Remove this ad

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
avatar

SmashLampjaw

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,959

#42 [url]

May 3 17 4:08 AM

Shan wrote:
SmashLampjaw wrote:
In anti-aging news, we may soon have immortal mice.

https://singularityhub.com/2017/01/13/cellular-reprogramming-rejuvenates-old-mice-and-boosts-lifespans-30/

https://singularityhub.com/2017/04/05/old-mice-made-young-again-with-new-anti-aging-drug/

I am reminded of http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2013-02-08

We do cure a lot of diseases in mice and rats, don't we? All part of the process of working towards human testing. Which brings things back onto topic... how do you feel about allowing people to volunteer to use drugs not cleared by the FDA (or your foreign analog) if they are terminally ill? That was done for AIDS meds to great positive effect.

.


Issues composing posts in Yuku's editor?  See this guide to using BBCode.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Shan

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,962

#43 [url]

May 3 17 4:30 AM

SmashLampjaw wrote:

Shan wrote:

SmashLampjaw wrote:
In anti-aging news, we may soon have immortal mice.

https://singularityhub.com/2017/01/13/cellular-reprogramming-rejuvenates-old-mice-and-boosts-lifespans-30/

https://singularityhub.com/2017/04/05/old-mice-made-young-again-with-new-anti-aging-drug/


I am reminded of http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2013-02-08

We do cure a lot of diseases in mice and rats, don't we? All part of the process of working towards human testing. Which brings things back onto topic... how do you feel about allowing people to volunteer to use drugs not cleared by the FDA (or your foreign analog) if they are terminally ill? That was done for AIDS meds to great positive effect.

This is something I actually have some experience with, so there's a chance I might come across as knowing what I'm talking about, at least up to a point.

Here's the dilemma. You have a possible treatment. However, this is what we do usually, reasons to follow:

Typically, you split the groups into control and treatment arms. If the treatment arm is doing appreciably better, we'll even stop the study early and put everyone on it. However, there's people from the control arm who otherwise would have lived/had better outcomes (depending on the treatment) if they'd all been on it from the beginning.

But the only way we could have known that was by seeing that difference in outcome in the first place. Also, the reason we do things this way is because sometimes, the treatment kills/injures more people than than the control group.

Unfortunately, quite often there's no other way to do this. In a way, it's kind of a game of chance though we can at least tilt the odds to some degree sometimes.

Now about AIDS, are you thinking of The Dallas Buyers Club?

First the story had a character (McCounaughey), whose best friend (Leto) didn't exist in real life, nor did his doctor (Garner) but whose real-life family who did weren't mentioned. Also, when the FDA did the unglamorous testing of whatever drug or compound was purported to have been the subject of them film over a large population study, it turned out to be no better than the control. McCounaughey's real-life counterpart might have owned a cowboy hat at some point, though.

(At this point, I remind our audience to check anything I say at all times and anyone who says anything generally. I did look this up but I do get things wrong sometimes.)

The other problems that can crop up with trying a Hail Mary pass on the terminally ill can include: making it worse for them, you can make things very much worse sometimes and also, sometimes these things end up being used in lieu of better and more valid options with people who have non-terminal illnesses. These things can bleed into other groups.

It's not an easy situation at the best of times. You really do have to play it on a case by case basis and you don't always get it right. No easy answers, I'm afraid.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

SmashLampjaw

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,959

#44 [url]

May 3 17 3:13 PM

No, I wasn't talking about a movie. In the late 80's the FDA got beaten into expediting the approval process for HIV drugs, given that the delays could literally be killing people and, unlike most other drugs that could be said about, there was also a large-scale epidemic of HIV. I'd heard there was a push for legislation to allow the terminally ill to use meds the FDA was still reviewing.

