How Not to Argue for Animal Rights Online: What Proponents of Animal Rights Should Learn from the Revised Dietary Guidelines on Meat-Eating

Unless you’ve been living in a cave for the last week, you have seen the new systematic review of the existing evidence concerning the health effects and dietary guidelines surrounding red meat and processed meats. Without getting into the gory details, the review evaluates of the quality of the evidence that had guided previous dietary recommendations to reduce or eliminate red and processed meats. It turns out that most of the evidence is of low quality; i.e., they are primarily observational studies which, by design, cannot show causation and are replete with confounding variables. The authors conclude that the evidence isn’t strong enough to make recommendations either way and so people should just continue eating however they’re eating. (For a good review of the review go here).

When a review, meta-analysis, or study contradicts the main trend in the literature, the correct attitude is skepticism. However, after reading the review and several reviews of the reviews by credible scientists, I think the conclusions are worth taking seriously. The quality of the evidence that supported past guidelines was weak and doesn't offer a firm foundation for recommendations one way or the other.

If there is an uncontroversial conclusion in nutritional science it’s that the greater the proportion of fruits and vegetables in one’s diet, the better. If there’s any downside to eating meat it probably comes from the trade-offs that occur with fruits and vegetables. High meat consumption usually means that fruits and veggies are a smaller proportion of your diet (you can only stuff so much food in your face). An implication of the review is that a healthful diet can contain meat as a side-dish but probably not as the main dish.

The online reception to the review was as predictable as someone commenting “BACON” on a vegan thread. Meat-eaters predictably gleefully reposted it, taking this review to be the One True Scientific Paper (while having completely ignored previous studies and reviews that had concluded the opposite). Animal rights proponents filled the internet’s comment section, desperately searching for flaws in the methodology and conflicts of interests.

Animal rights proponents have been going about this all wrong. Let me qualify that last statement. I’m referring to the current general public-facing online reaction of the animal rights community—not the philosophical literature. Among other things, they hung their moral case on contentious empirical facts. This is a losing strategy. As we should all know by now, empirical conclusions get overturned all the time in science, and especially in nutritional science.

It’s odd to see so many animal rights proponents combing through the review, grasping at straws in hopes of undermining the review. What if yet another high quality review comes out and concludes the same thing as this one? Then what? We all know that moral arguments demand moral premises. So, who cares whether there are mild health effects either way?

But it’s actually worse than that. We undermine the credibility of the animal rights cause when we cling to weak science to make our case. Let the science fall where it may. Our position shouldn’t depend on it (I’ll qualify this later). And it certainly shouldn’t depend on weak science.

This brings me to my next point. Why do animal rights proponents really cling to the hope that the empirical literature shows ill health effects for eating meat? Because we (I include myself here) want to make the prudential argument. We want to say, “you shouldn’t eat meat because it’s bad for you.” The not-too-unreasonable assumption is that many people care a lot more about themselves than anything else, especially out-of-sight farm animal welfare. We can avoid the hard work of the moral argument (and yes, it is hard work when engaging online) by offering the prudential argument instead.

But again this is a losing strategy. The moment the science flips, so does the prudential argument. And even if that weren’t the case, although people care about themselves a lot, they aren't purely rarely rational agents. They gladly trade their long-term health for a hamburger or [insert your favorite self-destructive habit] today.

Finally, the other problem with the prudential argument is that we’re being disingenuous. None of us really think it’s the prudential argument that matters for animal welfare and rights. That’s not why any of us care about animal welfare and rights.

So here’s my suggestion. In public discourse, we animal rights proponents need to return to our roots. Concern for animal welfare and rights is grounded in a moral argument—it’s not empirical and it’s not prudential. To be sure, there are some necessary empirical premises such as the fact that certain practices cause unnecessary suffering and harm to animals. However, these empirical premises are not nearly as controversial or ephemeral as the shifting nutritional science we’re trying to cling to. And as for the moral premises? Most people already accept them. Our job is to help people see their true implications through the fog of personal advantage, culture, and socialization. Our animal friends are depending on us.

Annual Fitness Post: The Most Efficient Fitness Workouts

Introduction
Hey guys, it's that time of year when you go out and buy an annual gym/yoga/taichi/zumba/crossfit membership that you'll only use for a month or two. *This* time you're gonna make it work! Well, I hope you do anyway.

As my throngs of adoring fans know, every year I do an annual fitness post.
http://missiontotransition.blogspot.ca/2014/01/annual-fitness-post-injury-prevention.html
http://missiontotransition.blogspot.ca/2013/01/annual-fitness-advice-post-using-social.html
http://missiontotransition.blogspot.ca/2012/01/no-nonsense-fitness-guide.html
http://missiontotransition.blogspot.ca/2010/10/nutrition-rant-simple-vs-complex-carbs.html
http://missiontotransition.blogspot.ca/2010/06/i-was-planning-on-attacking-some-recent.html
http://missiontotransition.blogspot.ca/2010/07/health-and-nutrition-part-2.html
http://missiontotransition.blogspot.ca/2010/07/health-and-nutrition-part-3-hopefully.html


This year's post is about the most efficient workouts in the woooooooooooooorld. Basically, my patented high-tech workouts will teach everything you need to know to lose fat, gain muscle, and cure cancer. Ok, maybe I'll just teach you how to get the best workout in the shortest amount of time.

