Doctors debate over testing children for cholesterol

[tim-from-pa]

Of course, the verdict will eventually be in favor of testing kids, and then medicate them. Mark my words. Boy, all I can say is that times are getting financially tough for big Pharma if it's not enough to cram this worthless stuff down adults throats, but now the extension of the idea in this article will be to do the same for children. Well, the baby boomers are in power now and what can one expect from left-over, aging drugged-up potheads?

And if you are a parent and say, "I'll refuse to put my child on that worthless drug." , then just wait until child protective services come, and then some balding, jelly-chinned judge will order it by the strike of his mandating gavel or else take the kid away.

I'll tell ya what. Not too long ago, natural remedies and vitamins were severely threatening to the medical establishment. However, I did not see any health addict opening someone's mouth and pouring the vitamins down it. But the same ones who feared this are the same ones that won't hesitate to open someone's mouth and pour their drugs down it. Can we all say "hypocrisy" and "idiocy"? This generation is so full of themselves that they think they know what's best for the next.

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/he...debate-over-testing-children-for-cholesterol/

 

[tim-from-pa]

Hey everybody. Lookie what I found. Now they're saying Kid's cholesterol is dropping, and yet the previous post of mine had a theme of urgency that "we could all do better in that area" according to the previous article. As usual, they bash obese kids and other such conditions supposedly associated with it. Now this article makes it sound like all the kids over the last several years are doing much better, despite obesity.

http://www.ajc.com/health/kids-cholesterol-down-fewer-1493160.html

OK, so now which is it? Isn't this the 3rd or 4th contradiction I brought up lately, the last one I believe was about blood pressure? Another glaring and demonstrative example as bright as fireworks that shows nobody knows what's going on, and the data is probably skewed (especially if it's in favor of saying someone "needs" drugs).

Frankly, I know this article is severely biased. They don't talk about trans-fats, they talk about artery-clogging trans-fats which automatically sets up the reader's mind with a negative view of that fat. (I once read an article that also called saturated fats as artery-clogging saturated fats as well). Well, I guess these are your leftist, educated "open-minded" agenda-seeking folks for you, but that's another topic for another day.