candidate, VK2735, is being developed as both a subcutaneous injection moving toward late-stage trials and an oral formulation still in earlier testing, with company data showing meaningful weight loss in trials to date. Those results—up to mid-teen percentage weight loss for the shots and notable, though lower, results for the oral drug—have investors and big pharma circling, even as tolerability issues have raised eyebrows. The mixed efficacy and side-effect profile explains why Viking has seen wild swings in sentiment and stock price.
This is happening against the backdrop of a market the industry itself projects to be worth tens of billions, with some forecasts putting it near $100 billion by the end of the decade, and major strategic plays already underway. Big Pharma’s hunger for a piece of the action was on full display when Pfizer paid roughly $10 billion for Metsera late last year, signaling that giants will pay top dollar for promising assets. Those deals should make every patriot wary: consolidation can drive innovation, but it can also lock in power for a few firms who then set prices and terms for hardworking Americans.
Lian’s story is admirable in entrepreneurial terms, but the financial theater around Viking also shows the less savory side of modern markets—volatility, hedge funds, and insider transactions that feed narratives more than long-term patient outcomes. The company’s leadership has disclosed sales and grants of stock, moves that naturally attract scrutiny when a company is being pitched as an M&A prize or a standalone success. Savvy Americans should celebrate innovation while demanding transparency from executives and accountability from investors.
There are real stakes here beyond ticker symbols: tolerability problems and discontinuation rates reported in trials have spooked investors and patients alike, reminding us that the rush to market should not trample safety. When a promising pill or shot shows strong weight loss but also high discontinuation or GI side effects, regulators and prescribers must press for clarity, not succumb to the hype machine. The market reaction—sharp selloffs after mixed data—proves investors are not willing to ignore risk, and neither should the public.
Viking is also making heavy bets on manufacturing and supply, cutting deals that cost hundreds of millions to secure production capacity for both injectable and oral formats, a reminder that bringing a drug to Americans involves more than science—it requires logistical muscle. Those strategic costs will factor into pricing and availability down the road, which is why conservatives who care about free markets also demand competitive markets that keep prices in check.
At the end of the day, this is a story of American ingenuity colliding with a marketplace dominated by a few giant players willing to spend billions to control new categories. We should cheer entrepreneurs like Lian who take on the risk of discovery, but we must remain vigilant against an ecosystem that too often rewards size over service and short-term payoff over long-term patient welfare. Regulators, investors, and citizens should insist on transparency, competition, and real accountability so that breakthroughs benefit ordinary Americans, not just corporate balance sheets.