You can use these workouts a couple of ways. They can be your primary workouts or you can use them the way I use them. If I'm short on time or need a change from my usual routine, these workouts kick my ass in under 25min. For most people it'll be less.

The common theme of all these workouts is high intensity. I'm too busy to do the literature search but basically, the best evidence on fitness training is that short high intensity training gives as much if not more benefit as up to 2 hours of low intensity training. Trust me. I'm a philosopher.

Why waste time working out when you can waste time doing other things? Now, hold on to your panties cuz these workouts are intense. Some of them will finish you in 10 or 15 minutes (as long as you're pushing yourself and not whining like a baby).

World's Most Efficient Workout #1: Running Stairs
Back in my high school wrestling days, after a full practice Coach Buono would make us run stairs for 15min. It is one of the most hellish workouts you can do.  Let me be clear. I'm not talking about no sissy stair climber. I'm talkin' real stairs. There's a very big difference. You'll find out...

How to Run Stairs
Find some stairs. Run to the top. Run back down. Repeat.

Ok. So let's talk specifics so you get the best workout possible in the shortest amount of time.

First of all I like to find at least four stories of stairs to run (more is gooder). Find a building or outdoor parking garage or maybe the building you live in.

Second, mentally commit to the number of times you'll climb the stairs. You aren't allowed to quit until you've finished. At the low end it should add up to maybe around 30 flights. I like to do around 60. Back in the day I lived in an 18 story apt building and I'd run up 10 times. Don't do that. You'll die. The first time I did it, I couldn't walk for days.

Third. This is the important part. You must ascend 2 steps at a time. Running! No walking! Ok, so maybe near the end when you're starting to die you can walk the flights at the end of a rep but you must walk up 2 at a time. Otherwise, you won't be engaging a lot of the muscles in your legs and you won't be working out with enough intensity. MORE INTENSITY!!!1111!1!!!

What I like to do is I'll go up the stairs to the rhythm of the song I'm listening to. This forces me to keep a certain pace and not give up like a baby. Also, when you start to get tired, you can walk to the rhythm between flights but once you get to the next flight get back to 2 at a time and to the beat! Stop crying, big baby!

Fourth: Descending. For most people I don't recommend running down unless you're used to it. If you do, make sure you keep one hand on the handrail. I've fallen before. It's no fun.

I usually do my 60 flights in around 25 min and I'm done after that.  Lungs are on fire, legs like jelly (u jelly?). So, if you're looking for a quick workout that will give you results; this is a good one.

Reminder. RUN up. Yeah, your legs and lungs will hurt but you wanted to get in shape didn't you? Oh, did you think it was going to be easy? Did you think you could just sashay up those stairs and you'd get all the results? Listen cry baby: All those fitness sophists telling you that you can get in good shape by doing comfortable low intensity exercise are lying to you. You're going to have to push yourself past your comfort zone if you want results. Now stop crying and go run some stairs!

World's Most Efficient Workout #2: Sambo Conditioning 
What is the sambo conditioning circuit? 10 Jumping Squats, 10 Push ups, 10 Sit ups. Repeat for minimum 10 minutes. I dare you to do 15 minutes. Count how many times you can get through the circuit so next time you have benchmark and a target to beat.

How to do the squats: Go down into a regular squat but with your arms at your sides until your finger tips touch the ground. Jump up. That's one.

Let's be real. You're not going to be able to jump the whole 10 minutes. So, as you begin to fade, do as many jumping squats as you can at the beginning of the set until you fail then finish the set with regular squats. For example, you're already starting to cry cuz you can't do 10 full jumping squats. In your next set of squats, jump for the first 3 or 4 then finish the set with regular squats but make sure your finger tips touch for each one.

How to do the push ups.  You know how to do push ups. Chest to the ground then full extension of the arms. That's one rep. Don't let your midsection sag. Better to stick your ass up a bit then let it sag. You can vary the hand placement too: narrow, neutral, wide.

Sit ups: Well, they don't have to be sit ups. Pick another ab exercise if you like: crunches, leg raises, V-ups. Whatevz. Just make sure you get a full range of motion and a good contraction at the top of the movement (that's what she said).

If you can do 10 cycles in 10 minutes you are Jesus. I think my best was 8.

World's Most Efficient Workout #3: Randy Couture Weightlifting Circuit for Wrestling
Maybe you can't find a staircase or maybe you just want to do weights but not your usual work out. This weight cycle will kick. your. ass.

Do this circuit 6 times:

If you live. Please tell me about it.


World's Most Efficient Workout #4: Versa-Climber
I just discovered this one a month ago. If your gym has one, I challenge you to go just 5 min at 90 ft/m (that's what I did the first time and I died the death).

