Jack Norris, RD, has been around a long time providing top quality vegan nutritional information to the vegan community.
Jack Norris, RD, has been around a long time providing top quality vegan nutritional information to the vegan community.
Animals as Persons - the Personhood of Animals
Recognizing nonhuman persons AS persons
Very lovely article
http://foodyogi.org/chapter-summaries/ Referencing the latest developments in Quantum Physics, Priya Vrata demmonstrates how demmonstrates how yoga blurs boundaries of matter and energy and shows how to work dynamically with a wholistic nondualistic outlook. Other forms of energy include food, and thoughts and emotions, which realization of multidimensionality helps us live better, as other species do - and from whom we can learn such lessons.
Did you miss an interview you want to hear?
Get VIP access to digitally remastered interviews, unaired bonus interviews, plus 10 free bonus gifts with the Veganpalooza Inspiration Program, available for only $97
Connect and Share
Engage on Twitter using #veganpalooza. And, connect with us on and share your thoughts on Facebook at facebook.com/veganpalooza
Summit Links and Calendar
The Veganpalooza: 2012 Vegetarian World Summit schedule provides dates and times for each interview. Click on a speakers' name to learn more about them and how to listen to their interview.
Veganpalooza Summit Schedule
Click on an interviewee's name for the link -- then click on "Listen in" in the upper left of the page for listening instructions. This page will be updated today, so be sure to bookmark.
You will return to this page every day of the conference.
PDT Time Reference
Tuesday, July 10 窶"Preview Call
Wednesday, July 11 窶" Nutrition & Wellness
Thursday, July 12 窶" Social Justice
Friday, July 13 窶" Thriving as Vegans
Saturday, July 14 窶" Living & Sharing the Vegan Life
Sunday, July 15 窶" Spirituality & Health
Instant access to these bonus gifts is available to VIP members only.
ﾂｩ 2012 Raw Edge Productions
Institute of Medicine Report's Conclusions on Smoking Ban Effects are Defied By Its Own Assertions; Study Conclusions, Press Release Severely Biased
A new report from the Institute of Medicine's Committee on Secondhand Smoke Exposure and Acute Coronary Events, entitled "Secondhand Smoke and Cardiovascular Effects: Making Sense of the Evidence," concludes that smoking bans result in a nearly immediate and significant decrease in heart attacks, not only among smokers but among nonsmokers as well. The committee also concluded that brief exposure to secondhand smoke causes heart attacks and refused to qualify its conclusion by noting that such an effect is substantial only in those with severe existing heart disease.
According to the press release: "Smoking bans are effective at reducing the risk of heart attacks and heart disease associated with exposure to secondhand smoke, says a new report from the Institute of Medicine. ... 'It's clear that smoking bans work,' said Lynn Goldman, professor of environmental health sciences, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, and chair of the committee of experts that wrote the report. 'Bans reduce the risks of heart attack in nonsmokers as well as smokers.'"
The Rest of the Story
Unfortunately, this report might just as well have been called: "Secondhand Smoke and Cardiovascular Effects: Making Nonsense of the Evidence."
The reason for this assertion is two-fold:
First, the conclusions of the report are completely defied by the committee's own assertions that are presented in the actual report.
Second, the report draws conclusions that are essentially meaningless from an epidemiologic and clinical perspective. What the report does is take important questions and distort them so much that the answers no longer have any meaning.
Let me address each of these problems in turn.
To see what I mean about the conclusions of the report not being consistent with the report itself, consider first what the report concludes about the ability, based on the existing evidence, to estimate the magnitude of the effect of smoking bans on heart attack rates.
The report asserts as follows: "The committee was unable to determine the magnitude of effect on the basis of the 11 studies, because of variability among and uncertainties within them. Characteristics of smoking bans vary greatly among the locations studied and must be taken into account in reviewing results of epidemiologic studies. Those characteristics include the venues covered by the bans (such as offices, other workplaces, restaurants, and bars) and compliance with and enforcement of the bans. Other differences or potential differences among the studies include the length of followup after implementation, population characteristics (such as underlying rates of acute coronary events and prevalence of other risk factors for acute coronary events, including diabetes and obesity) and size, secondhand-smoke exposure levels before and after implementation, preexisting smoking bans or restrictions, smoking rates, and method of statistical analysis. The time between implementation of a ban and decreases in secondhand smoke and acute cardiovascular events cannot be determined from the studies, because of the variability among the studies and indeed the difficulty of determining the precise time of onset of a ban."
The report also asserts: "However, because of the weaknesses discussed above and the variability among the studies, the committee has little confidence in the magnitude of the effects and, therefore, thought it inappropriate to attempt to estimate an effect size from such disparate designs and measures."
In other words, what the committee is saying is they have no confidence in making any estimate of the size of an effect of smoking bans on heart attack rates. Another way to say that is this: the committee has no idea of what the effect of smoking bans on heart attacks is.
