Comments on: Cholesterol Drugs For Kids Recommended

Study Strongly Suggests Some Children Receive Medication To Stem Future Heart Problems

Add a Comment See all 94 Comments
by flreason July 8, 2008 1:17 AM EDT
"AS stated earlier, kids from one female parent homes, are more likely to have rushed fast food high carbohydrate meals."
Posted by cOLONIEny

So, let me get this straight. Kids from one MALE parent family get home-cooked, nutritionally balanced meals? If so, is it because of the live-in girlfriend, the new mom, or the nanny that the dad can afford because he''s paid more for his labor than the kid''s single mom?

Your gender bias and need to blame women for what''s wrong with American families is unfortunately typical. I was a working mom who commuted fifty miles each day, often worked 50-55 hours a week, sometimes more, and still cooked meals, attended school functions, helped with homework, and sewed special outfits. Of course I had no time for myself. But that''s what parenting is all about...a willing investment of time and money to benefit the next generation. I worked because I had to, and I kept my girls'' pictures at my desk to remind myself of why I put up with a job where I did the mens'' work but didn''t get the pay or recognition. If you want to know why families are broken, look at where the male-dominated business world puts its treasure. I guarantee you it''s not in partnering with their non-exempt and hourly employees to support the education and health of the next generation of workers.
Reply to this comment
by patriot1505 July 8, 2008 1:12 AM EDT
This statin proposition is stupid on its face. Can the "doctors" and drug companies (in this case Merck) go any lower. Why give anybody a statin when there is scant proof that reducing anyone''s bad cholesterol reduces their chances of having a heart attack. They must think we are as dumb as mud fences.
Reply to this comment
by foreducation July 7, 2008 11:43 PM EDT
Why not try some Chinese herbs/vegetables, well tested for thousands of years on billions of people? We say we are all what we eat. If kids lives on drugs, .... I couldn''t imagine ...

There is one thing I agree, though. Many kids are "brought up" and "educated" to be scared of MATH. Why not get them started as early as possible. Not boring rules, but how to use it to calculate the $$$ they will lose if they rely on drugs to keep their weight and hearts in shape, and things like that.
Reply to this comment
by kenhamlett July 7, 2008 11:17 PM EDT
While reading through this article again it occurred to me that the fellow with the infomercials selling natural cure books now has more credibility than the entire medical community.
God must be laughing.
Reply to this comment
by guitar101253 July 7, 2008 11:08 PM EDT
The answer is EXERCISE not drugs!
Drugs are temporary band aides.
Reply to this comment
by guitar101253 July 7, 2008 11:07 PM EDT
The answer is EXERCISE not drugs!
Drugs are temporary bandaides.
Reply to this comment
by formrusmcsgt July 7, 2008 10:56 PM EDT
I stop in for a burger once or twice a month and invariable see a majority being obese adults and kids in line.

Don''t these people know how to cook?
Reply to this comment
by kenhamlett July 7, 2008 10:53 PM EDT
SO MANY SCAMS SO LITTLE TIME.

I think we can take it as a given that this is more hucksterism to sell more pills so I won''t dwell on that this time.
Instead I will point out that first extreme weight in a child suggests either a bodily ********** or an unhealthy lifestyle. Don''t take a pill to cover up the problem. Fix it.
Next we should realize that body fat is not a bad thing. We all know the benefits or at least should. One that the doctors seem to forget is the energy storage needed for fast growth. A wise old doctor told my worrying mother not to fear a little fat, that I would need it when the hormones kicked in. He was correct. In fact it was nearly not enough. We need a little fat! Just don''t overdo it.
The drug companies and FDA can not be relied on to tell us the truth and now your family doctor is supplying pills instead of wisdom. Do your own research and fix your lifestyle.
Reply to this comment
by cdfoxtrot July 7, 2008 10:48 PM EDT
Instead of starting them out on a life of drugs, why not zip it up, reduce the food intake, and improve the quality of the food they ARE given? And no sweeties between meals. And get their fat a$$es off the couch and onto some exercise program.
Reply to this comment
by colonieny July 7, 2008 10:37 PM EDT
AS stated earlier, kids from one female parent homes, are more likely to have rushed fast food high carbohydrate meals. The loss of the MOM and DAD structure to so many children, where the DAD may come home and pitch a few baskets, while MOM has the whole day to prepare fresh food - real food- has taken a life long health toll on the children.
Don''t let those so called EXPERTS tell you that Divorce has little effect on kids. It does. Here is another example.
A kid needs a MOM and a DAD.
And we need one - only one parent working, not this two income fraud to pay the taxes and pay for the plasma tv and the giant SUV. Are we nuts ??
Reply to this comment
by formrusmcsgt July 7, 2008 10:35 PM EDT
Big Pharma wants to get kids on drugs and keep them for the rest of their lives.