The way I'd recommend using this one is as interval training. Go 2 min at 120 ft/m then rest for 1 min. Repeat 5 times. Go home, you're done.

UPDATE: Here's what I've been doing on the versa climber: 3x 3min sets at ~85% of max with 1:30 rest between sets. First I set the resistance. To do this I find the resistance where I can't go faster than 135 ft/min at max effort.  Once I've set the resistance I begin my 3min set. The way I do it is that I don't let myself go below 120 ft/min during my set. 1:30 rest then start your next set (at the resistance you're already using--no need to recalibrate).

Now, I'm telling you right now that you will not be able to do 3x3min sets with 1:30 breaks (at the resistance level and rate I use). Here's what I did to work myself up to that.  In the first 2 weeks I did my first set 3min, 1:30 break, 2min set, 1:30 break, 2min set. Then after 2 weeks I went to 3minx2:30minx2min (1:30 between each). Another 2 weeks or so then I went to 3minx2:30x2:30. Then I went up to 3minx3minx2:30.  Finally, I got to 3x3x3.

If you try this I'd love to hear about your experience. At first I wanted to die....good luck!

Annual Fitness Post: Injury Prevention with Breathing Technique

Over the last several years I've pretty much covered every meaningful piece of advice on how to get in shape.  
http://missiontotransition.blogspot.ca/2013/01/annual-fitness-advice-post-using-social.html
http://missiontotransition.blogspot.com/2012/01/no-nonsense-fitness-guide.html.

http://missiontotransition.blogspot.com/2010/10/nutrition-rant-simple-vs-complex-carbs.html

http://missiontotransition.blogspot.com/2010/06/i-was-planning-on-attacking-some-recent.html

http://missiontotransition.blogspot.com/2010/07/health-and-nutrition-part-2.html

http://missiontotransition.blogspot.com/2010/07/health-and-nutrition-part-3-hopefully.html

This year I'm going to cover how to prevent injury.  I'd say that this is probably the most difficult lesson for former competitive athletes to learn because the most significant way to prevent injury involves not exerting yourself 100% when you aren't feeling 100%...Probably common sense for most people.  Anyhow, lets git our lern on.

Broken Record:
Before I begin, I just want to repeat the most fundamental lessons for success in fitness:
(a) The work out/physical activity you actually enjoy and will do regularly is better than the perfect physical activity that you hate and will quit after a few weeks.

(b)  If your primary goal is weight-loss, calories in vs calories out is your first guiding principle of how to eat.  Obviously, don't be dumbass about it and eat small meals of nutritionless food, but by and large, calories in must be fewer than calories out or you simply won't lose weight.  That's science!

(c)  Medium-high intensity activities generally yield better fitness and health results than low intensity activities.

(d)  Leverage the effects of social pressure:  If you aren't naturally motivated to exercise, you'll probably have a better chance of sticking to an activity if it's a social activity.  Also, publicly announcing your goals and/or having a friend check up periodically on your progress increases your likelihood of success.

(e)  Resistance exercises:  (i)  Over the last decade, there's been a growing body of quality evidence showing that resistance/strength programs outcompete endurance exercises in terms of combating the effects of aging.  (ii)  If you want to incorporate strength exercises (i.e., weight training) and you've never really done it before, please, please, please hire a professional personal trainer to get you started. Make sure that the person actually weight trains themselves (and has done so for at least 5 years) and isn't some yoga or aerobics instructor who took a weekend certification course.  A simple heuristic to find out if they are knowledgeable about weighlifting is to ask them: "Do you even?".  If they reply with "do I even what?" or "I don't understand the question" find another trainer.

(f)  Don't waste your money on supplements.  99% of them don't have any good evidence to support their efficacy.  If you insist on supplements, the only ones I'd recommend are protein powder and creatine.  Possibly pre-workout powder if you need an energy boost but a coffee does the same thing, has the same active ingredient, and is cheaper.

I Enjoy Preventing Injury Because:
Now that we've got that out of the way, lets get down to the important matter of preventing injury.  At the very real risk of stating the obvious, it's important to avoid injury because:
(a)  injuries hurt and make me cry

(b)  injuries keep you away from your activity of choice thereby causing you to lose (i) your precious gains and (ii) your momentum which in turn sends you back to you pre-activity sedentary state from which you must one more time begin the difficult task of overcoming the inertia of inactivity.

(c)  injuries cause further injuries.  Often in protecting your injured body part, you'll compensate in a way that causes you to injure another body part.

By far, one of the most common area that gets injured is your back.  So, if there's a way to minimize back injury, maybe we should check it aus...

Correct Breathing
Ok, if you aren't going to include weight lifting into your fitness plan, then this section isn't too relevant to your needs.  But it may be, so read it anyway.  I spent time writing the damn thing!

Fact: 99% of fitness trainers teach incorrect breathing technique for weightlifting (source: Ami's Journal of Test Tubes, Beakers, and Scientifical Facts).  Let me qualify that: it depends on the type of lift (and some will say the amount of weight in relation to your max).  But lets not get caught up in distinctions, this is a fitness post!  Everything I teach you will make you lose 20 lbs in 2 weeks and cure cancer!