Now to be clear that is not the same as using untested drugs or drugs that turned out to kill people. It's a question of do you let people who will definitely die try a drug that has not been thoroughly tested for 2 - 3 years (IIRC)? I'm just asking your opinion on whether or not you think the laws should be changed.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Shan

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,962

#45 [url]

May 12 17 10:40 PM

SmashLampjaw wrote:
No, I wasn't talking about a movie. In the late 80's the FDA got beaten into expediting the approval process for HIV drugs, given that the delays could literally be killing people and, unlike most other drugs that could be said about, there was also a large-scale epidemic of HIV. I'd heard there was a push for legislation to allow the terminally ill to use meds the FDA was still reviewing.

Now to be clear that is not the same as using untested drugs or drugs that turned out to kill people. It's a question of do you let people who will definitely die try a drug that has not been thoroughly tested for 2 - 3 years (IIRC)? I'm just asking your opinion on whether or not you think the laws should be changed.

The Dallas Buyers Club was based on a real-life event which depending on what source you look at could come across as here's the government denying people a life-saving medication.

Closer to reality is that the FDA did go on to do the boring hard yards with testing the pills or whatever it was from Mexico and found it made no difference across a population over a control and hence wasn't a vaible therapy.

Basically if a therapy shows much better results over the control in a study, they'll terminate the study as early as possible and switch everyone to it so in practice they already do that anyway instead of running things for a number of years because that's an arbitrary set end point.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

SmashLampjaw

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,959

#47 [url]

Jun 13 17 4:17 PM

Shan wrote:
Fascinating. I knew about the effects of anti-depressants but I wouldn't have thought of most of the rest of this.

http://www.avclub.com/article/read-why-its-harder-lose-weight-now-it-was-20-year-256744
I really question the veracity of an article that links increased meat-eating to increased weight gain, given that all of the double-blind control group research has proven high-meat low carb diets are superior to the alternatives. The only research linking meat to fat increases or diabetes is coming from vegan "researchers" and animal rights groups, in what I can only assume is a wild coincidence.

"Gut bacteria makes you fat" my ass.

.


Issues composing posts in Yuku's editor?  See this guide to using BBCode.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Shan

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,962

#48 [url]

Jun 13 17 4:29 PM

Well, I have no problem believing it's possible that various chemicals and hormones etc in some products versus 100% natural (or as close as you can get to these days) may produce these effects but obviously I will have to go through it all and break it down into its individual elements. I accept the overall premise may be possible but before I accept each individual claim (I don't), I'd have to examine them as best I can on a case by case basis.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

SmashLampjaw

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,959

#49 [url]

Jun 13 17 4:34 PM

The problem with this is article equivocation. Nobody wants to lose weight, they want to reduce fat. The author of this article equivocates the phrase "weight gain" to mean both "fat increase" and "muscle mass increase". It is entirely accurate to say increased meat consumption improves weight gain because higher protein diets help people grow taller and increase muscle mass. That's not the same as saying it's harder to [reduce fat] because of increased meat consumption. People don't go on diets to lose muscle and bone tissue.

EDIT: To be fair, I don't know if the author is equivocating because he's a liar or an idiot, so I'm going to refrain from using the wrong insult for him.

.


Issues composing posts in Yuku's editor?  See this guide to using BBCode.

Last Edited By: SmashLampjaw Jun 13 17 4:36 PM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
avatar

Shan

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,962

#50 [url]

Jun 13 17 4:56 PM

I know to temper my expectations, it's from a website called the AV Club, not Biophysicists Daily.

As with most things, it's started me thinking about some things I might not have otherwise and now it's time to start doing some digging across multiple sources.

Side Note: As I might have stated before, a common fallacy both outside (about doctors) and within the medical profession is that we're experts on nutrition. We're most definitely not. If anything, I'm sure some of us are even worse than the average person.

Quote    Reply   

#51 [url]

Jun 14 17 12:09 AM

I didn't have to look that long at the article to find it bullshit

Weight loss or gain - via fat - is very simple: its energy in VS energy out. If you reduce your intake, or increase your output (say via exercise) then you will go down in weight.

