I really don’t want to start a new thread so, I am posting this here as it relates to prescription meds.
In case you missed it there is very interesting news for anyone fighting depression and taking Paxil, Prozac, Celexa, Lexapro, or Zoloft.
Antidepressant SSRIs may be making your brain better, increasing both plasticity and increasing synaptic density in the brain.
“We found that with those taking the SSRI, over time there was a gradual increase in synapses in the neocortex and the hippocampus of the brain, compared to those taking placebo. We did not see any effect in those taking placebo,”
If Rapamycin works, which it seems like it does, I think it can be one of many important ways of improving mental health in the elderly by improving physical health, any brain effects aside. A reduction in health I think reduces mental health for many elders, as well as isolation. It probably will help or an other rapa-like drug.
Interesting too, that long covid has recently shown as relating to lowered serotonin, and brain fog. A possible treatment being SSRI (anti-depressants)
We included 18740 patients (10 205 women [54.5%]; mean [SD] age, 78.2[7.4] years), of which 4271 (22.8%) received at least one prescription for an antidepressant. During follow-up, a total of 11912 prescriptions for antidepressants were issued, with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) being the most common (64.8%). Antidepressant use was associated with faster cognitive decline (β (95% CI) = - 0.30(- 0.39, - 0.21) points/year), in particular sertraline (- 0.25(- 0.43, - 0.06) points/year), citalopram (- 0.41(- 0.55, - 0.27) points/year), escitalopram (- 0.76(- 1.09, - 0.44) points/year), and mirtazapine (- 0.19(- 0.34, - 0.04) points/year) compared with non-use. The association was stronger in patients with severe dementia (initial MMSE scores 0-9). Escitalopram showed a greater decline rate than sertraline. Compared with non-use, dose response of SSRIs on greater cognitive decline and higher risks of severe dementia, all-cause mortality, and fracture were observed.
Ouch, so much for LDL-c being useless as @A-User keeps suggesting LOL. My layman understanding of things is that everything naturally found into our bodies/blood MUST have a role (however small) thus as I’ve stated elsewhere I would NOT (come hell or high water) lower my LDL-C less than 60 (ideally 65-70)
I agree with the reaction, but many people’s statements are wrong or biased (like how intuitively some things make sense that actually aren’t), including my own.
The immune system argument is an old one, and IIRC it’s based on observational studies with reverse causation, i.e sick patients with a low immune system lowers LDL-C levels, because when you adjust for factors like that the relationship disappears (like in genetic studies).
There’s dozens of those traps, as a result if someone wants to believe it, they can, if their epistemology is broken and they’re not aware of the evidence hierarchy.