The valsalva maneuver.   That's what I'm talkin' 'bout!  Instead of 'splaining it, I'm going to illustrate. Nay! You're going to illustrate it! Good teachers explain, great teachers make you figure it out your own damn self (or something like that).

Drop something on the floor right now.  Slowly bend over and reach down to pick it up. Wait! Stop! While doing this, I want you to focus on the sensation in your lower back. When your torso gets to about perpendicular with the floor, I want you to exhale.  Now, pick up the dropped object and return to your erect position (heh heh heh....he said "erect position").

Now I want you to try to duplicate the exact same motion but this time before initiating your movement inhale deeply and hold your breath.  Without releasing the air in your belly and chest, bend over and pick up the fallen object and focus on how it feels in your lower back. Don't release your breath until you are almost fully erect again (heh heh heh...he said "fully erect").

What were the results?  In the second case, your lower back should have felt more support and less strain that in the first.

Here's another experiment to illustrate the principle:   Hold yourself in push-up/plank position. Now exhale all the air from your lungs.  What happens to the stability of your core?  Does it sag?

Repeat but this time, while in push up position, inhale and fill yourself with air and hold it. What happens to the stability of your core?  Is it more stable?

Doing this carefully controlled experiment should reveal to you the one secret the fitness industry doesn't want you to know! You should only breath in, and never exhale!  This will make you appear more buff and saving you 1000s of dollars on expensive steroids supplements!

Ok, I kid.  Here's the real lesson: When you are doing strength exercises that require a stable core (mainly: squat, deadlift, bench press, military press, shoulder press, any olympic and power lift), before you initiate the movement, you should breath IN and fill your belly and torso with air and HOLD your breath during the main exertion of force, releasing it only once the most difficult part of the movement has been completed (you can let a little air out through pursed lips during exertion).

To summarize the technique (video below):
1. Using your diaphragm (not your chest), inhale deeply before the non-exertion phase of the movement.   E.g., in a squat it will be when you are standing upright before you go down; with bench press and military press it will be when the bar is overhead before you lower it.

2.  Hold your breath and tighten your abs as though someone is going to punch you in the stomach as you lower the bar.  This stabilizes your core.

3.  When you exert force to begin the upward movement, keep holding your breath for the first part of the movement (the most difficult part) and then, near the top of the movement, release your breath.  Note: some people say to release a little bit of air through pursed lips during the main exertion.  Figure out what works for you.

4. Repeat.

Here are a couple of videos illustrating how to use this breathing technique (called the valsalva maneuver in fancy talk) with the most common lifts:

Nerd Note: There are actually 2 types of valsalva maneuvers: (a) the most common one is the one you do during the descent of an airplane when you plug your nose and try to equalize your sinus and ear pressure; (b) the weightlifting one is called the gloittial version because you close your windpipe (with your gloittus) to create pressure in your abdominal and thoracic cavities.

Some good general points, despite his committing the naturalistic fallacy:

The Squat:

The Deadlift: 

The Down-Side and Fine-Print:

First of all, at your next training session where you're doing squats, your zumba weightlifting instructor will tell you to exhale when you exert force in the lift.  Then you're going to say, "but I read on the internets that you should use the glottial valsalva maneuver during the most difficult part of the lift."  At this point you should tell them where on the internets you got the advice.  If they don't immediately recant their position and acknowledge their ignorance in the face of my superior epistemic position, then the correct response is to say "do you even lift?" and walk away.

Apart from conflicts with your pillates weightlifting instructor there are a couple of other risks you should be aware of when using the valsalva maneuver.  While the risks might lead some uninformed fools to conclude that the valsalva maneuver shouldn't ever be used, these nervous nellies aren't taking into account several important distinctions.  Before I address the distinctions, here's a quick list of some of the possible risks incurred by using the valsalva maneuver: 

1.  The valsalva maneuver creates A LOT of internal pressure.  If you have any kind of abdominal hernia you'll probably want to avoid it.  You'll want to avoid it if you really have to go to the bathroom too...

2.  The valsalva maneuver reduces blood-flow to the brain so there's a risk of feinting if you're prone to it.  Also, the reduced blood-flow to your brain means you should avoid attempting complex cognitive operations like doing calculus while holding your breath and lifting heavy weights. 

3. The valsalva maneuver can cause valsalva retinopathy which appears as preretinal hemorrhage (bleeding in front of the retina).  I'm not sure if this is a downside cuz it's a cool story to tell your bros. 

4.  Your blood pressure goes up and your heart rate goes down because of the increased internal pressure.  If you have a history of heart conditions, you might want to avoid doing it.  Consult a qualified homeopath first...I kid:  talk to a real freakin' doctor, damn it! 

The Fine-Print:

Are you scurd? Sounds like a lot of risk just to prevent back injuries and to get gains. Actually, it's not.  It's about as risky as pushing hard while on the toilet when you're constipated (where you've been using the valsalva maneuver for years!). The possibility of negative effects occurs only if you're lifting really really heavy weight which, lets be honest, most of you aren't (do you even?).  So long as you're lifting below 350lbs, there's no real risk.  The greater risk is to your back.

