nullmouse

I agree, but evidence-based medicine is fantastic as it gives us the tools to evaluate if these treatments work, even if we don't understand the mechanism why.

Got homeopathy and chiropracty to get through first Ended up being busier than expected this weekend, only just finished the acupuncture chapter yesterday evening. Fascinating stuff, and there's a lot of contradictory evidence out there. For example, the World Health Organisation has twice stated that acupuncture works - but both times their methodology for concluding this was flawed: First time around the type of studies they gathered together were limited by not being randomized, controlled studies but instead just looked at two groups - Untreated or treated. Obviously, this type of design can't rule out the possibility of the placebo effect, but the results all looked in favour of acupuncture working. The development of randomized, controlled studies meant better, more reliable data could be generated but the second WHO report that looked at this data was compiled by an active practitioner of acupuncture and is likely to be heavily biased. Indeed, the second report included many studies that originated from China and may have been fabricated or selectively positive due to no-one wanting to publish their negative results. The book made some interesting points about the vested interest of the Chinese goverment (Mao himself promoted acupuncture as a way of getting the cheap healthcare for all he promised, but did not believe it was an effective treatment himself), and generally dismissed the WHOs findings on this and several other grounds. One of the major grounds the WHO reports were dismissed was due to the lack of proper weighting given to studies when bringing them all together to look at as a whole. The Cochrane Library (regarded as the definitive collaboration on these types of analysis, on any medical treatment or intervention) weights studies based on how well they were conducted, the numbers of patients used etc and gives them a score based on how reliable they are judged to be. Under this more definitive scrutinism, the majority of the claims about acupuncture were found to be unsupported. In two specific cases, where the evidence was too sparse to perform a full analysis on, the trend seemed to be towards an effect above a placebo effect. These cases were related to the relief of mild pain. Part of the problem in looking at acupuncture is how to authoritatively rule out the placebo effect: How can you fake sticking needles in people so that (a) they don't know it's a sham and (b) the person performing the needling doesn't know it's a sham. There are clever ways around point (a), such as trick needles that don't penetrate but do stick to the skin with just enough pressure to give the sensation of being pricked, but (b) is an ongoing issue: The conviction of the person giving the treatment is just as crucial as the belief of the person receiving. However, despite these problems, there seems to be no weight to the claims of acupuncture being any better than a placebo. That said, even the placebo treatments used often showed an improvement in the patient's condition. The ethical dilemma that ensues is interesting: Is it OK to promote a treatment that 'works' but not for the reasons stated? Open to discussion, but is a placebo treatment really a cure or is it just a mask that hides underlying conditions without resolving them?

This does sound rather lovely, I must say. Will swagger on down for this, like. Bit of Calexico in a few of his Myspace tracks too, to my ears at least.

Believing in nonsense or not may not impact the ability of these therapies to work, as the effectiveness of the placebo effect has been shown, in some cases, to not be affected by knowing you're taking a sugar pill: The fact that some intervention has taken place is often enough to cause relief of symptoms, especially when considering pain (a highly subjective measurement). Alternatively, your mum may have regressed to the mean. In other words, your mum was probably suffering at the height of her discomfort when she considered acupuncture. The tendency for most things is to return to some level of normality (in this case either through recovery or by your mum possibly becoming accustomed to the pain). The result of this would be that she feels better naturally, but associates recovery with the acupuncture instead. A third option, of course, is that the acupuncture did actually work. There are well designed and developed ways to test the effectiveness of medical treatments across a large number of patients, using controlled treatment groups, so this is something that can be scientifically tested to see if there really is something in acupuncture. I'm reading a book chapter about it at the moment, so will report back soon

I'm just reading Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst's "Trick or Treatment" and am about to start the chapter on acupuncture, so I'll try and remember to post a summary of their conclusions So far, it's an excellent book. Simon Singh is getting sued by the British Chiropractic Association for suggesting that some of their claims are 'bogus'. The BCA took offense, as the implication is that practitioners are knowingly misleading people. The trial, as it unfolds, is a great test of how libel laws can impact scientific discussion and how this could suppress anyone publically denouncing potentially harmful 'therapies' or 'treatments'. Unfortunately for Simon it must be an incredibly testing, trying and financially draining time. For those of you what would like to see the lengths that an alternative therapy lobby group will go to protect their livelihood against allegations of being 'bogus' rather than face scientific scrutiny to support their claims, Google Simon Singh and folllow the laughs.

