Comments on: Not all that Surprising http://futilecycle.com/2008/01/11/not-all-that-surprising A Wandering Through Life and Science Sat, 22 Nov 2008 05:55:01 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Eric http://futilecycle.com/2008/01/11/not-all-that-surprising#comment-3502 Eric Sun, 13 Jan 2008 21:33:19 +0000 http://futilecycle.com/2008/01/11/not-all-that-surprising#comment-3502 This could be resolved if one of you decides to post as something other than simply "Ben"... You're probably thinking of torcetrapib, which crashed because of toxicity issues, not necessarily because of ineffectiveness. I don't think it's certain whether the toxicity is mechanism-based or just a side effect. This could be resolved if one of you decides to post as something other than simply “Ben”…

You’re probably thinking of torcetrapib, which crashed because of toxicity issues, not necessarily because of ineffectiveness. I don’t think it’s certain whether the toxicity is mechanism-based or just a side effect.

]]> By: The Real Ben http://futilecycle.com/2008/01/11/not-all-that-surprising#comment-3500 The Real Ben Sun, 13 Jan 2008 19:48:48 +0000 http://futilecycle.com/2008/01/11/not-all-that-surprising#comment-3500 It's very odd to me that there's another Ben who posts here... Wasn't there a drug that hit CETP (the LDL-HDL converter) which proved to not be effective? It’s very odd to me that there’s another Ben who posts here…

Wasn’t there a drug that hit CETP (the LDL-HDL converter) which proved to not be effective?

]]> By: Eric http://futilecycle.com/2008/01/11/not-all-that-surprising#comment-3479 Eric Sat, 12 Jan 2008 16:58:13 +0000 http://futilecycle.com/2008/01/11/not-all-that-surprising#comment-3479 Presumably if there was a simple linear relationship between cholesterol and fitness, then selection would have tinkered with the cholesterol biosynthetic rates until they was pretty low. The fact that we don't have nearly zero cholesterol synthesis rates means that having ultra-low levels probably has bad side effects, ones that aren't necessarily obvious to us, perhaps. So I don't find it that surprising that lowering cholesterol below its natural levels found in healthy patients would be detrimental. Presumably if there was a simple linear relationship between cholesterol and fitness, then selection would have tinkered with the cholesterol biosynthetic rates until they was pretty low. The fact that we don’t have nearly zero cholesterol synthesis rates means that having ultra-low levels probably has bad side effects, ones that aren’t necessarily obvious to us, perhaps.

So I don’t find it that surprising that lowering cholesterol below its natural levels found in healthy patients would be detrimental.

]]> By: Ben http://futilecycle.com/2008/01/11/not-all-that-surprising#comment-3477 Ben Sat, 12 Jan 2008 16:25:37 +0000 http://futilecycle.com/2008/01/11/not-all-that-surprising#comment-3477 Well, that's kind of surprising, yes. They don't mention what the relative levels of HDL and LDL were, though. Having low LDL tends to be better, but if HDL gets too low, that's harmful too. Statins actually tend to raise HDL levels (or have very little effect on that population). Well, that’s kind of surprising, yes. They don’t mention what the relative levels of HDL and LDL were, though. Having low LDL tends to be better, but if HDL gets too low, that’s harmful too. Statins actually tend to raise HDL levels (or have very little effect on that population).

]]>