One more thing to note is that if you decide to use the valsalva maneuver for heavy weight (as you should), you should avoid doing sets of more than 5 or 6 reps.  Holding and releasing your breath under heavy load for a standard set of 10 reps increases the likelihood of lightheadedness (and the other problems ) although it's still negligible.  If you aren't lifting heavy, then it's not going to be the end of the world if you don't use the valsalva maneuver but I'd recommend it anyway if you want to protect your back. 

Finally, you don't need to use the valsalva maneuver for every type of exercise.  It's primarily used for heavy compound lifts such as squat, deadlift, military press, bench press, and any olympic lift.  For those movements you're much better off using it than not. For other lifts, especially isolation exercises, you're fine using the breathing technique your aerobics instructor taught you.

In sum, the valsalva movement is an effective way to prevent injury to your (2nd) most vulnerable region--your spine.  

Last Word on Injury Prevention

I've got two words for you:  You have to warm up or you will increase your chances of injury.  Did I go over the word limit?  Oops.  

Good warm-up plan:  

1.  Do 10-15 min at med intensity on one of the cardio machines.  If you're training upper-body that day, use the elliptical.     

2.  Start with compound exercises (i.e., exercises that use more than one muscle group) that focus on a large muscle group (chest, back, legs, shoulders).  Finish your workout with isolation exercises (i.e., exercises that isolate one muscle or aspect of a muscle).  For example, if I'm working chesticles I don't start with flys or cable cross-overs because these movements isolate the chest and don't involve any other muscle groups.  I start with bench press because this uses my triceptors, shoulders, and chest.  Similarly, if you're doing legs, don't start with hamstring curls or leg extensions.  You should start with squats or dead lifts or possibly leg press, all of which use a combination of muscles in your legs as well as your torso.

3.  Do as many warm up sets as you need, gradually adding weight, before starting your working sets.  I usually do 3 warm up sets for my first exercise--sometimes fewer, sometimes more depending on how I feel.

4.  If after 3 or 4 warm up sets, your normal working weight feels heavy, back down.  Your body isn't "feeling it" today which means there's a good chance you'll injure yourself if you push it.  Do your working sets with a slightly lighter weight than you'd normally use.

5.  Once you've done your first major compound exercise, you probably will only need 1 warm up set for your next exercise.

Now stop making excuses and go to the gym.

The Vaccine Debate Part 1: The Legal Aspect of the Feb. 22 Ruling

Preamble  
    Because this blog post is likely to attract new readers to my blog, before I get into the meat of the debate I feel some preamble is in order.  Facebook is a wonderful thing.  It allows us to reconnect and stay in contact with friends to a degree that old skool letter writing simply wouldn't allow.  One interesting derivative of facebook is that we can learn how our own views differ from those of our friends and our friends' friends.  As we progress though life we tend to surround ourselves most closely with people who share our own point of view.  Facebook allows us to observe in real time how our views have changed or are diverging from past peer groups.
     So what's my point?  I guess what I'm getting at is that I think having friends/friends of friends who have divergent views from my own allows me to examine my own beliefs more critically.  For example, politically I have what Americans call a "liberal" bias (in Canada I'd be much closer to the centre) but thanks to facebook I can read articles that my more right leaning friends post.  Having access to these articles allows me to see things from a perspective that I probably might not have otherwise.  Sometimes I discount these countervailing views as malarky but occasionally I will agree with some of the points and modify my position.  The most fruitful reaction is when I respond to the article.  Doing so allows me to clarify my own position to myself and determine whether my position is simply an opinion or whether there are strong arguments and/or evidence which support my position.  Sometimes things get heated but as long as my friends and I stay within boundaries appropriate to our friendship/character the outcome is usually fruitful for the both of us.  Basically, this blog entry the the result of one of those interactions.
       As a caveat, I loves me some sarcasm, it's built into my DNA so I urge you not to take too much offence if I am dismissive of any of your cherished beliefs.  I'll do my best to temper it (Ha!) On the bright side I can take just as well as I can dish it...so give me your best!
     Although I'm but a babe in the woods in academia and I have no specialized knowledge, I would argue that training in philosophy qualifies one quite well in the evaluation of arguments.  The subsequent blog post is about several issues in the vaccine debate.  So, what are my medical credentials you ask?  Well, I'm not a doctor, but I did play one for over 2 years with Chippendales.  If that doesn't convince you of my bonifides, I don't know what will.  Without further ado...


Issue 1:  Government "Protection" of Vaccine Producers


    My good friend Nima posted the following article on his facebook page with a subject line that he knew would bate me (we do this to each other....it's fun!)
http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/March-2011/No-Pharma-Liability--No-Vaccine-Mandates-.aspx
 Besides the fact that this article is poorly written with grammatical errors and missing words (see ad hominem attack)  there are so many factual fabrications it reads like fox news (see "ad hominem" again!).  Basically I'm having a hard time deciding where to begin.  Lets try this.  I'll summarize the article, point out the main errors, then give some examples of dishonesty in the article.
    The main points of the articles are as follows:  1. Vaccine producers are protected from civil liability should a vaccine cause injury, 2. a)  'mericans are legally compelled to be vaccinated by government b) and that's a violation of FREEDOM! (chant USA! USA! USA!) 3. Vaccines are baaaaad.