This weekend, folks! Pick up your invites from Retro Rebels to avoid disappointment on the door

We do need cholesterol, it's essential for our bodies to function properly, and we synthesise it from our diet via saturated fats or by uptake from the diet. In either way, it's essential that we either obtain it or produce it. Cholesterol is carried around the blood by proteins that bind it, because cholesterol on it's own isn't a big fan of water. These proteins can be split between two classes, LDL and HDL, which stand for low-density or high-density lipoproteins. Saturated fats are linked with an increase in the synthesis of LDL, which results in a high circulating level of LDL in the blood. It's the LDL that's important and causes the health problems, the fact that it's bound to cholesterol is useful for diagnosis; LDL levels are not directly measured, but are indirectly assumed from measuring total cholesterol and HDL levels (HDL levels being the good kind of lipoproteins that helps transport cholesterol to where it's supposed to go). So cholesterol is "good", what it's bound to may not be - The fact that high blood cholesterol is associated with health problems is because it's symptomatic of LDL, which can be as a result of too much saturated fat.

Personally, I think it's a very misleading and scientifically vapid article so I have to express my concerns over it being a fair and valid summary. As for fat and cholesterol, aside from the fact that we *need* fat, the argument that an animal diet is saturated with fat and a vegan diet doesn't need to worry about them is rubbish. Trans-fats are the fats we should worry about, which are present at very low levels in meat and dairy, but are more commonly present in hydrogenated fat, like butter or margarine. Given hydrogenated fat can come from animal or vegetable sources it is a component of everyone's diet that we should all be concerned about, vegan or meat-eater alike. As for cholesterol, our body creates the majority of our cholesterol from saturated fats in the diet, which can be present again in an unhealthy meat or vegan diet due to the prevalance of saturated of fats in *all* oils: Coconut oil is 92% saturated fat whilst butter is66%! What's more, our body needs cholesterol - It's an essential component of our cell walls and is the building-block for hormones. What we don't need is too much cholesterol caused by too much saturated fats - Which is perfecetly possible to acheive on an unhealthy vegan or an unhealthy meat-eating diet. On the issue of fat, it makes no odds to me if you have a vegan or meat-eating diet - You can eat healthy on either, but it is not an argument for why we shouldn't eat meat or dairy any more than an argument for why we shouldn't eat coconuts. I may come back to omega-3...

I feel I should post something on the ethical discussion rather than taking my preferred option of disappearing down the scientific route I think I find the attributing of rights to animals to be a confusing issue, one of which that probably requires some clarification of some definitions or concepts before I feel I could really structure a reasoned reply. First, what are we defining as an animal? Sounds trivial, but if we're discussing if every animal should have rights, then I'd need to know if that includes, for example, insects. I assume that we'd be talking about invertebrates only? If so, why do we draw that distinction? Secondly, I'd need to know what rights we're giving to the animals. Are they exactly the same as the basic rights to which humans afford each other?

