I concur this is getting ridiculous. How about we counsel parents on the value of daily exercise. Getting your child of the xbox, play station, computer etc. The need for family meals especially dinner together. Nope it's easier to give em drugs just as medication has replaced discipline in schools.

Just another way that Big Pharma can start force-feeding drugs to our kids. No thanks.

cholesterol in kids is up b/c they don't get enough exercise and they eat too much junk food.

Kick them outside to play and get them off the Xbox.
Make sure their snacks include fruits, real fruits. Oranges, bananas, apples, grapes, raisins.
Make sure they get niacin in their diet through a multivitamin.

Do that and they shouldn't have any cholesterol problems.

.

yeah, it's all a conspiracy to put you in the poor house. couldn't have anything to do with the alarming rates of childhood obesity, sedentary lifestyle they lead, and high-fat/high-sugar diets they consume. no, couldn't be that at all.

you do realize that in med school interviews, candidates have to convince a board that they are dedicated to helping people, not just looking for a big salary. although if you are a conspiracy theorist, you won't believe that anyway. how about you take the pre-reqs, apply to med school, go on an interview, and see what patient care is really about. you might just find it's about a lot more than money.

MmmMmmBeer: You are mostly correct, but it has NOTHING to do with "high-fat/high-sugar diets."

FYI: Beer (alcohol in general, really) is far worse for you than most things you consume. So ironic that you would choose that as a screen name and then criticize sugar and fat, both essential nutrients, as part of the problem when they're not.

I never knew DrJKH, that children were getting obese and coming down with ADULT-ONSET diabetes because they were drinking beer, morning noon and night!

How good to know that the high-fructose corn syrup in all the sweetened cereal, pop-tarts, fruit-punch drinks - all of it - is not AT ALL what's ailing the little fat, diabetic drunkards.

Yeah.. excess sugar and fat - no problems at all! Everyone should have three or four cupfuls EVERY meal, right?

What, let me guess.. are you pimping and shilling for King Corn and the sugar lobby?

Geez.

MmmMmmBear: Like my mom said when I graduated HS where are all these super obese/overweight children? The fact of the matter is that the people conducting this research aren't taking the whole of the country into account. Are there certain areas of the country where they probably getting higher percentages?, probably yes, but I know even looking at my HS today there are maybe 2 overweight teens in the whole school. You may want to jump off the propaganda bandwagon.

atony:

mmbeer is 100% correct...the people conducting this research are completely taking the whole country into account...just look at the stats for the whole country..not just your "high school". That's what professionals call undersampling. When you graduate HS you'll understand better

eric I do I've been to and lived on the east coast and currently live back in the midwest so I can honestly say NO they are not looking at the country as a whole.

fine, either you are right based on your small life experience, or the CDC is right:

http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/obesity/facts.htm

• Childhood obesity has more than tripled in the past 30 years.
• The percentage of children aged 6–11 years in the United States who were obese increased from 7% in 1980 to nearly 20% in 2008. Similarly, the percentage of adolescents aged 12–19 years who were obese increased from 5% to 18% over the same period.
• In 2008, more than one third of children and adolescents were overweight or obese.^1,2

And going off my post 3.2 who paid for that study? Whether you choose to believe it or not the CDC is a GOVERNMENT agency. They are and always will say what the GOVERNMENT wants them to say because they don't want to lose funding. I've worked for the Government I have been around a bit I don't spout without first educating myself.

wow, just wow

So you wont believe the private sector. You won't believe the PUBLIC sector.

What would it take to convince you? Honestly...Im not asking rhetorically...Tell me what YOUR standard of evidence is

You are simply an example of someone who wants to think whatever he or she wants, no matter the evidence.

Eric, I used to reply to these conversations and try to persuade people, until I realized what you just said. You are literally wasting your time with these people. Unfortunately, these people are also parents, which is even more frustrating, because their actions have a direct effect on their kids.

