#738

I don’t really have any idols. The only thing I believe is that Jesus somehow survived his cruxification and after witnessing that, his followers went ecstatic.

1 Like
#739

The attitude I’m often seeing here is that nature is an idiot. If we would just turn the show over to BIG PHARMA and their scientists (profit motivated) they would push nature aside and show us how to do it right (while making a fortune). Do you trust them that much?

#740

LOL! I didn’t mean to derail the topic. Back on track before I start search for Boson supplements.

#741

Nature is 10,000 D-Day operations every day.

1 Like
#742

Nature doesn’t care about the individual. We are supposed to eat, breed then die. The only way to avoid the death part is by using science.
Big Pharma doesn’t care about anything but money but they are forced by regulators to put out drugs that both work (to an extent) and are somewhat safe. Governments and employers also care about keeping their workers ants in shape to milk them for longer.

3 Likes
#743

No - I don’t agree with @AnUser in that post. Its too extreme - but I think he says those things just to get a response from people. Similar to his thread on: Why I love Big Pharma, and why you should too

It all has be evaluated on a case by case, person by person, and medicine by medicine basis. Generalizations are frequently problematic in edge case scenarios.

But we do know that calcium scores are indicating a process that is already well along, and if you plan on living much past 80 I would treat it seriously… obviously I’m not a medical professional, so take my opinion with a large grain of salt…

6 Likes
#744

I think that’s part of it. But also it appears that @AnUser thinks that science should remake man in it’s own image and that it would be a big improvement.

" Dostoevsky believed that such ideas limited man to a product of physics, chemistry and biology, negating spontaneous emotional responses. In its latest variety, Russian nihilism encouraged the creation of an élite of superior individuals to whom the hopes of the future were to be entrusted."

There are so many new pharmaceuticals that are now claiming not only do we make you thinner (it’s original purpose) but also prevent heart disease, prevent dementia, extend your life, etc,etc. If you really believe in big pharma, you can end up taking a lot of drugs (@DeStrider I’m looking at you). It’s like, well this one worked and this one worked, let’s try one more. I even tried very low dose tadalafil daily for a month (I guess I drank the koolaid), didn’t feel anything and finally asked myself - do I really want to go down this road? Where does it end?

#745

Danged if we do and same if we don’t. Physically we often feel nothing until damage is done. Otherwise we’re at the mercy of genetics, assuming an ideal lifestyle.

3 Likes
#746

My path is moderation in all things. Yes, pharmaceuticals have their place and certainly for cardiovascular, it’s likely that you’ll need something. And, I have to admit that rapamycin looks awfully promising, although you’re unlikely to get any definite confirmation, other than feeling better. Certainly there are problems that pharmaceuticals will fix but I don’t have those problems. Enlarged prostate…I think I can live with it. As I said in another thread, anything that fixes the decline in the 5 senses or sharpens mental acuity (with no downside) and I’m in. And I won’t say that I’m against trying any new pharmaceuticals because something that improves circulation (like tadalafil) might help everything. But how do you know it’s working? Or that you needed it? Someday the testing will get good enough to tell you exactly what your weak link is…Teal Omics? And a measure for every organ? Who knows.

Not saying that nature doesn’t make mistakes…or that science can’t fix them. But try doing everything that nature does and see if you make any mistakes. Science certainly can’t come close.

2 Likes
#747

I never felt my LDL and ApoB drop from 120 to 48. It didn’t make me feel any healthier. However I trust the medical research that tells me I have probably halted arteriosclerosis and greatly reduced my CVD and stroke risks.

Not every benefit can be felt. Sometimes you just have to trust the science.

9 Likes
#748

If it reduces acm in rcts and/or extends lifespan in strong animal studies, it’s probably working even if you can’t feel it.

3 Likes
#749

And sometimes I do. Atorvastatin (10mg) and Ezetimibe (5mg) reduced my ApoB to 63 and I think the science was convincing, but I’m not pressed to go further unless a CIMT or CAC test tells me I should.

