Slashdot Mirror

Perhaps you have magic eyes that can look at a piece of fish and see the mercury in it. Do you have any useful advice (i.e. not platitudes) for those of us with normal vision?

The cocksucking regulators do. As do a large number of medical, consumer, and environmental advocacy groups.

You know, I wasn't sure so I did a little looking before posting it. I just posted it as a joke, but I like to make my jokes at least somewhat accurate. The American Heart Association symptoms page says:

* Chest discomfort. Most heart attacks involve discomfort in the center of the chest that lasts more than a few minutes, or that goes away and comes back. It can feel like uncomfortable pressure, squeezing, fullness or pain.

* Discomfort in other areas of the upper body. Symptoms can include pain or discomfort in one or both arms, the back, neck, jaw or stomach.

* Shortness of breath with or without chest discomfort.

* Other signs may include breaking out in a cold sweat, nausea or lightheadedness

    So, if you feel pain in the right arm and not the left, don't discount the possibility of a heart attack. Be educated, and request help as necessary. I am not a doctor, but I do take the advice of experts as useful.

The AHA are a joke - still recommending low fat diets - without any scientific evidence.

25-35% of daily calories from fat does not sound like a "low fat" diet to me: http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=532

AS it is, the number 1 killer in the USA, or at least near to it, is the fricking flu.

Not really....

Deaths due to influenza per year = apx. 36,000.

Deaths due to cigarettes per year = apx. 440,000

Even correcting for the fact that 'deaths due to cigarette smoking' are harder to establish (in terms of causality) than influenza, Mr. Butts wins big time.

While I understand your point of view I also understand the point of view of parents who's kids have actually died from congenital heart defects which show themselves during physical activity. These heart monitors would alert someone before the kid actually collapsed.

I don't. It's really rare. 1.4 per 100,000 death rate means that you have less than 1% chance of seeing it in a given school each year.

They're probably just going to monitor heart rate to optimize aerobic exercise. At a certain point if your heart is beating too fast you'll end up in anaerobic mode. http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4736

Not exactly. The heart muscle itself never runs in "anaerobic mode", which means without oxygen. Anaerobic + heart = death. Death to at least the part of the heart that is deprived of oxygen, or to the person itself it the area of damage is big enough and/or the heart muscle death includes damage to the conduction system (causing an arrythmia, usually ventricular tachycardia). Peripheral muscles (extremities) OTOH can work without oxygen, and function "anaerobically" for a limited time, at the expense of build up of lactic acid (the production of which precedes the requirement for oxygen), leading to peripheral muscle cramps and eventually failure. You can stress yourself during a workout of the legs, say, until they are painfully, crampingly working anaerobically ("anaerobic mode") but it is not correct to say that your body (and certainly not your heart) is running "in anaerobic mode". Monitoring the heart rate during an aerobic exercise such as running is a way to measure cardiovascular and optimize fitness, as you (and the AHA source you quote) correctly state. The rate of your heart, however, tells nothing about whether your leg muscles are running anaerobically.

They're probably just going to monitor heart rate to optimize aerobic exercise. At a certain point if your heart is beating too fast you'll end up in anaerobic mode.
http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4736

Boy do I wish they gave out digitalis as a commonly prescribed drug. And cyanide.

It is a commonly prescribed drug, albeit one with some serious potential side-effects:

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4537

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=118

Boy do I wish they gave out digitalis as a commonly prescribed drug. And cyanide.

It is a commonly prescribed drug, albeit one with some serious potential side-effects:

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4537

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=118

I would guess that it is because alcohol in moderation may be beneficial to your health. Especially if you drink red wine, a glass or two a day isn't considered detrimental to your health.

The AHA doesn't recommend taking up drinking if you don't already do it, but if you do a drink a day isn't bad for you.
http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4422

On the other hand cigarette smoke in any quantity is considered unhealthy.
http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3038016

Of course you may be right and the booze companies just have better lobbyists.

I would guess that it is because alcohol in moderation may be beneficial to your health. Especially if you drink red wine, a glass or two a day isn't considered detrimental to your health.

The AHA doesn't recommend taking up drinking if you don't already do it, but if you do a drink a day isn't bad for you.
http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4422

On the other hand cigarette smoke in any quantity is considered unhealthy.
http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3038016

Of course you may be right and the booze companies just have better lobbyists.