DaveT, I can personally assure you that we are not running out of revenue. In fact, I have not taken any new patients in over 2 years because I am already working more than 70 hours a week.

atonyharding,

Are you judging whether these kids are overweight by an actual height/weight chart with body composition taken into account, or just by their looks. I'd have to assume the latter, since I doubt you have access to their medical records. Perceptions of "normal" change in response to what surrounds you. Looking at high school kids today, there are an awful lot who seem to fall in the average of their peers, but would have been considered the "chubby" kids when I graduated in 1992. I only recall a handful who would have been considered obese. Also, my mom is a seamstress who makes costumes for the high school choir members. She made several size 20 and up this year, which was unheard of when I was there.

So, from my personal observations, I agree with the CDC. The percentage of overweight kids has increased.

foodandart: Reading for comprehension might help you. Oh, and BTW, there is NO SCIENCE behind the corn syrup scare. I prefer sugar, too, but for the taste, but corn syrup has no magical properties that cause disease.

Dr. JKH, You are both right and wrong. Corn syrup is not that different from sugar, correct. However, both sugar and corn syrup contain fructose and, according to Dr. Robert H. Lustig at UCSF, a if not the premier researcher into childhood obesity, type 2 diabetes, and heart disease, over consumption of fructose--which is easy considering all the foods and beverages that contain it nowadays--more than likely plays a huge part in the development of metabolic syndrome in both children and adults. So rather than indicting cholesterol, a substance which the body produces and needs, it might be wise to take a closer look at the role fructose plays in the development of heart disease, amongst other ills. I mean fructose that is not consumed with the benefit of the fiber that occurs with it naturally in fruit. Yes, children especially and all of us can and should eat a moderate amount of fruit. But fruit juice? HFCS? Sugar? Not so much.

And it might be nice if both you and eric-2573068 refrained from the ad hominem attacks and stuck to the facts. Ad hominem attacks don't help your case. At all.

Peggy, I really don't care what Dr Lustig says about metabolic syndrome, cholesterol, corn syrup, or obesity. He's NOT basing it on science.

Hypercholesterolemia, obesity, diabetes type II, metabolic syndrome, heart disease, etc, are ALL symptoms caused by proinflammatory conditions in the body. They are NOT caused by anything IN the diet. There is one component that is deficient in our diets, omega 3 fatty acids, that is involved in this, but that is a very small portion of the problem. Lustig is barking up all the wrong trees.

Dr, JKH, And what, pray tell, causes the proinflammatory conditions in the body? What has caused the drastic rise in these conditions over the past 40 years? I'll wager that, since not much else has changed in recent history, diet has a lot to do with it. We now eat much more polyunsaturated fatty acids, less saturated fat, less (you're right about that) omega 3 fatty acids, and most especially much more sugar and grains, both refined and unrefined, than before about 40 years ago. You are honestly saying that none of that has anything to do with the rise in obesity, metabolic syndrome, and type 2 diabetes among both children and adults during the past 30 or 40 years? That it's all some proinflammatory condition that has mysteriously risen and spread out of nowhere over the past 3 or 4 decades? I can't believe you are for real. How would you suggest we stem the tide of proinflammatory conditions that are causing the incidence of these conditions to rise meteorically? Statins, I suppose. NO thanks.

Books like that aren't science. Also, MD is not the abbreviation for doctor.

And all science is proven Dr? Most "science" today like surveys are bought and paid for by either A)Special interest groups, B)The company trying to force it down your throat or C)The government looking for a reason to step into our lives. If your going to spout about science understand what it really is. It's someone paying someone else money to say what the first person wants them to say. P.S. put MD into dictionary.com and look at the second meaning before you try to slam someones intelligence. MD=Doctor of Medicine

Most of the references are too numerous to list in the books you claim are not science, however I do remember the Lancet, Journal of the AMA, Archives of Internal Medicine, Journal Nat'l Cancer Institute, New England Journal of Medicine, Journal Cell Biology, British Medical Journal and the list goes on.

