5 ms·

He's not concerned about cancer, but he takes human growth hormone to limit risk of... bone injuries? Am I out of my mind or is this a several-orders-of-magnitu

by hawkice 12y ago

He's not concerned about cancer, but he takes human growth hormone to limit risk of... bone injuries? Am I out of my mind or is this a several-orders-of-magnitude confusion of relative risks?

lisper 12y ago
It's not as clear-cut as that. The risk of losing muscle leading to bone failure leading to inability to exercise leading to general decline in health leading to premature (if your goal is 120 years) death is very high, bordering on certainty. So increasing your risk of cancer by a few percentage points for a significantly improved shot at an extra few decades may not be quite as crazy as it seems at first blush. [UPDATE:] Note that I'm not saying that Thiel is right, only that his position is not a self-evident "several-orders-of-magnitude confusion of relative risks".
- neverminder 12y ago
  As far as I know HGH doesn't increase the risk or cancer, but it speeds it up if there is one, it's a growth hormone after all.
  - hawkice 12y ago
    This is a little fuzzy. It's likely that most organisms of a meaningful size have _some_ number of cancerous cells, so I'm not sure that distinction is as crisp as your phrasing. As for cancer risk, there is some reason to believe a connection, but as with most complex medical questions, there is only so much certainty, even in large studies, until we understand detailed mechanisms. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(02)09519-3/abstract http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-67... https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/endocrj/52/5/52_5_571/_article https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/endocrj/52/5/52_5_571/_...
- jacques_chester 12y ago
  It's pretty easy to prevent muscle loss. Exercise, with weights.
- kybernetikos 12y ago
  > so increasing your risk of cancer by a few percentage points for a significantly improved shot at an extra few decades That reasoning only works given a bunch of conditionals which to most people including experts in the relevant fields seem pretty unlikely. Given that, it'd be great to read more about why he believes the things he does rather than what he's doing about his beliefs, as it's impossible to tell if he's got some interesting insight, or is doing something that only makes sense for him, or in fact is doing something that doesn't make sense at all without knowing more.
zarriak 12y ago
He has based his decision off of a cure for cancer coming sooner than aging mitigation. It is just a choice between a possibly cancerous but healthier/stronger body later in life, or a lower chance of cancer but a higher chance of death from the risks associated with losing muscle mass. Although it is really just a preference, I find predicting one's cause of death and trying to choose the optimal health choices an interesting topic.
- revelation 12y ago
  A cure for cancer? Have we all collectively forgotten what cancer actually is? The human body already incorporates multiple "cures" for cancer or you wouldn't go a year at the rate cells multiply. But then the nature of cancer is that eventually a random mutation will come along that can beat any given cure, just as a million monkeys will eventually type out Mozart.
  - zarriak 12y ago
    I was generalizing cure to mean removal and preventative measure of cancerous cells. I don't think that most people who generalize these things to cure forget what cancer is.
VLM 12y ago
Has he "come out" one way or another WRT pituitary hormone levels? If the levels are unusually low, then medically monitored treatment to raise to normal levels appears to have no negative consequences, only positive ones, at all, at least with a short examination of wikipedia. Even boosting up to a bit on the high side of normal is probably medically sensible, if the patient has symptoms that correspond with excessively low levels. There are bro-science uses, for weightlifting and some other things, which seem to cause significant health problems for people who overdose. Its rather like insulin, if you're chronically low you're in big trouble, but if the stuff were widely available OTC you'd have idiots overdosing on insulin all the time because if a little is good them surely an immense amount is many times better. that doesn't mean proper doctor supervised use of insulin by diabetics is inherently wrong, just because of a little bro-science that isn't relevant to an individual's medical treatment plan.

by hawkice 12y ago

He's not concerned about cancer, but he takes human growth hormone to limit risk of... bone injuries? Am I out of my mind or is this a several-orders-of-magnitude confusion of relative risks?

lisper 12y ago

It's not as clear-cut as that. The risk of losing muscle leading to bone failure leading to inability to exercise leading to general decline in health leading to premature (if your goal is 120 years) death is very high, bordering on certainty. So increasing your risk of cancer by a few percentage points for a significantly improved shot at an extra few decades may not be quite as crazy as it seems at first blush. [UPDATE:] Note that I'm not saying that Thiel is right, only that his position is not a self-evident "several-orders-of-magnitude confusion of relative risks".

neverminder 12y ago
As far as I know HGH doesn't increase the risk or cancer, but it speeds it up if there is one, it's a growth hormone after all.
- hawkice 12y ago
  This is a little fuzzy. It's likely that most organisms of a meaningful size have _some_ number of cancerous cells, so I'm not sure that distinction is as crisp as your phrasing. As for cancer risk, there is some reason to believe a connection, but as with most complex medical questions, there is only so much certainty, even in large studies, until we understand detailed mechanisms. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(02)09519-3/abstract http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-67... https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/endocrj/52/5/52_5_571/_article https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/endocrj/52/5/52_5_571/_...
jacques_chester 12y ago
It's pretty easy to prevent muscle loss. Exercise, with weights.
kybernetikos 12y ago
> so increasing your risk of cancer by a few percentage points for a significantly improved shot at an extra few decades That reasoning only works given a bunch of conditionals which to most people including experts in the relevant fields seem pretty unlikely. Given that, it'd be great to read more about why he believes the things he does rather than what he's doing about his beliefs, as it's impossible to tell if he's got some interesting insight, or is doing something that only makes sense for him, or in fact is doing something that doesn't make sense at all without knowing more.

zarriak 12y ago

He has based his decision off of a cure for cancer coming sooner than aging mitigation. It is just a choice between a possibly cancerous but healthier/stronger body later in life, or a lower chance of cancer but a higher chance of death from the risks associated with losing muscle mass. Although it is really just a preference, I find predicting one's cause of death and trying to choose the optimal health choices an interesting topic.

revelation 12y ago
A cure for cancer? Have we all collectively forgotten what cancer actually is? The human body already incorporates multiple "cures" for cancer or you wouldn't go a year at the rate cells multiply. But then the nature of cancer is that eventually a random mutation will come along that can beat any given cure, just as a million monkeys will eventually type out Mozart.
- zarriak 12y ago
  I was generalizing cure to mean removal and preventative measure of cancerous cells. I don't think that most people who generalize these things to cure forget what cancer is.

VLM 12y ago

Has he "come out" one way or another WRT pituitary hormone levels? If the levels are unusually low, then medically monitored treatment to raise to normal levels appears to have no negative consequences, only positive ones, at all, at least with a short examination of wikipedia. Even boosting up to a bit on the high side of normal is probably medically sensible, if the patient has symptoms that correspond with excessively low levels. There are bro-science uses, for weightlifting and some other things, which seem to cause significant health problems for people who overdose. Its rather like insulin, if you're chronically low you're in big trouble, but if the stuff were widely available OTC you'd have idiots overdosing on insulin all the time because if a little is good them surely an immense amount is many times better. that doesn't mean proper doctor supervised use of insulin by diabetics is inherently wrong, just because of a little bro-science that isn't relevant to an individual's medical treatment plan.