I actually find that to be an incredibly poorly written article, and there's some glaring factual inaccuracies (for example - that chicken has more calories and fat than a Big Mac {1}) alongside some weirdly confused arguments and misleading titles: The 'oily fish boosts brain power' makes a couple of valid points, then digresses on to heart disease and claims that omega-3 is well-known to be bad for people with heart disease before making some argument that you can get omega-3 from plants anyway: Surely you'd want to avoid it if there's no evidence it's any good and may possibly be harmful? In fairness, I did find one paper that suggests that people with angina may have an increased risk of sudden cardiac death - But it was a mild effect. The same meta-analysis also showed that omega-3 can decrease the risk of sudden cardiac death in patients with MI {2}, whilst multiple meta-analysis (summarised in {3}) have shown that omega-3 may improve arterial hypertension. Myth number 8 made me laugh the most, because I remember the furore over the original PETA campaign. The implication from this argument is that eating meat makes you impotent because meat contains fat, fat thickens arteries. Net result, Mr. Floppy. Aside from the fact that they're deliberately focussing on the most extreme ends of unhealthy diet (one of which you could acheive an equivalent of on a vegan diet by deep-frying everything in sunflower oil), the bit that really riles me is the suggestion that changing your diet is sufficient to prevent erectile dysfunction: Impotence is also caused by psychological factors, diabetes, Parkinson's disease, kidney disease, hormone and thyroid disorders - The number of cases of impotence caused by diet alone accounts for but a fraction of that 1 in 10 they talk of. As their argument relies on taking the extreme ends of a meat-eaters diet, I'd counter that veganism can lead to erectile dysfunction. The authors of the link admit that B12 deficiency is a problem in the vegan diet, which is why supplementation is used. As they don't afford meat-eaters the grace of basing their assertion that meat causes erectile dysfunction on a healthy omnivore diet, I'm going to assume they won't mind me doing the same for the vegan contingent: Deficiency of vitamin B12 causes a condition called hyperhomocysteinemia, which is when homocysteine accumulates within the body and causes a heap of health problems. One of these health problems is a reduced production of nitric oxide, a soluble gas used in cell signaling and an important messenger in getting wood {4,5}. Ergo, vitamin B12 deficiency may cause erectile dysfunction and eating a source of vitamin B12 (e.g. meat) would decrease this risk. In short, that article doesn't really convince me that it's an unbiased appraisal of the evidence and I find it's a little all-over-the-place. I've been doing some reading on calcium and vitamin B12 in more detail, so I'll probably post again on those soon {1} A Big Mac contains 229 calories and 10.7g of fat per 100g. Skinless breast fillets contain 116 calories and 3.2g of fat per 100g, or a roast breast with skin contains 171 calories and 6.5g of fat per 100g. Even this is a poor comparison - A Big Mac contains bread and salad that contributes to that weight, whereas the data for the chicken is just the meat alone. Source: Weight Loss Resources {2} Zhao et al, Ann Med. 2009;41(4):301-10. {3} Cicero et al, Curr Vasc Pharmacol. 2009 Jul;7(3):330-7. {4} Demir et al, Metabolism. 2006 Dec;55(12):1564-8. {5} Lombardo et al, J Endocrinol Invest. 2004 Oct;27(9):883-5.

Vitamin B12 is an essential vitamin, and I can't find any evidence to suggest normal meat eaters are suffering from this deficiency - I'd welcome references, though. I am aware that I raise very practical issues, but the decisions we make are seldom every done so on the basis of morals alone: There's a fertile milieu of pressures that add to our ultimate decisions, so I think it's only fair to acknowledge them. First of all, I will admit that current farming methods create an ecological problem - Again, the pressures for this are wide and often economic - But we would still be reliant on animals for growing vegetables in sufficient quantities to feed everyone sufficiently. Livestock, according to the UN, are used to cultivate at least 320 million hectares of land. In addition, livestock provide the nutrition for large areas of cropland through their magnificant ability to crap. Farming is intrinsically linked to animal use, but is that not an exploitation of their rights under your logic? Surely that would be akin to slavery if I follow your reasoning? You're quite right, but I'm not really attempting to argue against rights at present. What I am trying to do is point out that whether humans (as a whole) eat meat or dairy isn't based on morality alone. For an individual, it can be, because we're all blessed with ability to make up our own minds on such matters (and be judged for them too - The wonders of autonomy). Please forgive me, for I am about to do a sinful thing: I'm going to reference Wikipedia. But please, bear with me - I do this merely to illustrate that there are criticisms that have been raised to animal rights: Animal rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Ethics of eating meat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Yup, I'm taking a lazy way out for now because that's my lunch-break over!

Actually, having slept on it and had an epiphany last night, it's clear that it's animal welfare I agree with and not animal rights.