Unfortunately, it would appear science has been removed for some time now. When you purposely discharge patients from a study that they know will damage the statistics or you purposely halt a study earlier than was originally deemed (thanks to the bell curve used) it is my opinion science was removed so new drugs could bring in billions of dollars a year.

atony:

you have already demonstrated a complete inability to comprehend statistics. Have you read even ONE study on statins? Not all are supported by drug companies, and they are generic now so pharma has little to gain anyway.

DrJKH..what's your doctorate in? MD stands for medical doctor by the way...

if you truly believe that, then let us see if you take those meds if they get prescribed to YOU because of your higher cholesterol...btw with higher cholesterol, they just suggest eating lesser fats/meats and more chicken/fish (my husband had an elevated cholesterol of 213). They did not give him meds but told him to take fish oil to help with his heart. Does not sound like they want to force meds down his throat (and if they do, he won't take them).

1) I do take a statin, every day

2) Eating less fats does help your cholesterol...to a point. Even diet cannot lower some patients' cholesterol enough....

3) a total cholesterol of 213 is not bad, depending on his risk factors. If your husband is a diabetic though, or if he's had a heart attack, its probably way too high

4)What you do with your body is your choice, even if its wrong

Oh yes, drug companies do have a lot to gain, even with many of their cholesterol drugs going off patent.

Think about it -- 1% of the children tested are prescribed a statin and the recommendation is that ALL children be tested. Even if the percentage recommendation is lower for all, that will account for huge uptick in statins prescribed. Somebody's going to be making a pot of money if people start dosing their children with statins per a recommendation of a panel of doctors who, if they are not accepting drug company largesse, are depending on studies compiled by drug companies and their tame researchers.

Concerned about your children's health? Monitor their diet. Don't let them park in front of the computer and the television. Send them out to play.

And you join them. You might be able to avoid a prescription yourself.

statins are generic, meaning any pharmaceutical company can make them. How can ONE company make money? Unless you think that every pharm company, even the generic labs that the big guys are usually in competition with have teamed up this one time to screw you

Take off the aluminum hat...you are paranoid

this is all for the drug companies to increase their profits a bit more

atonyharding: 1. Who are YOU to lecture ME about science? I'm LMAO at you right now.

2. MD is a DEGREE, not an abbreviation for doctor. There are TWO degrees that one can have and practice medicine in the US. One is the MD DEGREE, the other is the DO DEGREE.

3. Get an education before you criticize someone who already has one.

Neither drs no drug companies get paid for tests

Statins are generic, so no one has much to gain anyway

Damn stupid people

Seems to me eric you might want to look in the mirror. You point the finger there are always 4 pointing right back at you.

so besides some generic comment that has been told a million times, anything of value to contribute? Maybe something..i don't know...original perhaps?

Garlic - natural and effective. And you can enjoy your beer with it.

you can drink alcohol on statins...its fine. Just don't overdo it

And they work a heck of a lot better than garlic

because treating obesity is extremely difficult, and depends entirely on patient cooperation

Even still, many thin people have high cholesterols and heart attacks

There is nothing hypothetical about the results of long-term high cholesterol.

My surgeon saved the plug he took out of my carotid artery -- probably because I'm a rampant skeptic and he wanted to prove to me that he knew what he was talking about when he told me I would have a stroke without the surgery.

Oh yeah -- I would have had a stroke without the surgery. Almost certainly within a year. The cholesterol had closed off over 90% of my carotid and was nearly the diameter of a lead pencil. I have the little trophy in a plastic lab jar to remind me how close I came to disaster.

I have genetic high cholesterol and no diet will or can control it. Children should be tested and if lifestyle changes cannot control it, then it MUST be addressed with treatment.

I don't know that statins are the only choice, although I'm getting ready to do some serious research. In the meantime, I take my statins every day, despite being a rabid anti-pharma.

High cholesterol isn't just about eating too much bacon.

Show me ONE study that proves statins cause nerve damage!

I can show you THOUSANDS of studies that show the benefit of statins NOT supported by pharma. If you respond, I will post them...