Just to stop anybody on slashdot from switching from (or staying with) butter because this comment has been moderated "interesting"... margarine IS better...as long as you pick a decent one that's not 59 cents per 1 kg tub.
From the Mayo Clinic: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/butter-vs-margarine/AN00835
The American Heart Association: http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=532

And if you're looking for more info, here's how a search engine works:
http://letmegooglethatforyou.com/?q=butter+margarine

Dogs have similar effects on health.

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3035327 [americanheart.org]
http://www.naturalnews.com/021483.html [naturalnews.com]
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/33677.php [medicalnewstoday.com]
http://www.webmd.com/hypertension-high-blood-pressure/features/health-benefits-of-pets [webmd.com]

Please stop using studies like these to reinforce your prejudices.

"Apparently having dogs doesn't have the same effect. "

It has been long established that dog ownership improves long term health outcomes.

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3035327
http://www.naturalnews.com/021483.html
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/33677.php
http://www.webmd.com/hypertension-high-blood-pressure/features/health-benefits-of-pets

The author's talking about lower dietary cholesterol levels. You're talking about lower blood cholesterol levels. There've been a surprising number of studies that show that dietary intake doesn't directly correlate to blood cholesterol levels.

In some people who strictly ensure a super-low dietary intake, their bodies will actually make up the difference -- they'll internally manufacture cholesterol from other things in order to keep the blood cholesterol level high! Genetics is a big factor here. In fact most of your cholesterol is built by your body, not taken from your food. It appears that diet is not the major factor for most people. Read more at the American Heart Association, which I would consider a pretty reliable source... http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3046105

Presumably in some people with heart disease, limiting saturated fats helps. But for other people, saturated fats might HELP, apparently (!). Read here:
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/80/5/1102

I'd consider the AHA and Journal of Clinical Nutrition to be rather reliable sources (as opposed to all those "Cholesterol MYTH!" Web sites that take some of these ideas and run with them...)

Valve problems are one particular type of heart disease that is often congenital, however, they are also not nearly as common as heart attack and stroke, which are strongly linked to lifestyle. For example, this report from the American Heart Association shows that out of nearly 7 million heart procedures performed in 2004, only about 100,000 were valve operations - less than two percent.

The US Center for Disease Control states that "Much of the burden of heart disease and stroke could be eliminated by reducing their major risk factors: high blood pressure, high blood cholesterol, tobacco use, diabetes, physical inactivity, and poor nutrition."

So although you and your family fall into a small percentage of heart patients where lifestyle is probably not a factor, this does not make the well-recognized fact that most heart disease is strongly linked to lifestyle, as recognized by the CDC, the AHA, the AMA and every other evidence-based medical organization which has looked at epidemiological studies done in the United States.

I'm sorry to hear about your family's bad valves, and I apologize if you took my statements, based on broad statistics, as a criticism of your family's eating habits. Although only surgery is likely to fix your valves, you still get to choose your lifestyle, and this could determine whether you simply have inherited bad valves, or bad valves plus clogged arteries, which are a much, much more common killer.

Is all this paranoia actually making us safer?

Google is your friend.
871,500 Americans die yearly from heart disease
Over half a million die yearly from cancer
41,000 Americans die yearly in traffic fatalities
Fewer than 3,000 people have died from terrorist attacks on American soil this entire CENTURY.

So I'd say the answer is a resounding "no". I'd personally like to see some of that Homeland Security money go to safer highways, cancer research, etc.

-mcgrew

Protecting our freedoms? I thought it was about stopping terrorist attacks. I mean, so many people have died in America from Osama Bin Laden's terrorism; there have been almost 3,000 deaths this century!

Of course, since over 40,000 people die every year on the highways, I'd like to see some of that "Homeland Security" money go to guard rails and other safety improvements. I'm far more afraid of the cell-phone weilding blonde than the bomb wielding Muslim!

But wait, that's still chicken feed. Osama should be jealous as hell of a far bigger terrorist - RJ Reynolds, whose poison kills over half a million people yearly! the corporate terrorists are truly deadly!

Even Ronald McDonald kicks Osama's ass when it comes to killing Americans. Heart Disease also kills over half a million Americans every year.

Hell, even Bush himself is deadlier to Americans than Osama, since well over 3,000 of the soldiers he sent to Iraq (to destabilize the region and drive gas prices up; he's an oil man. Gas was $1 here when he took office, now it's over three times as high) have died there.