ELIZIUM's officially reached its teenage years, celebrating its 13th year in existence! What's more, our best chums RETRO REBELS are also 13 this year too! Join us as we spend a night giggling like Beavis and Butthead whilst comparing notes on acne treatments. Yup, we're having a FREE party for all you wonderful folk who have supported both us and Retro Rebels over the last baker's dozen years. Helping us party like it's 1996 will be some old friends and new faces, including a duo of live bands: The DIRTY PICKUPS - Female led punk'n'roll from Edinburgh and FANGS - Glaswegian S.I.C.K.O.s as seen on C4's Unsigned Plus a trio of fantastic burlesque performers: Voodoo doll and local favourite, CREME DE LA CREMATION Star of the fantastic Mis en Abyme shows, MALADY DE WINTER and, all the way from London, Kreepseville666 deadgirl model extraordinaire, MISS ZARA ANN. If that wasn't enough, there'll be RECK'N'ROLL and ELIZIUM DJs kicking out tunes all night long! The TUNNELS Room 2 Saturday the 19th of September 8pm - 3am Invites available from Retro Rebels on George Street.

I think any variation of the disabled, child or elderly argument doesn't hold much water, for the reasons I put forward a few pages ago: Disabled, child or elderly we're all human and members of the same species, whereas the animals we chose to eat are not. I feel like I'm treading water pressing back to this point, and I'm sure I was much more eloquent a few pages ago ;D Also, my off-the-cuff remark about Alive was exactly because I was thinking about circumstances when we would accept eating another human was morally acceptable. Maybe a discussion tangent too far? This simplifies the 'natural' argument too far. We have canines, for a start, and there's no dispute that we (as a species) naturally evolved to be effective hunter-gatherers. Physiologically, we're adapted to catch other animals and cope with eating them much as we're also adapted to grow and eat vegetables: It's natural, but I think we're maybe confusing our definitions of "natural"? Of course, whether or not it is "natural" we do have access to alternatives, which might not be applicable to the entire world but are to us in Affluent Aberdeen. I would agree that we have developed as a society since the days of hitting things with rocks for fun, but in order to maintain a healthy vegan diet there is a reliance upon supplementation and fortification: That's not 'natural' either, and if you want to, for example, live without Big Brother-esque interference with your diet via fortification or, like me, believe that the supplementation empire is as big-buck a business as pharmaceutical companies, then you'd have a hard time doing so without including meat and dairy. I disagree, for reasons relating to our own selfish (and natural) desire to protect our own species: An orphaned, unattached mentally disabled person does not suddenly become a pig. How about not even outside out own nation? What about people living below the poverty line in our very own city. Are they morally deficiant because a cheap source of protein for their family is a six-pack of eggs for substantially cheaper than a pack of tofu? I have no problem with an individual's decision to not eat meat because they think it's cruel, but the expectation that I should follow suggests my morals are under scrutiny. We keep slipping between big swipes at morality by suggesting eating meat is as bad as eating a disabled person to patronising those that can't afford or don't have that luxury to choose. Or maybe I am missing the point: Do you not have an objection to all meat-eating and dairy? Do you think all animals are equal? Or, for that matter, that all living things are equal? (Must also resist a side-thread about the selfish gene - Perhaps we can start a book-club!) I think it's probably worth stressing that I don't beat dogs with sticks for fun, just in case it comes across that I have no concept of affording rights to animals. However, I believe we all metaphorically beat ever other species on the head with a massive wooden club every day - Eating some that we have selectively bred to our advantage and can replenish seems to me a little drop in the proverbial ocean.

I've taken these two comments together just to put forward that I, personally, find that practicality often does weigh highly in my understanding of how decisions based on moral issues or philosophical arguments are resolved. I find nothing wrong with acting pragmatically, and imagine that many of us do so on a daily basis about many issues a lot of people would be up in arms about - I hopee my contribution over the last few pages of this thread have touched upon some of the moral and philosophical points too