To claim otherwise is 100% bullshit.

Now, one of the arguments in the article about chemicals in our environment that mess with our bodies - some of that does have merit: Hormone disrupting chemicals can fuck shit up:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/12-worst-hormone-disrupting-chemicals-revealed/

I mean, chemical herbicides that turned frogs gay are a thing: https://thewholestory.news/atrazine-it-is-turning-the-frogs-gay/

but hormone production does NOT impact your weight gain if you control what you're eating. Its still energy in vs energy out - altered hormone levels might affect whether excess fat will end up on your hips and tits or your belly, but it wont produce more of it.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Shan

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,962

#52 [url]

Jun 14 17 12:27 AM

webkilla wrote:
I didn't have to look that long at the article to find it bullshit

Weight loss or gain - via fat - is very simple: its energy in VS energy out. If you reduce your intake, or increase your output (say via exercise) then you will go down in weight.

To claim otherwise is 100% bullshit.

Now, one of the arguments in the article about chemicals in our environment that mess with our bodies - some of that does have merit: Hormone disrupting chemicals can fuck shit up:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/12-worst-hormone-disrupting-chemicals-revealed/

I mean, chemical herbicides that turned frogs gay are a thing: https://thewholestory.news/atrazine-it-is-turning-the-frogs-gay/

but hormone production does NOT impact your weight gain if you control what you're eating. Its still energy in vs energy out - altered hormone levels might affect whether excess fat will end up on your hips and tits or your belly, but it wont produce more of it.

Well, yes and no. No-one's denying the Second Law of Thermodynamics but where it gets tricky is how various things can impede (and accelerate) your metabolism not to mention endogenous homeostasis. For example, you start eating less and exercising more, your body can adjust your metabolic rate to compensate for such things as weight loss, hence making things more difficult for weight loss the longer you go on. It's also part of the reason at least why cigarette smokers gain weight when they give up smoking.

This is where meth comes in handy but I wouldn't recommend it in my expert medical opinion.

Quote    Reply   

#53 [url]

Jun 14 17 5:19 AM

True - but at the same time last i checked, then us silly westerners usually only extract somewhere around 40 to 50% of the nutrients from our food, pooping out the rest. In places with less access to food, that percentage is much higher

But no - your body doesn't just slow down if you eat less and exercise more. If that was the case, nobody would be able to get swole.

As for why some smokers gain weight after quitting? Ya that's because a lot them start stuff their face with food instead of smokes when they quit smoking. - but nicotine does also influence your metabolism a little bit, so that is also a factor, not as much as going from two packs a day to two boxes of donuts a day.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

SmashLampjaw

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,959

#54 [url]

Jun 14 17 7:10 AM

Part of the post-smoking fat gain is because nicotine is a stimulant. You can get stimulated by eating so you screw yourself thoroughly as a result of chasing that energetic vibe. Caffeine is also a stimulant, but it can also boost feelings of hunger due to your body combating it with adrenaline, so trying to replace nicotine with that also screws you.

We're right back to Shan's recommendation for meth that he definitely made as a doctor.

.


Issues composing posts in Yuku's editor?  See this guide to using BBCode.

Quote    Reply   

#57 [url]

Shan wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jun/16/eu-moves-to-restrict-hormone-disrupting-chemical-found-in-plastics

Yay ..... *sigh*.

Speaking as an engineer who knows just a little bit about developing new types of plastic - or mixing in various fun chemistry into plastics, to achieve new properties in the plastic - it's not easy to test for all possible side effects of the plastic

is it dangerous in dust form? what if you just touch it? what if you lick? now test all that for cold, room temperature, hot, when the person is weakly already, when the person is pregnant... and then some

shit's difficult - and takes a hell of long time to prove - especialy studies for long term exposure with each of the above factors


not saying that you shouldn't try - I'm just saying that it takes time to be sure that these things are bad. sam reason that it takes years to make new medicine: takes ages to show that its not harmful

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help