Yes, but that doesn’t tell me anything about my individual case. And the available testing - for off label tadalafil (for improved circulation in healthy people) - is not going to tell me much either. It may or may not be helping ME.
My point is that people here sometimes seem overly enthusiastic about the “miracle” of pharmaceuticals. Irrational exuberance some may say. But certainly they have their place.

1 Like
#750

This is a good example where the risk/benefit ratio might lean in favor of taking drugs rather than not:

2 Likes
#751

Low/no-added sodium diet with adequate hydration (urine production).

In order to ensure optimal hydration, it is proposed that optimal total water intake should approach 2.5 to 3.5 L day−1 to allow for the daily excretion of 2 to 3 L of dilute (< 500 mOsm kg−1) urine. Simple urinary markers of hydration such as urine color or void frequency may be used to monitor and adjust intake.

1 Like
#752

@AnUser , I’m shocked! You’re smarter than that…Why on earth would you post a study on water consumption needs - which obviously varies widely among individuals - with a study review financed by Danone, a huge bottled water company? A perfect example of why just quoting some paper on PubMed Central is pretty worthless.

“ETP, JHB, AD, IG, AI, CM, IS, TV and MV are or were employed by Danone Research during the writing of this review. LEA, WCC, SAK, FL, HRL, OM, JDS, IT and FP have previously received consulting honoraria and/or research grants from Danone Research.”

Certainly this was a factor in trying low dose tadalafil. Sure, as I said, there are physical declines with aging - like the five senses, graying hair, skin changes and for men BPH that most people see. I just don’t like the solution of taking a new pharmaceutical to address each thing individually and adding one new pharmaceutical after another that have to be taken for the rest of my life. But big pharma loves it.
Give me an option like this one - Altos lab: single dose injection of yamanaka factor increased survival in mice by 25%
a single injection that reprograms cells and organs to a younger age and I’m all for it, even if you do live 25% longer in a healthy and youthful state, only to suddenly keel over dead. Otherwise it’s the typical medical establishment bias - isolate one specific problem and come up with a drug or treatment just for that - works for big pharma, they get to sell lots of drugs. Eventually, and if they designate aging as a disease, they can start prescribing things like rapamycin that hit multiple targets at once and have a more holistic effect. IL-11 inhibitors and cell reprogramming even better. And in the nature vs science argument, nature is more holistic although science is coming around with more cross-discipline collaboration. That’s why the natural interventions - better sleep, diet, more exercise and positive outlook work best, because they benefit the whole organism. Screw Big Pharma! (sorry, got carried away)

@AnUser , yes, I know, rapamycin is big pharma, but they didn’t make it for aging.

1 Like
#753

Nonsense:

  1. Most “longevity” drugs that people take here are cheap generics. Big pharma gets zero money from them.
  2. If you choose the approach of taking these generics early, you might avoid complications later that would otherwise require you to buy some new big pharma drugs to treat whatever disease. So big pharma definitely does not like early prevention with generics.
9 Likes
#755

Nonsense.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/mtor-inhibitors-global-market-report-112000200.html

#756

How does this prove your point? Do you know anything about how patents and the pharmaceutical industry work?

2 Likes
#757

Why would a big company make something for zero profit unless forced to by some government program?

1 Like
#758

The article you sent says, “The mTOR inhibitor market consists of sales of branded and generic mTOR inhibitor tablets and capsules.”.

I was talking about generics. So this is irrelevant. Big pharma doesn’t do generics. Give me the profits made on sirolimus or telmisartan sales outside the US, it will be another another story.

Look at the profit margin of generic drug manufacturers: 12.8%!

That’s way less than in other industries. (Teva’s net profit margin is even negative.)

Of course, they make money, but the competition is so intense that most of the value goes to customers.

Then, if for you, money is a bad thing in general, then yes, pharmaceutical companies, whether generic or branded manufacturers, are all terrible. :man_shrugging:

4 Likes