Posted by steeepe at 07:31 PM : Jul 07, 2008

And parents who don''t have the gonads to say no will go along for the ride......
Reply to this comment
by steeepe July 7, 2008 10:31 PM EDT
Ridiculous! Better diets and more exercise will achieve the same results, and the kids will feel and think better, too. Big Pharma wants to get kids on drugs and keep them for the rest of their lives.
Reply to this comment
by nyjtt692 July 7, 2008 10:22 PM EDT
Parents, please beware. If you read the article, Dr. Stephen Daniels used to work as a consultant for Merck and Abbott Laboratories. If you look at the American Academy of Pediatrics web site, these 2 companies are contributors to the AAP organization. This news item and the one from last week saying that infants should get more pain medication are looking to me like the drug companies are mining for new patrons. What does this mean? Risk to your children, higher medical costs, etc. I think we need some very detailed information about the folks at the American Academy of Pediatrics and their business relationships (past, present, and future) with the drug companies. I can''t help but think the drug companies are putting them up to this.
Reply to this comment
by oneamerican- July 7, 2008 10:07 PM EDT
Don''t let your kids eat junk, don''t let them have ANYTHING with "high fructose corn syrup" in it, and get them outside to burn off energy instead of zoning out on TV or video games.

Parents - take some responsiblity for your children''s health!
Reply to this comment
by lovegetpeace July 7, 2008 9:52 PM EDT
American US Drug Companies must be celebrating instead of promoting a lifestyle what includes exercise. I guess McDonald is nolonger a scapegoat.
Reply to this comment
by kennedy7955 July 7, 2008 8:57 PM EDT
It wasn''t long ago that they put millions of kids on Ritalin, Brand Names: Concerta, Metadate CD, Metadate ER, Methylin, Methylin ER, Ritalin, Ritalin LA, Ritalin-SR. It was a stupid thing to do and it was marketed almost silently. One day there were no kids on the drug and next, entire schools. That was stupid and dangerous for the kids but very profitable for the drug companies.

Americans are fat and they are having fat kids. Cholesterol was never tested on kids in the past. In fact, it wasn''t tested for on adults until recently.

The way this is reported, there some readers who will relate cholesterol to being overweight, and taking these drugs might solve the high LDL and therefore maybe cure being fat.

So I am guessing this will be the latest craze. You got to read between the lines folks. This is how they will market this ***.

So the pharma industry wants to give millions of kids these drugs. Well I am 45 and took Lipitor for 1 week and had muscle aches that nearly crippled me for 90 days thereafter. What the heck, kids can take the abuse.

On top of that there is a body of evidence that people with high cholesterol and no other factors should not take these drugs. Cholesterol drugs will not help kids lose weight.
Reply to this comment
by talkingham July 7, 2008 8:14 PM EDT
And oh yeah, these know-it-all dietitians (what a joke) they come up with the new food pyramid that has the same proportions of fat to protein as swine fattening formulas, go figure!

A cake donut usually has two-four times more fat (and usually trans fat at that) as does a typical yeast donut. But for anyone to think that "the fast food chain" is any kind of solution to feeding their families, well they just need to go out and get some horse sense whipped into themselves. Because if you think some pimple faced ne''er do well behind the filthy hamburger or chicken fast food counter one week and then gone the next is going to feed you anything healthy then perhaps a horse whipping wouldn''t even help.
Reply to this comment
by meinnv July 7, 2008 8:04 PM EDT
Thankfully, my mother now has a "set" schedule, but the damage from that inconsistent schedule has already been done.

Now she works 3 12''s and is off 4 days in a row.

Then again, there is always the problem of the food prices. That is something the government could do--give us tax breaks to eat healthier.

BTW: I priced veggies, they''re more expensive than you think. For my mother and I to even have one serving per night it costs $2.00--on sale; normally $3 per night (we get frozen veggies only; no preservative ridden canned goods).

1 serving of veggies for 14 nights (she gets paid bi-weekly) costs around $28-$42 every two weeks. With a grocery budget (including cleaning & personal hygiene supplies) of $200; that money doesn''t go very far. So, yes sometimes we have to eat food we shouldn''t; it''s either that or go hungry; or go without a place to live.
Reply to this comment
by meinnv July 7, 2008 7:58 PM EDT
A few years ago when my mother was on 12 hour shifts, her boss didn''t know how to schedule her, so here is what she sometimes worked:

3-12''s; off one day; work 3 12''s; off 2; work 4 hours 1 day; off one; work 4 12''s. With a schedule like that, without regular days off we were lucky to get dinner. I cooked as much as I could, but there were times when the money was tight and it was either spend $20 on a good wholesome meal for one night or spend $20 on microwave dinners.

Am not proud of it, but sometimes it happens.

Also, when she was working 12 hour shifts, she had 2 hours of travel time (to and from work). With 24 hours in the day, that gave her only 2 hours before she had to head to bed to get 8 hours of rest. With her stomach condition she had to stay up 2 hours after she ate, so a TV dinner was the best we could do with hardly any time to cook.
Reply to this comment
by meinnv July 7, 2008 7:53 PM EDT
mediamomma, I completely agree with you on Wendy''s being better. But as I said, if you are strapped for cash, you have to afford what you can. And, in today''s time with parents working so many hours to provide for their kids, there is not enough time in the day to cook or you''re too tired (trust me, I gave up a few dinners and went to bed hungry only because my exhausted mother just didn''t have the energy to cook after a 12 hour day).

We as a society have to slow down and change. The government needs to crack down on our employers and stop with all these 60-80 hour work weeks. We are killing ourselves by working to death and eating what we have time for and can afford.
Reply to this comment
See all 94 Comments
  • MOST POPULAR
Latest News
News in Pictures
Scroll Left Scroll Right
Connect with CBS News

Stay connected with the CBS News using your favorite social networks and online news applications: