6 ms·

I think you're going to find that a lot of these are actually drugs like statins and metformin, which _are_ "strictly needed to survive" in the sense that the m

I think you're going to find that a lot of these are actually drugs like statins and metformin, which _are_ "strictly needed to survive" in the sense that the main thing they're doing is preventing early death. People hear "prescription modifications" and think of things like SSRIs, allergy meds, opioids, etc., but the vast majority of the top 10 medications taken in the US[0] are statins, diabetes drugs, blood pressure medications - things which prolong life. [0] https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/most-common-medications#top-10 https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/most-common-medica...

fragmede 3y ago
This is especially apparent when you look at the graph in the paper for what percentage of people are taking medication by age. I'm curious about the drop off at 85+ though. https://read.dukeupress.edu/view-large/figure/8349863/dem10965990figure1.tif https://read.dukeupress.edu/view-large/figure/8349863/dem109...
- lepus 3y ago
  If you're healthy enough to live past 85 you're more likely to have lifestyle and inherited factors that increase the odds of you being able to need fewer or no medications even into old age. Modern medicine helps counteract poor health but only so much.
  - littlestymaar 3y ago
    I'm a bit skeptical about that, because at some point, the older you get the poorer your health become even if it used to be stellar. I'm lucky enough to come from a family with very good health expectancy (all 4 great grandmother lived past 90, and all my 4 grandparents are on track to be there as well), but beyond a certain age in their 80 they all started to take meds even though they were still in very good shape.
- 4death4 3y ago
  Probably diabetics or those at high risk of cardiovascular disease dying.
devnullbrain 3y ago
Perhaps we should eat in a manner that is compatible with life.
- ivraatiems 3y ago
  That's true, but people with type 1 diabetes or genetic predisposition to heart disease will still need these drugs. My father, who is in fantastic physical shape and works out almost every day, has the same cholesterol as me, and I am quite overweight and don't eat well. I can increase my chances of long life with diet and exercise. He needs a statin or he will die young. But also, if you have a person who needs a statin or what have you because they live unhealthily, and you can extend their life by X years by giving them a pill that costs a few dollars a month, why not? There's nothing immoral about helping someone live longer even if it isn't through lifestyle changes.
- lazide 3y ago
  Diabetes is clearly identified by ancient Egyptian writings, and described in detail by Hippocrates in Ancient Greece several thousand years ago. Looks like someone in China even around 1500BC. Among many others. Type 1 and type 2. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4707300/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4707300/] Let’s not pretend that we’re doing anything particularly new here, except perhaps in scale.
jodrellblank 3y ago
Dr Paul Mason claims that he has reviewed the studies on statins and found the only statistically significant effect was one study showed a 1 day shortening of life. e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7r4j1u42V8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7r4j1u42V8 is one of his presentations. Slightly aside - I've been trying to work out if the "Low Vitamin A" diet of Grant Genereux has anything to it. If someone cites his work, he's a random Joe Bloggs engineer with no medical credentials, so can't have an opinion. If someone cites a Dr such as Garret Smith, that's are arguing by authority and so it doesn't hold water. If someone cites papers, that's cherry picking. If someone argues with biochemical pathways and effects, they know the words but how can I verify if they understand them or are doing a human ChatGPT. If they argue from trial and effect, that's anecdotal and doesn't count. If they argue that big companies are lying for money, we agree that happened with tobacco and with DuPont and Teflon manufacture, but that's no proof it's happening in this specific case. If we argue from vegetarian vs carnivore that's argument from literary genre. If we argue from "ancestral" paleo scenarios, that's argument from story telling and fictional paradise. If we dismiss because it's conspiratorial quackery, we risk throwing the gold out with the riverwaters. If we find one or two flaws in the reasoning, that doesn't mean the whole thing has no substance. If we stand back and say "eat a balanced diet" that's a cop-out which assumes that there can be such a thing, and that we know what we are trying to balance, and have enough information to be able to do it. It's rather difficult to decide anything as a layperson, other than "go with the mainstream recommendation" - except then Gell-Mann amnesia comes in. We know the "best practices" in computing are really more like the "cover your ass" recommendations of "nobody got fired for buying IBM" and inviduals can do much better than "best practices" in specific areas, but then turn to another area and we can't do better than go with the crowd ... except in nutrition terms, the crowd doesn't have a good consensus. Most people who eat a Standard American/Western Diet (SAD) are ill, as per the article here.
- michaelmrose 3y ago
  > Most people who eat a Standard American/Western Diet (SAD) are ill, as per the article here. This seems to be a fairly poor analysis. By your definition someone who treats a condition having nothing whatsoever to diet is ill if he takes a prescription but well if he does not. A good example would be allergy medication. More ridiculous yet if said medication became available over the counter it would magically make him well again. It's not like other metrics aren't available to more directly measure. The honest truth is you can be fairly healthy just by doing the things we already know are unambiguously true. Eat reasonable portions. Don't eat the shit tons of sugar we all eat. Exercise. Don't live on obviously unhealthy fast food. Don't smoke or vape. Maintain a healthy weight which is nearly entirely a function of getting enough exercise and not eating too many calories. To the degree that we are unhealthy it is 99.9% a function of simple things on which there is no complexity nor disagreement.
Yizahi 3y ago
And also post-cancer meds. Since we are treating cancers rather successfully and in high numbers now, instead of letting those people die, these people usually need to take some medicine for the whole remaining life to compensate for the failing organ.