Vaccine Producers are Protected from Civil Liability
      First of all the way this claim is made is disingenuous.  Thoughout the article the claim is made that there is "no liability" and "no accountability" for vaccine producers.  The tacit implication that it is very difficult if not impossible for victims of vaccine side effects to receive compensation.  I commend the writer for not outright lying but his account is misleading.  Here are the actual facts:
1.  In 1986 the US government set up the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVI) to provide no-fault compensation to those claiming to be victims of vaccines.  So, children suffering from what may be side effects of vaccines have an avenue by which they can receive compensation.  The threshold for a successful claim to demonstrate a causal link is very weak and the effects need only manifest themselves within a reasonable time frame after the injection.  It is important to note that the causal link between most vaccines and the purported side effects is weak at best.
     In many cases, for compensation to be awarded there need only be a temporal causal link between symptoms and vaccination, not physiological or biochemical.  Basically just because event B occurred after event A does not mean that event A caused event B.  I will get into the science of that later.  With the NCVI Children are provided medical, rehabilitation, counselling, and educational expenses in the case of a successful claim.  
Assessment:  While it is true that vaccine producers are protected from civil liability, it is not true that victims have no recourse for compensation.  In defence of the article writer, they never outright say this but any uninformed person reading the article could easily draw this conclusion.


     So how did this whole ruling come about?  Well, basically there was a case in which a family from Pennsylvania went to the NCVI claims committee looking for compensation and didn't get it.  The condition--residual seizure disorder--which afflicted the daughter had been removed from the schedule of approved reactions that qualify for compensation .  In other words,  there was no evidence indicating or plausible mechanism for a causal link between the vaccine and that particular condition.  Despite this, the plaintiff argued that the vaccine company had knowledge of a safer vaccine and if they had distributed the newer vaccine their daughter would not have had the reaction.  The family did not accept the ruling of the NCVI and eventually their case made it to the supreme court.
     In order to understand the supreme court ruling we need to look at the wording of the key passage in the 1986 NCVI law:
     No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.
The two keys to the case are the phrase "side effects that were unavoidable" and "the vaccine...was accompanied by proper directions and warnings".  Lets look first at the later.  Before a child gets any vaccine it is the law that the parents read and sign a vaccine information statement (VIS):

A VIS must be given with every vaccination, including each dose in a multi-dose series. Each VIS contains a brief description of the disease, as well as the risks and benefits of the vaccine. Each VIS is developed by the CDC and distributed to state and local health departments as well as individual providers.(my italics, thank you wikipedia)

     Basically this amounts to informed consent. The plaintiff wanted to argue that despite the informed consent the vaccine manufacturer knew about a more attenuated vaccine and should have offered it.
The judges ruled that despite this, the informed consent that was for the vaccine at hand, not another version of the vaccine.  Also, despite what the National Vaccine Information Centre NVIC article states, there are state laws that allow for abstention from taking vaccines.  

    So, the family could have refused that vaccine if the known risks which were on the VIS had been unacceptable to them.  That is to say, the family could have declined having the vaccine administered to their daughter if they were concerned about the "side effects that were unavoidable".  (Actually, in the article the NVIC contradicts themselves because in the first part of the article they say that Americans are legally required to get vaccinated, but at the end of the article they ask for donations to continue their support of existing state laws that allow for exemption--go figure).  

    The supreme court noted that if the law were otherwise interpreted it would open the door for very difficult cases.  Here are a couple of analogies I came up with as thought experiments to illustrate the point:  Let say you buy a car the year before they install airbag technology into the model.  You get into an accident and the injuries you sustained could have been prevented if there had been an airbag in the car.  The car company knew about airbag technology and maybe even sold some of your model with airbags in another country (with less stringent testing regulations, for example).  Can you sue the car company?  They knew about a safer modification to the vehicle.   Or lets say that midway production they started adding airbags.  You bought a car from an early production run that didn't have one.  Does the car company now need to pull all non-airbag (safer) cars from the market and junk them?  

    Here's another that maybe isn't so much of an analogy but a similar case.  Lets say you have a headache and decide to take your usual ibuprofen (NSAID) which can cause stomach ulcers with prolonged frequent use.  Meanwhile just 2 days ago that same drug company just concluded a 5 year FDA trial and received FDA approval for a similar drug but the new one is less likely to cause stomach ulcers.  Is the drug company expected to recall all existing stock of ibuprofen and destroy it just because it has produced on innovation that is slightly safer?  I'm not so sure it has this obligation.  