What are you a doctor of by the way? Let me have 3 guesses

a)Naturopathy

b)Chiropracty

c)Nothing

i vote c

Eric, When you take statin drugs there is a 14 fold increased risk of developing polyneuropathy (Gaist). This nerve damage can cause a wide range of symptoms from numbness and tingling to impotency or paralysis. But, when you seek a neurological consult and get you $1000 MRI, physicians often see these baffling symptoms as a deficiency of yet another drug.

Gaist D, et al, Neurology, 58:1333-1337, (2002)

I must admit, i was not aware of the connection. It does appear to cause neuropathy RARELY

And that's the thing...the study you quoted was a case control study of less than 200 cases--far from overwhelming. A much more complete study is here:

Chong PH, et al. Statin-associated peripheral neuropathy: review of the literature Pharmacotherapy, 2004

Based on epidemiologic studies as well as case reports, a risk of peripheral neuropathy associated with statin use may exist; however, the risk appears to be minimal. On the other hand, the benefits of statins are firmly established

Another study I looked at put the rate of neuropaty at 1/10,000

To put that in perspective, the number of people needed to treat with a statin to prevent 1 adverse cardiovascular event is 100 over 3 years.

You don't have to be a math genius to compute those odds

But a worthy effort, and nice try though

one more thing...EVERY study, including the one you quoted, said the effects were REVERSIBLE on cessation of the drug

So I stand by my original statement that they DO NOT cause nerve DAMAGE---a polyneuropathy, maybe, but inflammation does NOT equal damage

Eric, the conclusion of Gaist that you did not mention: "Long-term exposure to statins may substantially increase the risk of polyneuropathy".

And your more complete study, Chong PH also quote "These findings should alert prescribers to a potential risk of peripheral neuropathy in patients receiving ANY of the statins; that is, statins should be considered the cause of peripheral neuropathy when other etiologies have been excluded."

I also believe the NNT is much higher as I have read in the past, but I do not have those references in front of me. I will close with, you will not persuade me to your side with your references, nor will I persuade you with my references. They are not reconcilable and I do not have the desire to toss references back and forth all night. This is a forum, and people will make up their own minds and do their own readings. Best Regards

I

Again, polyneuropathy does NOT equal nerve damage. I cannot make that any clearer for you

That goes for both my study and yours.

The NNT is NOT higher, and Im sure that's the reason you cannot post a rebuttal, and are exiting this discussion

Nice try, though

How about rhabdomyolysis caused by statins, and liver damage? As a fellow physician you should know that periodic liver function tests are required. Also, these drugs commonly interact with other drugs and even food. These drugs were not designed for developing kids, nor to be used for a lifetime. It is crazy that we even need to discuss this. We know that despite all these adverse effects, these drugs benefits still often outweigh their risks in older patients with comorbidities, but that we as a society are so helpless that we have nothing left to help our growing kids simply scares me.

wow, charly clown,

you remind me on an article I recently read on how the layperson is horrible at statistics simply because of biology. Early human did not have time to compute odds, rather it was simply yes or no, fight or flight. You have the reasoning ability of an early hominid, no offense

let me put an analogy forth. Lets say some fantasy casino opens and has a game where the chance of you winning is 90%. You are telling me essentially you refuse to play because you may lose. That's ridiculous

The same logic applies to statins. The risk of rhabdo is extremely small compared to the benefits. Its not widespread muscle damage either; its something on the order of what one might experience after a strenous workout. Not only that, its completely reversible.

Liver damage, again, is EXCEEDINGLy rare on statins, and again, with proper monitoring of the liver, completely reversible

You are refusing to play a game with a 99% chance of benefit because of a 1% chance of harm.

Not smart, IMHO

eric, what Parma do you work for? If you are a doctor is is well known that the payments by big pharma make you the last person to have a non-biased opinion.

keith?
What antipsychotic are you on?

I have never recieved any payment from pharma. Some physicians have consulting fees, but the majority do not, and still feel this way. Please educate yourself before posting ridiculous claims

I am actually a cardiologist, and every single one of my collegues feels the same exact way. The proffessional guidelines in this country, as well as europe (where pharma has no influence on their more socialistic medical models) agrees with me

The real question you have to ask yourself, is why do you disagree with every expert in the world?