fragmede 3y ago

This is especially apparent when you look at the graph in the paper for what percentage of people are taking medication by age. I'm curious about the drop off at 85+ though. https://read.dukeupress.edu/view-large/figure/8349863/dem10965990figure1.tif https://read.dukeupress.edu/view-large/figure/8349863/dem109...

lepus 3y ago
If you're healthy enough to live past 85 you're more likely to have lifestyle and inherited factors that increase the odds of you being able to need fewer or no medications even into old age. Modern medicine helps counteract poor health but only so much.
- littlestymaar 3y ago
  I'm a bit skeptical about that, because at some point, the older you get the poorer your health become even if it used to be stellar. I'm lucky enough to come from a family with very good health expectancy (all 4 great grandmother lived past 90, and all my 4 grandparents are on track to be there as well), but beyond a certain age in their 80 they all started to take meds even though they were still in very good shape.
4death4 3y ago
Probably diabetics or those at high risk of cardiovascular disease dying.

devnullbrain 3y ago

Perhaps we should eat in a manner that is compatible with life.

ivraatiems 3y ago
That's true, but people with type 1 diabetes or genetic predisposition to heart disease will still need these drugs. My father, who is in fantastic physical shape and works out almost every day, has the same cholesterol as me, and I am quite overweight and don't eat well. I can increase my chances of long life with diet and exercise. He needs a statin or he will die young. But also, if you have a person who needs a statin or what have you because they live unhealthily, and you can extend their life by X years by giving them a pill that costs a few dollars a month, why not? There's nothing immoral about helping someone live longer even if it isn't through lifestyle changes.
lazide 3y ago
Diabetes is clearly identified by ancient Egyptian writings, and described in detail by Hippocrates in Ancient Greece several thousand years ago. Looks like someone in China even around 1500BC. Among many others. Type 1 and type 2. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4707300/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4707300/] Let’s not pretend that we’re doing anything particularly new here, except perhaps in scale.

jodrellblank 3y ago

Dr Paul Mason claims that he has reviewed the studies on statins and found the only statistically significant effect was one study showed a 1 day shortening of life. e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7r4j1u42V8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7r4j1u42V8 is one of his presentations. Slightly aside - I've been trying to work out if the "Low Vitamin A" diet of Grant Genereux has anything to it. If someone cites his work, he's a random Joe Bloggs engineer with no medical credentials, so can't have an opinion. If someone cites a Dr such as Garret Smith, that's are arguing by authority and so it doesn't hold water. If someone cites papers, that's cherry picking. If someone argues with biochemical pathways and effects, they know the words but how can I verify if they understand them or are doing a human ChatGPT. If they argue from trial and effect, that's anecdotal and doesn't count. If they argue that big companies are lying for money, we agree that happened with tobacco and with DuPont and Teflon manufacture, but that's no proof it's happening in this specific case. If we argue from vegetarian vs carnivore that's argument from literary genre. If we argue from "ancestral" paleo scenarios, that's argument from story telling and fictional paradise. If we dismiss because it's conspiratorial quackery, we risk throwing the gold out with the riverwaters. If we find one or two flaws in the reasoning, that doesn't mean the whole thing has no substance. If we stand back and say "eat a balanced diet" that's a cop-out which assumes that there can be such a thing, and that we know what we are trying to balance, and have enough information to be able to do it. It's rather difficult to decide anything as a layperson, other than "go with the mainstream recommendation" - except then Gell-Mann amnesia comes in. We know the "best practices" in computing are really more like the "cover your ass" recommendations of "nobody got fired for buying IBM" and inviduals can do much better than "best practices" in specific areas, but then turn to another area and we can't do better than go with the crowd ... except in nutrition terms, the crowd doesn't have a good consensus. Most people who eat a Standard American/Western Diet (SAD) are ill, as per the article here.

michaelmrose 3y ago
> Most people who eat a Standard American/Western Diet (SAD) are ill, as per the article here. This seems to be a fairly poor analysis. By your definition someone who treats a condition having nothing whatsoever to diet is ill if he takes a prescription but well if he does not. A good example would be allergy medication. More ridiculous yet if said medication became available over the counter it would magically make him well again. It's not like other metrics aren't available to more directly measure. The honest truth is you can be fairly healthy just by doing the things we already know are unambiguously true. Eat reasonable portions. Don't eat the shit tons of sugar we all eat. Exercise. Don't live on obviously unhealthy fast food. Don't smoke or vape. Maintain a healthy weight which is nearly entirely a function of getting enough exercise and not eating too many calories. To the degree that we are unhealthy it is 99.9% a function of simple things on which there is no complexity nor disagreement.

Yizahi 3y ago

And also post-cancer meds. Since we are treating cancers rather successfully and in high numbers now, instead of letting those people die, these people usually need to take some medicine for the whole remaining life to compensate for the failing organ.