I think it's clear from this thread that your decision to eat meat comes down to whether you think there is any unnecessary suffering, not whether or not you'd eat a disabled person. It is about us exploiting (rightly or wrongly) another species for our benefit. The negative sides of eating meat and diary are overplayed, much as the negative effects of eating a vegan diet are overplayed, and we get the benefit of being morally superior to the majority of the world by having the affluence and availability to the products required to eat a healthy diet with meat and dairy included or not. If it helps, I eat meat because I am satisfied (and I know people will disagree with this, but my experience and opinions are allowed to differ) that welfare of the animals is taken in to consideration. I am happy that I can get the nutrients, minerals and protein I require by eating a balanced diet containing fruit, veg, meat and diary with the minimal of suffering. I also think that, as a society, eating animals that we have domesticated and cultured for millenia has become an intrinsic part of our economy and welfare of many that it is more than just an issue of animal suffering. I understand that many of the pro-vegan arguments come hand-in-hand with very strong political opinions, and that this is probably not a very popular view as a result - But where one person may see a poltical or societal ideal, I see the abolition of multiple species intrinsically linked to the livelihood of billions across the world. And, to recap something I said a few pages ago, I see a lack of applicability to the moral stance that no-one needs to eat meat or dairy: Billions do, across the world, because of the availability of foodstuffs limited by the lack of Tescos and Holland And Barretts. For me, I could not look down upon another human being's need to survive and criticise their choice of diet for doing so just because my affluent region affords me the luxury of choice. Our affluence comes at a cost of exploitation that encompasses more than just the welfare of cows. As a result, that question of 'unneccessary suffering' diminishes enough that I feel consciously happy to eat meat. And why do I now really, really want to watch Alive?

I actually think you're mostly repeating arguments that have been discussed in some detail already and, whilst I appreciate the thread has been very long, the whole speciesism thing (of which the eating disabled people played a larger part) was teased apart in some detail.

Actually, I should have put on another couple of points: Conflict of interests - Is it funded by the Militant Vegan Society or the Die-Hard Meat Consortium? Where's it published - I mentioned peer-review journals, but is it a journal of repute? Science and Nature are the top dawgs, but dietary research may be in specialised research journals such as the American Journal of Nutrition. Be wary of something published in The Journal of Improbable Science.

Yup, it's a complete headache trying to make sense of all the studies out there and what, overall, they mean. Usually some helpful person does what's called a meta-analysis, where they raid the published scientific literature using well-defined inclusion criteria and then combine multiple studies together, adjust as best they can for confounding factors and then see what overall the evidence suggests. To do this requires a knowledge of statistics that I'm not terribly au fait with, but these meta-analysis are usually the most conclusive because individual studies in isolation rarely give ubiquitously conclusive evidence. It's the type of study organisations like the WHO rely on to form their opinions and recommendations. Obviously, some individual studies are better than others, and when it comes to population-based studies there are a few questions I always ask when reading about them in newspapers or journals. I can't claim this is comprehensive, so I'm sure others can suggest things worth considering. The best design of study is a randomised double-blind study, which means patients are divided amongst groups randomly (although distribution of age and sex should be equal) and the patients and scientists are unaware if they are getting given a placebo treatment or real treatment. With dietary studies this is quite hard, so they are often done by tracking highly selected groups of people with food diaries, retrospectively relying on recall or (in the case of the China study), by assuming dietary conditions based on geographical variation. So, with studies published in journals I'd look at: (a) What's the study design - Is it controlled and blinded, or open to a selection bias? (b) Is the control group suitable - Do they vary considerably in age, sex, location or some other factor that could skew the results? Have they selected a 'normal' control population or compared extremes? © How is the data is collected - Does it rely on recall or self-reporting? (d) Is the sample size appropriate - Are they claiming significant results applicable to the entire world based on just a dozen people? (e) Are the authors open about confounding factors - Do they recognise the limitations (that every study has) themselves? (f) Are the results actually statistically significant - Is wooly language used to suggest that their results are significant when they may not be? (g) How large is the effect they're actually reporting - A 100% percent increase in risk of disease [x] may not mean a great deal if your risk of disease [x] was only 1 in 1,000,000 to start with. Do they use natural numbers (e.g. increased risk from 1 in 100 to 2 in 100) or rely on obfuscation with percentages? With anything that's reported in the media, you're often a few steps away from seeing the original research - A good bit of science reporting should include enough information to cover most of the points above, but I'd add one or two extra points on to science reported in the media: (h) Is the data actually published in a peer-reviewed journal - Or is it fed directly to the media? (i) Has the work actually been done - Or is a press-release announcing a study which hasn't even started yet? (Some 'studies' have their results announced before they even commence - see the school fish oil debarkle for an example of this). I can't recommend Bad Science, Ben Goldacre's web-blog, enough for some great discussion on the representation of science by the media. His latest entry is diet related, so people may get a kick out of reading it: Health Warning: Exercise Makes You Fat Bad Science