Keith, physicians do not get paid for prescribing medications. Pharma companies can't even give out pens and sticky notes anymore.

umm...where did anyone say that we need to make kids fatter? IN fact, the guidelines in question recommend diet and exercise first. But failing that, you can't just throw up your hands and walk away

Statins are a good third choice pick behind diet and exercise

bmi isn't perfect...most NFL linebackers would be obese by the charts. But certainly most people who have abnormal BMIs are at higher risk

lol you see my point...I think it is stupid for them to say if they are in the 95th percentile they are obese. My kids have always been like that and so active too. We do not have a history of cholesterol in our family.

quit taking them,

please don't listen to keith. He is not a doctor, so is not qualified to give advice. NOt only that, I get the impression he's not very smart

consult your physician. At least have your CK levels checked to see if the statin is even causing this

It's my understanding that in clinical trials, Statins did not provide any appreciable protection for women--that among women, the differences in mortality and events was not significant. If true, and I believe it is, there is no benefit for you to take them, Lina, only side effects.

not true peggy

At least make an effort to find the data you are trying to cite

"Among women, cholesterol had an inverse association with all-cause mortality [hazard ratio (HR): 0.94; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.89-0.99 per 1.0 mmol L(-1) increase] as well as CVD mortality (HR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.88-1.07)." "This is especially true for women, for whom moderately elevated cholesterol (by current standards) may prove to be not only harmless but even beneficial."

Also, see a later post. The 4S study. The number of women who died from a heart attack was equal in both groups, or, to be more correct, a few more women died in the statin group. U. Ravnskov, MD, PhD, "Fat and Cholesterol are Good for You", p. 138.

You only reported HALF the findings, allow me to paste the results in their ENTIRETY

The association with IHD mortality (HR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.92-1.24) was not linear but seemed to follow a 'U-shaped' curve, with the highest mortality <5.0 and ≥7.0 mmol L(-1) .

So a cholesterol pushed down, but not too much, is beneficial.

Yeah, you can overdo anything

NIce try presenting only half the results and leaving out the part that disproved your theory

Almost pulled it off

Not to mention that your study did not correct for other known risk factors such as blood pressure or smoking

Horrible, horrible study.

Here's a better one:

1 mmol/L lower total cholesterol was associated with about a half (hazard ratio 0.44 [95% CI 0.42-0.48]), a third (0.66 [0.65-0.68]), and a sixth (0.83 [0.81-0.85]) lower IHD mortality in both sexes at ages 40-49, 50-69, and 70-89 years, respectively, throughout the main range of cholesterol in most developed countries, with no apparent threshold

Lancet. 2007 Dec 1;370(9602):1829-39.
Blood cholesterol and vascular mortality by age, sex, and blood pressure: a meta-analysis of individual data from 61 prospective studies with 55,000 vascular deaths.

zocor and pravachol are generic. Nice try, though

But then they can put you on even more meds for all those side effects statins cause that are "in you imagination." I see my husband having more and more side effects. It really worries me to see them. But he keeps being put on more and more meds.

Two MDs told me I needed to go back on statins that I quit in less than a month. They both said I would drop of a heart attack without them just like my mom. Boy they twisted stuff, she died of heart failure in her 80s (30 years older than I am now) in her sleep two weeks after a very complete check-up showed no signs of any heart disease or problems. 3rd doctor actually checked my heart and found it healthy, checked my thyroid and found it was way overdue to have medication level increased, and ran checks on kidneys that showed in just the three weeks I took statins I had already begun damaging my kidneys. Incidently, thyroid problems increase cholesterol levels.

Had I stayed on statins and listened to the first two doctors, yes I would have prevented a heart attack in my 80s. I'm sure I would have died of kidney failure long before I ever got to my 80s. I'm also sure that the muscle pains, edema, blurred vision, nonstop headaches, and other side effects I had were never reported as side effects by the doctor who prescribed the statins, just as many other doctors never report their patients side effects.

its a risk/benefit scenario

Most of the side effects you describe are not commonly associated with statins. Especially not kidney disease. I've never heard of that. How do you know it was the statin? Im sure you'l tell me it started when you took the statin, and recovered when you stopped. But I can't help but to think there may be another cause you are overlooking

However, their ability to prevent heart attacks is well established

Just because your mom had a heart attack in her 80s, it doesnt mean you will have one then--it may be earlier, it may be never.