If you can't even estimate the magnitude of an effect - if you have no confidence in even providing an estimate - then you are hardly in a position to conclude that there is a significant effect of smoking bans on heart attacks, an effect which exceeds random variation combined with the known secular decline in heart attack rates.
Think about this: we know for a fact that heart attack rates are declining substantially, even in the absence of smoking bans. These declines are in part attributable to improvements in the treatment of coronary disease and also to improved medications, such as the statin drugs which are effective in controlling cholesterol levels. When we see a decline in heart attacks after a smoking ban, we need to determine whether the magnitude of that decline is greater than one would expect in the absence of the smoking ban. In other words, does the observed decline exceed the rate of decline one would expect from the secular changes alone?
In order to make such a determination, one needs to quantify the magnitude of the decline in heart attacks. If we can't even estimate, with any confidence, what the magnitude of the decline in heart attacks is, then we are in no position to conclude that we know that the decline is greater than what would have been observed in the absence of the smoking ban. We can't conclude that the observed decline in heart attacks associated with smoking bans has been due to the smoking ban, rather than to the rather drastic declines in heart attacks that have been occurring anyway due to improvements in medical treatment.
Epidemiology is all about estimating the magnitude of effects. Simply judging whether an association works in one direction or the other is not particularly meaningful, especially in this situation where we know a priori that smoking bans do not increase heart attacks.
Now this is where my 2nd observation comes in. By answering the question: do smoking bans reduce or increase heart attacks, the report is actually making nonsense out of the evidence. Of course smoking bans don't increase heart attacks. The question is: what is the magnitude of the effect.
The committee recognizes that the existing studies are so seriously flawed that one has no confidence in being able to judge the effect size. But instead of concluding that the evidence is insufficient, they go ahead and conclude that smoking bans significantly reduce heart attacks anyway.
A second example is the press release's conclusion about whether the observed reductions in heart attacks occur in smokers or nonsmokers. The report asserts: "Only two of the studies distinguished between reductions in heart attacks suffered by smokers versus nonsmokers." Later, it emphasizes this point: "In most of the studies, the portion of the effect attributable to decreased smoking by smokers as opposed to decreased exposure of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke cannot be determined."
Clearly, this is not sufficient evidence to draw a conclusion about whether the observed reductions in heart attacks are due to reduced active smoking or reduced tobacco smoke exposure among nonsmokers.
Nevertheless, the press release states: "Bans reduce the risks of heart attack in nonsmokers as well as smokers."
So much for requiring evidence before drawing a conclusion.
Perhaps the problems I am discussing are most evident in the report's conclusion regarding the effects of brief secondhand smoke exposure on heart attack risk. Based on the evidence, no one would deny that a brief exposure might trigger a heart attack in a person with severe existing coronary artery disease.
But the report goes beyond that in its conclusion. It states that brief secondhand smoke exposure may trigger heart attacks, but without qualifying that statement to make it clear that it refers specifically to people who have coronary disease. Instead, it makes it sound like a healthy person could walk into a smoky bar, sit down for 20 minutes, and keel over from a heart attack.
Why is this qualification not added to the study conclusion?
I believe it's because the report aims to be more sensationalistic and scare people into thinking that they could drop dead from a heart attack from a brief tobacco smoke exposure, even if they are healthy.
But failing to qualify the statement turns the conclusion from being accurate to being inaccurate, from being truthful to being misleading.
What it really means is that a political goal, not a purely scientific one, is driving the report's conclusion regarding the acute cardiovascular effects of tobacco smoke exposure. I find this unfortunate because it really taints the scientific integrity of the tobacco control movement.
I should probably add that if you read the report carefully, it actually makes the assertion that brief secondhand smoke exposure can appreciably increase the risk of heart attack among healthy people. The report states: "The data provide evidence that it is biologically plausible for secondhand smoke to be a potential causative trigger of acute coronary events. The risk of acute coronary events is likely to be increased if a person has preexisting heart disease."
I read this as asserting that brief secondhand smoke exposure triggers heart attacks among people with and without existing heart disease, but that the risk is higher for those with existing heart disease. I do not believe there is any evidence to suggest that such an assertion is true. The report provided no evidence that a healthy person may suffer a heart attack from a mere 20 to 30 minutes of secondhand smoke exposure.
There is one other major problem with the report that deserves mention, especially since I think it indicates a bias of the report.
The report claims to have reviewed unpublished data and to have attempted to identify unpublished studies that might have found no effect of smoking bans on heart attacks. The report states that "no such studies were identified." I find this difficult to believe, especially since I was a reviewer of the report and I made the committee aware of several unpublished analyses which documented no significant effect of smoking bans on heart attacks. Such studies were conducted in England, Scotland, and Wales. Furthermore, a large but unpublished study of all communities in the United States reported no effect of smoking bans on heart attacks, but this study was ignored by the report.
