2 replies to this topic

[kevin]

An article from NewScientist.com which details the propsoal of a combination "polypill" geared at reducing the risk of heart attack and stroke in aging populations.

The "Polypill" would contain a cocktail of six existing drugs and should be given to everybody over the age of 55, the researchers argue. It could potentially save 200,000 lives every year in the UK alone, they say.

Encouraging to see the pharmaceutical companies interested in keeping their customers alive... let's just hope they want to keep them healthy too.

'Polypill' could slash heart attacks and strokes - NewScientist.com

[kevin]

Putting the use of the much vaunted poly-pill into perspective is this article from www.redflagsweekly.com which puts a much different spin on the pill as well as detailing how statistics are used to promote pharmaceutical medications.

"We are duty bound to inform our healthy 55-year-old that if he or she takes the Polypill for the next 10 years there will be less than 1% chance per year of benefit and a 6% overall chance of side effects, some of which (e.g. aspirin related GI haemorrhage) may be life threatening. Furthermore if the Polypill is successful, our patient’s chance of dying from cancer, trauma and degenerative brain disease will increase pari passu with the effectiveness of the Polypill, as sadly even on the Polypill, mortality will remain stubbornly around the 100% mark."

CONVERTING MILLIONS OF HEALTHY PEOPLE INTO PERPETUAL PATIENTS

[AgeVivo]

Dear Kevin,
I would like to rehabilitate the possibility that polypills, such as the one showed at https://www.polypill...r-polypill.html , effectively reduce big risks for most of us (large components of bad aging) at the expense of very low risks in comparison. I do not like the style of that website, but the papers, the arguments etc are facts that should not bring us to stupid, rapidly-considered, opposed ideology.

The medical community (some in my family, so I see how it happens) has some FEARS that medicines are BADLY taken by wide population groups, such as taking twice the strong dose of aspirin that people sometimes take in case of headaches, instead of taking a very small dose (say half a baby aspirin, taken during a meal). The Quote you mention is, in my mind, a ridiculous argument driven by fear and non out-of-the-box thinking instead of getting the ideas of GERONTODRUGS (some seem to work in lab models, and empirically in humans).

I have NOTHING against converting millions of people aged 50 or more (..."healthy" but often dying...) into "perpetual patients" ... if those "patients" are on average more healthy than "non patients". I think it is an ERROR to believe that drugs should only be used in a curative way and only very ill persons, a sad error as it naturally leads to longer UNhealthy lives and not so much longer HEALTHY lives.

This is not completely new in fact. Think of Louis Pasteur who has prevented some serious diseases with vaccines and by spreading the knowledge that boiling water is healthy. Today, it is the same happening for aging / age-related conditions (processes and/or pathologies). I hope that a visionary community such as LongeCity can see that there is no other way around medicine for so-called "healthy" people, if we want applied biology of aging.


On a side note, so that no one misunderstand me: I do not work in a pharmaceutical company, I have no financial interest in what I am saying, and worse than that I think that pharmaceutical companies avoid to think like me or to express it because they estimate that the danger for their image would be bigger than the opportunity (which is sadly true, esp in teh short term). That is very sad: we are killing the true, useful anti-aging innovation, with considerably stupid views on how medicines should be used. I think it should be part of our advocacy to help people rethink medicines on a longer-term basis.

Edited by AgeVivo, 28 July 2013 - 08:39 PM.