Why treat nutritional deficiency with drugs?
By Linda on Jan 22, 2010 in Food
Linda’s comments: Poor nutrition will and does cause many illness in adults and children. Eating GMO foods, fast foods, junk foods, drinking any kind of soda regular and/or diet you are asking for troble. For those young women out there who are thinking about having children, you need to think first about cleaning up your body before getting pregnant. An unborn baby is a toxic dump for the mother. All the toxins and bad things she eats go right to the baby. If the mother has amalgam fillings all that mercury goes straight to the unborn child.
While diet/nutrition is one of the hardest things in the world it is one of the most important things for good health. Today, we have to worry about all the GMO foods. We have to be concerned about pesticides, herbicides, how it is prepared, packaged and stored before it gets to your mouth.
Using drugs to fix the problems that a poor diet has caused is only adding more problems to the mix. Why add more toxins to our bodies. Try cleaning up your lifestyle, and adding vitamins, herbals and supplements to your everyday living.
Focus on cleaning out the toxins you have packed in and stored by getting on a lifelong daily detox, them supplementing the nutrients using a good quality supplement product. Using drugs will only compound your problems.
Regards,
Linda or Angel
Excerpt:
(OMNS, November 13, 2008) A recent study suggested that statins might be used to avoid the effects of nutritional deficiency. Writing in the New England Journal of Medicine, the Jupiter group described a study of statin drugs in people with high C-reactive protein and low cholesterol. (1) High C-reactive protein levels are associated with inflammation and heart disease/stroke. The authors concluded that, in apparently healthy persons with elevated C-reactive protein levels, rosuvastatin (Crestor) significantly reduced the incidence of major cardiovascular events.
Their much-publicized claim, that this statin lowers the risk of heart attack by approximately one half, is technically correct though highly misleading. The reported annual incidence of coronary events was 37 people in 10,000 (controls) and 17 people in 10,000 (treated). Similar results were reported for risk of stroke. When expressed as a proportion, a 46% improvement (17/37) sounds large. However, an improvement of 20 events (37-17) in 10,000 people known to be at risk is less impressive. Such an improvement means that 500 people (10,000/20) with this increased risk would need to take the tablet daily for a year, to prevent one person suffering an event.
The paper does not explicitly report deaths. One reason for this may be that if a person on statins suffered a heart attack, that person was about three times more likely to die than a control who was not on statins.
Full article:
