Grandparents, watch out for your grandkids!

Because it's in the first sentence. I hope that's not a thread buster b/c this is an important topic for we retirees on it as well as the juvenile guinea pigs.
 
I am concerned about this recommendation because the logic is flawed and the evidence is not sufficient:

1. Kids are fatter today and have higher cholesterol levels than before, AND
2. In adults high cholesterol increases risk, which can be improved with statins BUT
3. It is unknown whether high childhood cholesterol increases risk in kids 30 or 40 years later AND
4. even if it does (which is an unknown, reaally) there is no evidence that statins do or don't improve that risk AND
5. we don't know the SAFETY of statins in this population over the projected 40+ years.

If it were my kid, I'd stick with efforts at diet and exercise behaviors. Only in the most extreme case of hyperlipidemia (and there are congential types) would I consider longterm statins in a child.
 
Last edited:
I am concerned about this recommendation because the logic is flawed and the evidence is not sufficient:
If it were my kid, I'd stick with efforts at diet and exercise behaviors. Only in the most extreme case of hyperlipidemia (and there are congential types) would I consider longterm statins in a child.


Sage advice from Rich.
 
I am concerned about this recommendation because the logic is flawed and the evidence is not sufficient:

1. Kids are fatter today and have higher cholesterol levels than before, AND
2. In adults high cholesterol decreases risk, which can be improved with statins BUT
3. It is unknown whether high childhood cholesterol increases risk in kids 30 or 40 years later AND
4. even if it does (which is an unknown, reaally) there is no evidence that statins do or don't improve that risk AND
5. we don't know the SAFETY of statins in this population over the projected 40+ years.

Didn't these people learn anything from the teenage/antidepressant/suicide situation just recently? Aaargh! :rant:

Harley
 
Back
Top Bottom