#2702

It’s also potentially dangerous to misrepresent the research on targeting extremely low cholesterol. Especially when you haven’t read some of the research you have such strong opinions on. Shouting people down with abuse is never really justified even when you’re right. But when you’ve not really read the research…

3 Likes
#2704

You’re still angry? You’ve now accused me of being a “tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorist artist with Autism/Asperger’s and reading comprehension issues”. All because I tried to give balance to the discussion of the Fourier trial by quoting from a BMJ paper reviewing it.

You’ve also accused the scientists who independently reviewed the Fourier trial of being “rogue doctors” who didn’t bother with blinding. Is this a big issue for you, or do you just like throwing around insults anonymously online? Why not take a longer break fro the board?

#2706

@AnUser after having seen this whole tread unfold I have to say that I do think you have sometimes said things in non constructive way that does not fit with the community that @RapAdmin has built. Your comment above about autism/asbergers is one example.

Let’s please be more constructive - we are all on this journey together.

7 Likes
#2708

Except I’m not making anything up. You hadn’t “really read” the BMJ research paper you had such strong opinions about. That was pretty obvious from what you posted about it. Remember , there’s quite a big difference between “really reading” a paper and “I probably did look at it”.

If you don’t want to engage, maybe stop posting abuse? There’s an interesting debate to be had if you can manage to accept that people might try to contradict your views. This board just isn’t really the place for playground stuff.

#2709

I did try and debate you, but you are not tracking at all, making nonsensical responses like “that is what I said, ACM as a secondary endpoint”.

#2710

I am going to post this one last time. You can feel free to undermine the arguments in this study, if you do not address this study which I have referenced multiple times and told you to read, and babble on about how ACM is better marker and doesn’t cost much more or take much longer, then you are a dishonest actor.
You have to prove that it will not cost much more or take much longer, you base it on the calculations in this study to do so. Assume 50% will die from CVD from all deaths, in an equal time period as the study and the medication will prevent 15% of those CVD deaths, if you believe there is a more accurate number that is favored my way, then use those.

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.023359

#2711

OK - this discussion is getting to the point where it reminds me of this cartoon (XKCD is a very popular cartoon in the tech world. xkcd: Duty Calls …

Someone is wrong on internet-2

I mean - its a balance here, right. Its good to care about false information (especially here where we call care about longevity so much, so want to try to separate fact from fiction), but sometimes we’ve said our point and we just need to let it go.

@AnUser please, if you’re getting to the point where you’re really pissed off about a conversation, just take a break before you start personal attacks. I have a general policy, if I’m feeling fired up about some post… don’t post back immediately. Take a day off and revisit.

On another general topic I’d like to get people’s thoughts on. This thread has gotten a little long, as you likely have noted. Its a bit of a moderation nightmare… and I’m not sure how best to manage it. I’m thinking its time to “close” this thread , create a new one, and provide a link to the new one from here (and vise versa)… but I suspect few people are going to read this thread now from start to finish.

Your thoughts?

14 Likes
#2713

Close the thread. Too much bad feelings in it.

6 Likes
#2714

Ok, ill have another go.

“Goal post” isn’t a defined term, It’s a metaphor. It is obviously fine to use metaphors, but when you use them you kinda have to expect that other people may interpret them differently to how you meant them. I assumed “goal post” meant “a study end point”. So i pointed out that you had recently quoted an interesting study that had All Cause Mortality as a secondary endpoint. Obviously that study did run just a “bit longer” than the Fourier trial and came to a significant result for ACM without having to run for 50+ years (“25x longer”).

But… When you said “goal post” it now seems you specifically meant "primary end point only. Which seems a little odd given that we’d been debating whether the Fourier trial should have been terminated early (because the primary endpoint had been met) or allowed to run it’s course to investigate the emerging signal on ACM as a secondary endpoint.)

Now, to the “study” you quote above. And where i believe you’ve got things wrong

  1. It isn’t really a study, is it. It’s a discussion paper where they run some illustrative calculations.
  2. It’s referring to “primary end points” only, so isn’t directly relevant to our discussion about the Fourier trial.
  3. The part you’ve fixed on (“The 25x larger” example) Assumes that: “Suppose 3% of the target population will die over the next 15 years”. Whereas the trials we’ve been discussing (including Fourier) are all in elderly subjects with pre-existing cardiovascular disease. So this just simply doesn’t apply.
  4. If you read the papers, the death rate is much higher than “3% over 15 years”. And because they have preexisting cvd, the death rate from cvd as % of ACM is also much higher.
  5. As a sense check, think about the Fourier trial and how long it was due to run for … 3 and bit years. Now think about the interesting study you quoted which found a significant result for ACM in a similar population… it found that significance within … 3 and bit years. Not 25x that. Not 75 years. But … 3 and a bit
#2715

Good idea! :face_with_peeking_eye: I think it will be a relief to everyone :grin:

2 Likes
#2716

Close the thread!

2 Likes
#2717

No the Odyssey trial did not show a statistically significant effect on all cause mortality, I was wrong about that. However we are talking past each other, we simply think too differently, so it is impossible to debate. No need to discuss this further.
:+1:

1 Like
#2718

On the other hand this thread serves as a containment zone :slightly_smiling_face:

4 Likes
#2719

This thread has been wandering for a long time. I myself have been tempted to rename it “The Statin Wars,” just to be cheeky. :smiley: I see how it’s a moderation nightmare, and I trust your decision @RapAdmin on how to proceed.

On a different general topic, ad hominem arguments create a cultural tone in a community. For those of us unwilling to engage in that way, this can result in people feeling shut out or silenced. I think it’s important that we be aware that when that approach is part of a community’s culture, voices and participation may be lost.

6 Likes
#2720

I think the cartoon says it well. But I have a fundamental question about forum debates. When someone gets caught up in this kind of disagreement where it has become clear there will be no resolution, how do they get out of it? I am seriously asking the question.

At a certain point you realize (or should realize) your arguments aren’t going to get the response you want. You can agree to disagree, or you can say something conciliatory, but what if the other side still gets in one last word?

As an intermediate step I like: “I have a general policy, if I’m feeling fired up about some post… don’t post back immediately. Take a day off and revisit”.

Once it is clear there is a stalemate, what does it require in terms of internal mental process to be able to tolerate not getting the last word? And how does one withdraw gracefully and maintain their self respect?

There is a wealth of rational thinkers on this forum. Before closing the thread, I would like to hear some ideas how an individual who has gotten entangled in such a situation, extracts him/her self.

#2721

Yes when someone is being abusive it is hard to walk (click) away. I think my personality enjoys taking on bullying behavior, but I think others should be protected. Collective opprobrium is usually sufficient.

Maybe in this instance , i should have started a 2 person thread to continue the argument and save you all from the tedium.

@rapadmin am genuinely interested in a thread looking at the evidence for optimal targeting of apoB/ldl-c … But it may be best to give a week or two🫣.

1 Like
#2722

It is not an ad hominem… as they are not intended to undermine L_Hayes argument. See "Also … "
If L_Hayes has high functioning autism, which is totally fine, and they have not denied so far, maybe they learned something about themselves.
Maybe it is not appropriate to take that up here, but I cannot not mention it…

#2723

The Pontification never ends!

1 Like
#2724

Agree on closing the thread. The original topic was whether or not one had to be concerned with elevated LDL from taking rapamycin, since rapamycin may have protective effects against CVD. I don’t think it’s a useful thread any more.

3 Likes
#2725

Anuser,you surely understand its not acceptable to label people with a fabricated diagnosis. Of course I don’t have autism - but i shouldn’t really be expected to “deny it”.

We’re simply debating ldl-c target levels, there’s really no need to label anyone, in anyway, ever. Yet.you’ve now run through a litany from “tinfoil hat wearer” to “Asperger’s” to" bad actor" to " high functioning autistic" to “tarot card reader” to “artist”. Its all so absurd. These are by their very definition ad hominem attacks.

I’m not sure why you’ve felt the need to lash out, but I do hope you’ll be stopped from doing this to others on this site.

5 Likes