The point is, besides diet and exercise, lowering cholesterol with statins is a proven method to reduce heart attack risk

nonsense, utter nonsense. I do not know where to start.

JUPITOR, off the top of my head, showed a reduction in death with statins

COURAGE also showed a significant reduction

Show me a study that proved statins DO NOT prevent heart attacks

Please do not listen to kathy. She has no idea what she is talking about, and her advice is dangerous

@Eric-2573068 It appears that you might be one of the shills that Kathy Stuart is trying to warn us about. What portion of her comment is dangerous? It sound that she is knowledgable, well educated, and has done some research. What can you bring to the table to counteract her arguement. Oh, I forgot. "Her advice is dangerous". That is an argument held, usually, by a person who is trying to hide the truth. How much is shilling for a company paying these days?

ellis,

it appears you may be one of those ignorant people I was talking about. What makes a shill? someone who disagrees with you? Since 99% of cardiologists agree with me, I think maybe you are the one in the wrong here

The portion of her comment that is dangerous is the part when she starts typing.

Her post shows complete ignorance on the subject of vascular biology.

What can I bring to the table: I already said courage and jupitor. READ FOR COMPREHENSION...ARE YOU ILLITERATE??? ILL bring 2 more words:--Framingham study

if you don't know this study, then you have no business even posting on here. If you know this study, and still make the above comments, then you are incapable of participating in educated discourse

If her theory on cholesterol were correct, then more cholesterol would be good, as it would be additional "band aids". But if you look at patients who have a genetic mutation causing excess cholesterol, called familial hypercholesterolemia, you will find they all have heart attacks in their 20s and 30s.

So mother nature has proved her wrong. Dead wrong in fact

Care to try and refute that?

Actually, while some with familial hypercholesterolemia do have heart attacks in their 20s and 30s, not all do. And it may have more to do with a defect in clotting mechanism than high cholesterol. Many with the genetic defect live to a ripe old age. You can find a detailed discussion of Familial Hypercholesterolemia in "Fat and Cholesterol are Good for You" by Uffe Ravnskov, MD, PhD. Dr. Ravnskov also discusses the Framingham project and most or all of the other studies at great length. Do yourself a favor and read his book. It's quite interesting and enlightening.

I don't need to read your quacks writing, frankly

Invoking an entirely SEPERATE mechanism to explain a frankly obvious mechanism is ridiculous

Not only that, but why don't they get blood clots in their legs then, or hearts? Or DVTs?

Because your theory is ridiculous

Further, studies show that statins do NOT work for women. Go figure.

You are being overly simplistic and wrong here. Statins have been on the market for a long time, all statin patents expired, except for Lipitor, which will expire soon as well. They have been used worldwide and there is lots of evidence if you just look for it.
Also there are different drugs out there that target the different types of cholesterol.
Most of them are generic, like niaspan, tricor, statins, lovaza. Their benefits can be considered undisputed. Please do not misinform people here. If statins benefits outweigh the risks in kids, is a different issue.

as much as I disagreed with you above, charley, I agree with you here

We have never "defined down"...its just cholesterol has been unrecognized as such a hazardous cardiovascular risk factor for a long time

Whats normal? Well, a baby's LDL cholesterol (before they eat their first happy meal) is in the 30s-40s. That's probably normal

I cannot quote where, but I have seen multiple places where "normal" cholesterol levels were redefined after the first statins came out, from 240 down to 180 since about 1985. I realize that we need to make adjustments in our interpretations of various tests as our knowledge increases, but it is interesting that they changed the numbers about the same time statins were coming out.

I do not trust tests in which drug companies are involved in funding anymore. Our whole society, not just drug companies, seems to be contaminated by both greed and a decay in moral values.