     If we consider these imperfect analogies we can see how it would be difficult for the court to rule in favour of the plaintiff and the difficulties that would arise out of setting such a legal precedent.  The bottom line however is that all this legal stuff is secondary to the science.  The science does not support any causal link between the DTP vaccine and many of the claimed side effects. (Again, I will discuss the science in part 2 which I hope to write over the weekend)

     Anyway, hopefully this fosters some perspicuity on how the ruling came about and why the supreme court ruled the way it did.  One final note.  At this point any careful reader should notice what seems to be a logical inconsistency in my position.  On the one hand I am implying that vaccines are safe but on the other I am saying that there is the NCVI which provides compensation for those experiencing side effects.  If vaccines are so safe why should there be a body which decides on compensation for side effects?  Ah! ha! good question.  I will elaborate on this when I discuss the science of vaccines.

Why Protect Vaccination Producers?

     Although the issues surrounding this particular case are interesting, the more important issue is why the US enacted the NCVI law in 1986 in the first place.  Why should government (once again) protect big bad pharma?  Before I continue I'd like to clarify that I do not think that pharmaceutical companies are particularly ethical actors.  In fact, there are many instances where they have proven to be quite the opposite.  Despite this there are important reasons for which the NCVI law was enacted.

A little background which I have stolen from this article 

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=11127#more-11127

I'll summarize for those of you who are already bored with the topic and don't wish to do any further reading:
In 1982 NBC produced an "expose" of alleged DTP vaccine related injuries.  This began the first major anti-vaccination movement and proliferation of misinformation.  
While in 1979 there was only 1 DTP-related lawsuit, by 1986 there were 255, with a total of over $3 billion sought by claimants. This clearly was not sustainable for the vaccine industry, and in fact manufacturers went out of business. In 1967 there were 26 US manufacturers of vaccines. By 1980 this number had dropped to 15, and by 1986 there were only 3 companies still making vaccines in this country. Vaccine prices skyrocketed, and manufacturers found it difficult to obtain liability insurance.


Basically, the sheer legal costs of defending claims made doing business prohibitive. The alternative was for pharmaceutical companies to stop producing vaccines. I know if I were selling vaccines in that environment I'd close my doors too and stick to selling aspirin.  What rational business person wouldn't?  So, it seems that the CDC and related government agencies were faced with a decision:  offer some protection to vaccine producers, or eliminate the vaccine program all together.  

     Now I know what your thinking.  They should have eliminated the vaccine program.  If people would just think more positive thoughts they wouldn't get sick.  All sickness comes from either negative (quantum?) energy, stress, and poor access to triple rainbows.  I know! But you're preaching to the choir.  All this crap about genetic predispositions, viruses, bacterial infection, different diseases having different aetiologies and pathologies... can all be avoided by simply tapping into the universe's positive energy.  And if you should accidentally unplug yourself from the positive waves of quantum energy, easy solutions are just around the corner.  Got mumps?  Laugh away those bumps....homeopathy will fix it!  Got polio? Just look at my portfolio...super doses of vitamins will have you healthy in no time!  Problem with your spleen?  Easiest thing I've ever seen...Reflexology will do the trick, just massage your foot where it's thick!  I've got hundreds of these folks, but I'll spare you--you get my point.

      I know it sucks to give legal protection to big corporations (and I'm actually being serious here) but I think in this particular instance it is warranted.  

OK folks, what was supposed to be a quick overview of the vaccine issues sprinkled with witty remarks has turned into a full-blown research project.  I have to work over the next few days but over the weekend I'll try to produce a part 2 focusing on the research/science.  Please post your comments and hate mail!

  

Health and Nutrition Part 3: Sleep

Health and Nutrition Part 3: Sleep (Hopefully last one--then I can get back to more interesting material)

Ok, first I'd like to express gratitude to my brother and sister for not only reading but commenting. Now that I've thanked you I'd like to discuss some of your comments because they raise some interesting issues.

Ez, in part one you brought up your experience that when you exercise you find yourself eating healthy foods. Although we are only 2 little points on a graph and our evidence is anecdotal I have to concur that there seems to be a positive feedback loop with exercise and healthy eating. I also think the opposite is true--poor exercise regime leads to poor eating habits. I would like to offer a crackpot theory on why this is true.

When you work out your body will need better nutrition to recover. Healthier foods generally offer better nutrition, so your body craved these healthier foods. There's probably a psychological reason too. After a good workout nobody wants to "waste" all that hard work by eating junk food. I think the psychological reason could apply to the negative feedback loop too. If you're sitting at home eating donuts and ice cream watching the tube after a certain point you think "ah, what's the point".

Of course you could argue that in some cases exercising can lead to eating unhealthy foods. For instance, after a long run you come home and you've been craving cheese cake. After your meal you eat it because you justify to yourself that you've "earned" it or can afford it calorically. It's your reward. I'd counter this argument with another argument! ah! ha! I acknowledge that this type of behaviour does actually happen (guilty!) but tends to represent episodic, not habitual behaviour.

Now, Ez, while I do agree with your/our positive feedback hypothesis, I respectfully disagree with some of your other comments. Regarding my rant that if you're not sweating you're not working out you dared to challenge me and advanced the idea that walking was the best exercise to build upper body strength. You might of accuse me of misrepresenting your argument but for those readers who didn't read the comments, you look like a fool.