Note that the latter study, the largest of its kind, concluded that: "In contrast with smaller regional studies, we find that workplace bans are not associated with statistically significant short-term declines in mortality or hospital admissions for myocardial infarction or other diseases."
It is unfortunate that this study was ignored. I don't see how the review can be considered to be comprehensive if it threw out or ignored all the studies that failed to find an effect, but included, without question, all studies that found an effect, even if these studies failed to include a comparison group which is crucial to being able to infer whether the observed decline in heart attacks was attributable to the smoking ban.
Finally, I want to make it very clear that I am not impugning the integrity of the committee or any of its members. I don't think they've done anything wrong. I just think that the report is biased and that subconsciously, there was some sort of pressure operating which led to the report drawing conclusions that were not appropriate given the report's own assertions and review of the evidence. I also think this bias led to the report distorting the questions which it asked and failing to directly answer the questions (rather than distorting them so that the "answer" came out more "favorably").
The Benedictine Women of Madison, Wisconsin, know a thing or two about green living. The ecumenical order's new Holy Wisdom Monastery is being called the greenest building in America after receiving the U.S. Green Building Council's highest-ever rating for sustainable construction.
Pardon me, sisters, but there's a way for you to go even greener. PETA is asking the Benedictine sisters to adopt a vegan diet and serve only vegan meals at the monastery. As most of us know by now, eating meat is mean, not green.
We also point out that Pope Benedict XVI (then Cardinal Ratzinger) has in the past spoken movingly about the plight of farmed animals. During a 2002 interview, he said that the "degrading of living creatures to a commodity seems to me in fact to contradict the relationship of mutuality that comes across in the Bible."
So what say you, sisters? Will you make the switch?
Written by Paula Moore
Brain scans show why some can’t resist temptation
Jill, Ann, and Kimberly go off to college with warnings from their parents about sex and the “Freshman 15” ringing in their ears. Months later, Jill has gained 15 pounds and Ann has become a sexual adventurer.
Born John Chapman, Johnny Appleseed was an American pioneer nurseryman who introduced apples to Ohio, Indiana and Illinois. He became an American legend during his life due to his kindness, generousity and leadership in conservation.
Continue reading on Examiner.com Johnny Appleseed Day - New York vegan | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/article/johnny-appleseed-day#ixzz1sgut65DN
Every year, September 26 is Johnny Appleseed Day
News at HSPH
Enhanced Water "Unequivocally Harmful to Health," Says HSPH Nutrition Expert
Bottled water enhanced with vitamins—and loaded with sugar—gets low marks from Walter Willett, chair of the Department of Nutrition at Harvard School of Public Health. They are “unequivocally harmful to health,” he told the Washington Post in a February 28, 2012, article on so-called healthy foods that people should avoid.
“Whether vitamins dissolved in water have any benefit will depend on who you are and whether you are already getting enough,” he said. “Some people may be getting too much of some vitamins and minerals if they add vitamin water on top of fortified foods and other supplements.”
The article also referenced a 2011 study by HSPH researchers on how small changes in diet can affect long-term weight gain.
Read Washington Post article
Harvard Researchers Launch Healthy Eating Plate (HSPH release)
Sodas and Other Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Linked to Increased Risk of Type 2 Diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome (HSPH release)
There are many reasons to object to HOW the Susan G Komen foundation conducts its business, but a recent decision raised hackles in the public, so it reversed that decision. But other critics are now becoming vocal, including PETA. However, the other criticisms include its endorsement of gun violence and even worse...
Dexter King became a vegan and advocated for animals; Coretta Scott King became a vegetarian, too; but why didn't MLK realize that vision during his own time?
"Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice."
Ah, yes! They FINALLY FOUND EACH OTHER!
The supporting cast deserve much credit for carrying this off.
Let's face it: "You can always have water ice [or sorbet]" is the cool-treat equivalent of "you can always have a salad." Nothing against salad or water ice, but we sometimes want that singular richness and flavor associated with ice cream. And finally, we're getting it.
Soy-based Tofutti premium was first on the scene in your grocer's freezer (if your grocer is Whole Foods or Shop Rite, an early mainstream adopter) soon joined by the likes of Soy Dream and Soy Delicious. The latter quietly dropped the "Y" from its name, and "So Delicious" has led the new breed of coconut-based ice creams.
Read more: http://www.philly.com/philly/food/health/vforveg/20110825_V_For_Veg_.html#ixzz1W0idqGzC
Watch sports videos you won't find anywhere else
Will the world see peace is WE (a small percentage) just refrain from doing violence in OUR share of the space-time continuum?
Some animals by virtue of THEIR intelligence make the atrocities perpetrated upon them EXTREMELY egregious, and all the great apes (humans ARE great apes in evolution) are in that category.
http://www.onpointradio.org/2011/01/vegans-america - Vegans Take America
Rod Preece, Canadian ethicist
Presentazione Master in Alimentazione e Dietetica Vegetariana