Again, its not that those levels were ever "normal", its just that we didn't realize the effect of high cholesterol

As for the timing with statins, youre wrong about that.

Take high blood pressure--its still referred to as "benign essential hypertension" even though it is not benign nor essential. At one time it was thought that some people required that level of pressure to perfuse their organs. We later learned this was not so, and in fact, the high blood pressure was dangerous

Dont use past misunderstandings as evidence against current knowledge. Could the cholesterol theory be proven false in the future? Maybe. But the best evidence we have now supports it, so that's what I go with

And that evidence does NOT come from drug companies. The best evidence for the harmful effect of cholesterol is the Framingham health study, which is an NIH funded study

not true;

why do patients with familial hypercholesterolemia have heart attacks in their 30s then? And don't tell me they produce extra cholesterol because they have excess inflammation--their genetic mutation has been identified as occuring in the cholesterol manufacturing locus of the genome. So it would be terribly unlikely that they have 2 mutations--one for excess cholesterol, and one for inflammation

In addition, their markers of inflammation (CRP and Sed rate) are typically NOT elevated

So much for your theory

eric argues against anyone who critizes Pharma. Thanks for the information

keith argues against anyone who makes sense

He provides ZERO evidence to back up his outrageous claims.

He's too ignorant to know statins are generic, so big pharma has moved on from this class of drugs

You can call me biased, or other names, or any other childish behavior you can think of, but if you can't provide any evidence to back anything up, then its just your opinion

And keith, you should know that your opinion means nothing.

Not true

While inflammation is clearly a risk factor, it is miniscule compared to the risk of cholesterol. What a childs cholesterol should be? LDL 30-40--we know exactly

Push, push those drugs !

what an intelligent, coherent rebuttal. You don't show research you cite, you don't show evidence of your biological theory

only some stupid exclamation

Well done sir

An intelligent answer won't suffice for your statement is straight from a pharmaceutical's rebuttal. The research by Dr.Stephen Sinatra and others should be listened to. finite!

since you think an intelligent answer won't suffice, its no suprise that you responded with that unintelligible nonsense above.

Still no evidence, no sources. What do you expect anyone to say to you?

why do you think drug companies bribe doctors?

Have you seen it? Have there been widespread reports of it?

No. It just fits with your worldview so you assume it to be true

what does metabolism have to do with cholesterol levels?

The faster yer metabolism the faster you burn off cholesterol and fat of course.

really? certainly exercise can raise your HDL, but the primary determinants of your LDL level are
a)genetics
b) diet

any variation in you basal metabolic rate is unlikely to have a significant influence on cholesterol levels

If you can show otherwise, I'd be interested to see it

In fact, with the obesity epidemic now spreading to children, they are not immune from the previous adult diseases

This is why "adult onset diabetes" has been renamed diabetes type 2

Similarily, atherosclerosis, which typically only affected adults, is now beginning in children

wait a second:

so I at least try to make reasonable arguments on this thread, and if people disagree, we compare sources and have an intelligent discussion

You just post here that I'm "annoying"

IF you don't have anything adult to say, then don't bother

Grow up

Eric - she might not be "adult" but she is right.

keith,

youre both a child and wrong

throughout this thread you have done nothing but searched out every single one of my posts and then made some snide comment in reply

You need to ask yourself, "am I an adult who can participate in a conversation with other adults, or am I an immature petulant boy who can only call names and is incapable of contributing anything more than a fifth grader could to this discussion?"

Eric, I only followed your lead. It seemed to be very important to you to argue with anyone that believes giving healthy young people drugs.

High cholesterol is not a disease.

What was my lead? I did not seek out every post of yours...you did that to me on your own. Stop trying to deflect.

I also countered people with evidence and studies. You have only ad hominem attacks. We are completely different

Furthermore, your last statement is bogus. You are not a doctor. Please stop pretending you are. Its pitiful. If you want to learn about medicine, then sack up and go to medical school

Otherwise, stop trying to dole out advice you are in no way qualified to give