On the contrary, I did not miss the mark.
Someone did. As I quoted that poster:
Taking no medication should not be anyone’s goal. The goal should be maximum health and lifespan. There is zero reason to favor interventions that don’t involve medication. Medications are just a tool. A very useful tool. They can allow us to accomplish lifespan and health enhancement results not possible without them, and even more powerful interventions such as genetic manipulation should be used as soon as available. By any means necessary.
The rest of the post’s points I have addressed previously, so won’t repeat here.
The fact that there are possible interactions in polypharmacy is a reason to keep studying them, to keep progressing, to keep enhancing our knowledge, not to give up on medication because complications might arise. That’s a Luddite attitude. New interventions, progress necessarily will involve complications and failure. That is not a reason to not try, or to discourage attempts at experimentation. Climbing down from trees involved novelty, dangers, risk, challanges, occasional failure, but ultimately was the only way to make forward progress. The existence of such danger is not grounds for discouraging polypharmacy, or fearfully clinging to a conservative naturalistc fallacy.
Yep, polypharmacy has dangers and challenges. We are acutely aware of this. I myself frequently cite Matt Kaeberlein on the dangers and unknowns of stacking molecules/interventions/medications - geometrically increased complication potential. And so I research interactions and dangers of combining interventions extensively to the best of my ability, eagerly learning from the wise people on this board and elsewhere. Many, if not most threads here discuss side effects, gain vs loss. We move forward with caution.
But not moving forward also has its risks. Imagine you are trapped in an underground cave that is slowly filling with water - in time you will certainly drown. There are two folks with you. One of them listens to the roaring outside the cave and says, let’s take a leap out - we might save ourselves, as the roar might be only of a herbivore. The other says, but the roar might be that of a terrible predator and we’ll die instantly, lets stay here and make the best of what we have, build a platform and so last a bit longer before we drown.
That’s a different approach, life philosophy, tolerance for risk. Some of us are willing to take a leap into the unknown - we make our best assessment and accept the risk of losing. “Better to try and not succeed, than never try at all”. Some prefer to stay with the known, and maximise current conditions, safety first, leave the bleeding edge for those who are willing to bleed.
Just a different approach. I belong to those who are willing to risk emerging from the cave. Everyone must make their own assessment. I don’t judge those who prefer to stay within the limits (however narrow) of that which is known for sure. It’s not for me, but each of us is responsible for our own lives. I expect the same courtesy in return, and am happy to hear from the other side: “CronosTempi, you’re welcome to bleed at your bleeding edge, but I like my couch free of liquids”.
We are here to hopefully exchange knowledge and points of view for mutual benefit.