Al Quaida? Shit, the tornado that tore through my home town in 2006 miraculously didn't kill or even seriously injure anyone, but look at the destruction of ONE building! The tree behind my apartment looked like a weed someone had stomped on. I saw twisted girders, trailor homes torn in half, five foot diameter trees uprooted, wood splinters imbedded in concrete. If Osama saw what I saw he'd have given up.

So I completely agree with you. That God damned abomination must go! I think the Congress and Senate who passed it and the President who begged for it and signed it should go as well.

-mcgrew

I'll second that. In addition, without a transplant, she stands a decent chance of living a long full life. Transplant patients don't last that long, on average.

So if the money pot dries up, who is going to pay for the R&D? Governments who already are struggling to pay for universal coverage? When I lived in Germany, it was starting to become a problem. There just isn't enough in the younger generation to pay for the rest and with 0 population growth....

And then where is Governments going to spend the money?

Currently in the United States there is 72 Million people living with high blood pressure. http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?ident ifier=4621 The cause of which is unknown in 90 - 95% of the cases. Probably a combination of diet, excercise, and stress. But how much does each factor cause we still don't know. That is vs. 1 - 2 million with HIV/AIDS. If I am looking at the over all picture, where am I going to allocate the resources. Probably where the money will effect the lives of the most people. After all, that is how socialism works: the greatest good for the greatest number right? I mean all that changes is that people get shafted by the government instead of the HMO.

And not all forms of Diabetes is lifestyle either. My mother, and that entire side of the family, are all diabetics. None are obese and my mother had it since childhood and my uncle developed it later in life. That and we know there is a genetic link. Now being overweight increases the risk, but lifestyle is not the sole factor.

To paraphrase George Carlin, "Hmmm, if I'm planet Earth and have too many humans on it, how am I going to fight back. I dunno, maybe create a virus that is spread sexually and destroys the immune system." Yes, it's crual and mean and all that to say, but if AIDS is just that: mother nature's own defense system against us? Something to ponder at least as every attempt by man to do something about it has worked in prolonging life for a while.

Lastly there is another dirty secret: cure the desiease and guess what, the funding dries up. Same with Cancer. Find a cure and the well's gone. What would the American Cancer Society and other chairty groups do then? Close their doors? Well anyone remember what the March of Dimes was founded to do? Well? The March of Dimes was a charity that supported those with Polio and hoped to one day find a cure. Guess what...they did. And March of Dimes had to find a new cause, birth defects. A nice and general topic that likely will never had an end in terms of need for money.

I forget the actual numbers, but the idea was really to simplify the procedure. It's more important to get blood flowing through the heart than do the breaths, so this way inexperienced people spend less time fumbling around with the breaths and more time pumping.

First, while this one study was not an RCT, there are RCTs that give similar results in the same direction. This one was just the study that got press (likely because it was the first big one published after the AHA changed the CPR guidelines.) The data from the King County Washington group come to mind immediately, but there are other studies that show the same thing.

Second, while airway is important in cardiac arrest, it is less emphasized according to the new AHA ACLS guidelines. For example, with the VF/pulselessVT/asystole/PEA algorithm, intubation of the trachea takes a lower priority. In the words of the mothership about treatment of pulseless arrest: "Insertion of an advanced airway may not be a high priority," from the AHA's 2005-6 update: http://www.americanheart.org/downloadable/heart/11 32621842912Winter2005.pdf

Or if you want the original article from Circulation: "Thus, during the first minutes of VF SCA the lone rescuer should attempt to limit interruptions in chest compressions for ventilation. The advanced provider must be careful to limit interruptions in chest compressions for attempts to insert an advanced airway or check the rhythm." http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/reprint/112/24_sup pl/IV-51

So even with in-hospital arrests, during the first few minutes which determine in large part whether a patient survives neurologically intact, being aggressive about securing the airway may be misguided. I think I am pretty facile with a laryngoscope, but it is still a good 20 seconds of interruption of compressions to intubate, more if its at all difficult. Those 20 seconds may make the difference, so intubating *after* ROSC may be a better option. If they don't have ROSC in 10 minutes, it is unlikely that intubation will help anyway.