Certainly for osteoporosis, the WHO seem to still recommend dairy products as a source of calcium and vitamin D (WHO | 5. Population nutrient intake goals for preventing diet-related chronic diseases). Given most soy milk is supplemented with calcium and/or vitamin D I don't think that there's much to seperate the benefit of drinking either (One of those reviews I mentioned previously suggests that they are like-for-like). Again, it's back to the issue of supplementation and how natural that is as a diet, but that's veering off in another tangent again. I'm not too clear on what's meant by the calcium paradox myself, so I'll have a little look and see what I can find out about it later today. It's probably evident that I like science, but I also like to think that it's easier than most think to critically appraise what it can or can't tell us - I dislike science feeling aloof, elitist or to be relied on as a decisive argument from authority.

I was messing around on PubMed during my lunch break and found a couple of opinion/review articles published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition discussing the pros/cons of including dairy products in a vegetarian diet. Both, I think, make some good points, but they overlap awkwardly on several issues. For example, the pro-milk paper pulls up evidence for milk being beneficial for bone health, the anti-milk paper pulls up evidence against. Obviously, both papers are cherry-picking the evidence that best suits their cause, but it does leave me wondering who is right? Both authors couldn't be described as impartial - One receives funding from the National Dairy Council, the other an invited speaker by The International Congress of Vegetarian Nutrition, so it's pretty clear from their allegiances which way they fall. (If anyone's interested: Am J Clin Nutr 2009;89(suppl):1634S7S and Am J Clin Nutr 2009;89(suppl):1638S42S.) I thought I'd mention this as we veer back towards talking about the relevant health pros and cons of dietray choices - We have to be careful what data we pick to make our points and be aware that it's very easy for cherry-picking to affect both sides of the argument. A study in isolation rarely gives the definitive answer, so we need to look at the accumulated evidence in context. As the two papers above go some way to showing, it's easier said than done!

In a roundabout way me and you are agreeing - Neither of us would be sexist or racist or agree with those being used *in any capacity*, yet we're both showing that speceisism is flexible and does show obvious bias from a human angle. My issue was that people were saying being speciesist is as bad as sexism or racism, which it clearly isn't. That guilt-by-association argument irritates me, you see. I would take issue with the assertion that "animals and humans are equal in the ability to consciously experience their own life", given the autonomy that humans display that animals don't. We can find analogies and anthropomorphosise them as much as we like to garner as much sympathy as needed, but it's simply not true from a scientific viewpoint. This isn't to say that we shouldn't afford animals rights, but they shouldn't be applied using analogies to humans - We're worlds apart, and the animal kingdom is so diverse that it would be impossible, and impractical, to do so.

Every man, animal and plant for itself? We've got a bit of a head-start on that one

I think my point is more that speciesism is a flawed argument, and is used to provide a dirty label such as 'racism' or 'sexism' rather than to provide a solid moral argument. For specieism to be anything akin to racism or sexism there should be no moral flexibility, but you admit species does make a difference, which is all I was really hoping to prove: It negates someone's claim earlier that, and I paraphrase, "No one has provided a convincing argument why we don't eat mentally disabled people", that turned in to this discussion on speciesim. As someone's already pointed out, we're very good at ascribing human traits and emotions to animals when there's no way we could realistically ever do so - And certainly not uniformally across the entire living, breathing world. Speciesism, to me, is the ultimate in anthropromorphistic whimsy. In short, I'm aiming my comments at that specific argument, and not one specific person.

So it's OK to let a species die out?