Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Mon, Aug-28-17, 15:02
mike_d's Avatar
mike_d mike_d is offline
Grease is the word!
Posts: 8,073
 
Plan: PSMF/IF
Stats: 236/174/175 Male 72 inches
BF:disappearing!
Progress: 102%
Location: Alamo city, Texas
Default anti-inflammatory drug lowers heart attack risks

Here:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/in-a-f...t-attack-risks/
Quote:
Many heart attacks occur in people whose cholesterol is normal and whose main risk is chronic inflammation that can lead to clogged arteries.
Well, never woulda thunk it
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Mon, Aug-28-17, 17:14
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 11,382
 
Plan: ketosis/IF
Stats: 190/158/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 89%
Location: Ontario
Default

Quote:
Canakinumab raised the risk of fatal infections about 1 of every 1,000 patients treated. Older people and diabetics were most vulnerable.

The drug had no effect on death rates once cancer, infection and heart risks were balanced out.

"The fatal infections are something to be concerned about" but overall trends are in a good direction, said Dr. David Goff of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute.


Something to be concerned about? There's an ethics problem. A train's heading for ten people, you can pull a switch, and it changes tracks, the ten people live but another man dies as a result. Do you pull the switch? In this case, though, there's ten people on the other track.

Older people and diabetics were most vulnerable. So you could withhold the drug from them. But since they're a particularly vulnerable subgroup, not only to infection, but also to the diseases the drug is meant to prevent, I wonder if that doesn't fudge things a bit, the drug might not have resulted in as big a decrease in heart attacks if they weren't included.

Three doses of the drug--of course they'd have hoped to see improved response with increasing doses. Cynical me thinks that gave them three chances of one of the doses appearing effective (whether it actually was or not).
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 21:57.


Copyright © 2000-2017 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.