Back to reality, you tendered the idea that sweating might not be the best indicator of good exercise. Let me clarify. When I say that, if you ain't got no sweat comin' outta youz, then you ain't axercising, what I'm really referring to is exercise intensity. Sweat output is a good measure of this but, I concede, is inaccurate because it does not take into account environmental temperature and individual propensity to sweat. So, I will grant you this.

The best measure of exercise intensity is heart rate. I do not believe in these BS low intensity "fat burn zone" exercise program. Show me one person that does low intensity exercise that is slim. Show me just one and I'll believe the hype.

I believe these programs are designed by the fitness industry to take over our minds and make us kill the Malaysian prime minister....oops, I mean get people of below average fitness levels to buy gym memberships. People are such babies that they'll cry and go home if you make them work too hard. They'll never come back when they wake up with, horror of horrors, every muscle sore the next day. Guess what crybaby nation? (My pro-wrestler alter ego is coming out!) That's what happens if you sit on your ass for 10 years or more, eating donuts and then finally get up to do something beyond walking to your car. The gyms know this. They know people are soft but they want as many people as possible to buy memberships, use personal trainers, and do the classes. So they design a program that's so easy and painless (and useless) that you will keep paying for more....and KILL THE MALAYSIAN PRIME MINISTER! That said, I will agree that some exercise is better than none at all, but people should seek to maximize their efficiency in the gym. This means higher intensity. If you're going to go for an hour get as much out of that hour as possible.

I have one more bone to pick with you Ez: You suggested that swimming was a strenuous activity in which one doesn't sweat. Actually you do sweat, ya just don't notice cuz you're already in the water. What's next? I don't breath when I'm in air!? Booya!

To address your question about how long to exercise, there is a short and long answer. The short answer is 45 min of med-high intensity not including warm up and cool down. The long answer is that it depends on your fitness goals. For the average Joe shmo 3x a week of 45min is fine. But if you want above average fitness you need to put in above average work. I find that if you want to take it to the HNL (hole nuva lev'l) you should work out 4x a week 45-60min a session. When you approach the 60min mark the law of decreasing marginal returns starts kicking in (unless you are an endurance athlete--I'm just talking about general health, fitness and "wellness"). But in truth, if you are working out with sufficient intensity, eating healthful foods (notice I didn't say "healthy". Bet ya didn't know that "healthful" is the correct adjective!) , and are mindful of your caloric intake, 3 days a week is fine.

Coonie, I offer my sincerest apologies for the mistakes with my possessives. I usually write at about 2am and finish at 3am. By then my proof reading skills aren't anything to write home about. Nevertheless, I will be more vigilant.

SLEEP

Done with the comments from the peanut gallery...last item to discuss in the triad of health: Sleep. I know! It sounds so simple! But as someone who suffered from insomnia for 5 years, I can tell you it isn't always. (I overcame my insomnia 2 years ago). Allz I'm gonna say is that if you aren't getting enough sleep regularly, the other 2 elements of health (exercise and nutrition) don't mean poop. In fact, without sleep, exercise can harm your health.

He's a couple of quick notes on sleep (mostly directed at those who have some degree of sleep disorder): 1) Try to keep a regular wake up schedule. 2) Only use sleeping pills for 1 or 2 nights in a row to get back on schedule, never use them regularly (you build tolerance--at one point I would take 4 and still be wide awake) 3) Be outside as much as you can to get direct sunlight--at least 30 min a day. 4) Invest in blackout curtains. 5) Avoid any stimulants (caffein, cocain) after noon. It takes at least 8 hours for caffein to completely leave your body. 6) Read academic books before bed (anecdotal...worked ok for me). Reading books that don't require much brain power and are plot driven won't tire you and will end up drawing you in making you stay up even later. 7) Find time for yourself during your day for your mind to unwind (no TV or internet!). Rushing around from the time you get up until the time you go to bed leaves your mind no time to reflect on your day and this need is what might be keeping you up.

Anywho, those are some things that worked for me. I hope that in writing this somebody can learn from my mistakes and hard earned knowledge. Most of my life I've made a living off my body, whether it be manual labour, sports, dancing, or prancing. To maintain my livelyhood I've done plenty of tinkering with different approaches to exercise, nutrition, and sleep. Through trial and error and research I've learned a lot and I've also been very fortunate to have met many people along the way that were willing to share their hard earned knowledge with me. Shout out to: Coach Buono, James Wilcox, Carlos, Shaun Thomas, my seester (coondawg), my ma, my pa, Anne, Auntie Katinka, Tiki, Clay Cannon, Lind Walter, Yohan, Chris Connel, quackcast.com (Mark Crislip), Skeptics Guide to the Universe, and many more I can't remember at this moment.

By the by here are some AP approved websites for health info:

quackwatch.org

saveyourself.ca (canadian website...woohoo!)

skepticblog.org

pubmed.gov (for research--u can access all published medical studies here, unfiltered by the "evil" media)