Lastly, even if the absolute risk reduction was small, why not do the kind of CPR that gives you the slightly better outcome and exposes people to less risk of communicable disease? The couple of times I've done CPR au natural, it was just about the grossest thing I've ever had to do.

Nick

Subway sponsors the American Heart Association and in return, Subway's food is now endorsed by the AHA as heart healthy. I hope to see the USC bring Jared and his cronies down!

It's in a company's own best interest to not kill their customer

We sue for-profit companies who produce products which are known to be harmful to us, even after being told for three decades that what they produce is harmful, yet still continued to buy and use the product, and win.

And for how many of those decades were we told that nicotine is as physically addictive as heroin?

Tobacco companies have known since the fifties of this addictive nature, but I don't recall seeing it mentioned on the packaging of any tobacco product, ever.

Even when told how dangerous it is, virtually no smoker has the ability to quit once they've started, regardless of their desire to do so. Of all the smokers you've known, how many would have started if they'd known it was that addictive? A lot of people willingly submit to brief danger (like unintentionally inhaling gasoline fumes) but would think differently if they knew one moment of contact would force them into a lifelong spiral of increasing exposure to the same danger.

Furthermore some sports favour people with preexisting disorders, for example Basketball and Marfan syndrome. http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?ident ifier=4672.

Over 42 million people are living with HIV/AIDS, and 74 percent of these infected people live in sub-Saharan Africa.

There are 14,000 new infections every day (95 percent in developing countries).

By race, 54 percent of the new infections in the United States occur among African Americans, and 64 percent of the new infections in women occur in African American women.

Over 42 million people are living with HIV/AIDS, and 74 percent of these infected people live in sub-Saharan Africa.

There are 14,000 new infections every day (95 percent in developing countries).

By race, 54 percent of the new infections in the United States occur among African Americans, and 64 percent of the new infections in women occur in African American women.

> Are you seriously suggesting that 2/3 smokers die from smoking?

Well, the only ones who don't die from smoking are those who are killed by something else first. Here, I'll let some doctors explain it to you. And that's just heart disease, they also have another article on stroke risk factors, etc.

Smoking may kill slowly, but long-term, it WILL kill you if something else doesn't kill you first. I've personally seen it happen enough times in my own family to erase any doubt.

Similarly, some heart illnesses are hereditary, and not preventable by reducing fat, stress, etc.

Prevention, where available, is certainly better than cure, but let's be careful not to accuse all patients with cardiac damage of causing the damage themselves through bad choices.

Bullshit there is no way to entirely secure the U.S. at roughly 1000 miles by 2500 miles the total land area of the U.S. is 2,500,000 square miles. To completely secure the U.S. you would need a homeland security officer for every square mile, i.e. 2 million 5 hundred thousand, plus we'd have to search every single car, and every single house on a daily basis. If this isn't done then someone can drive a truck into the middle of city and blow it up, that's reality. Rather than spending billions on something we can't prevent and would turn us into a literal police state if we tried, far better to withdraw from the middle east entirely and work on energy independence so we aren't dependent on Muslim nations at all for anything. Withdraw from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, stop buying middle easter oil, and stop supporting Israel and ding the terrorism problem is 100% solved, how hard is that? As a bonus using less oil extends the time until peak oil and is better for the environment. Or we can keep driving SUVs, spend billions on useless terrorism prevention measures, keep supporting the aggressor state of Israel, and wind up with WWIII with Iran, Syria, etc, your choice.

And to the other poster that's 1 in 5 deaths in the U.S. of course:

"Heart Attack and Angina Statistics

2003 statistics for the United States show that coronary heart disease (CHD) is the single leading cause of death in America. CHD causes heart attack and angina.

* Mortality -- 479,305 deaths in the United States in 2003 (one of every 5 deaths) (preliminary).
* Incidence -- 1,200,000 new and recurrent coronary attacks per year. (National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's Atherosclerotic Risk in Communities [ARIC] Study, 1987-2000.) About 40 percent of people who experience a coronary attack in a given year die from it.
* Prevalence -- 13,200,000 victims of angina (chest pain due to coronary heart disease), heart attack and other forms of coronary heart disease are still living (7,200,000 males and 6,000,000 females).
* From 1993 to 2003 the death rate from coronary heart disease declined 26.5 percent, but the actual number of deaths declined only 9.9 percent.
* Estimates are that 6,500,000 people in the United States suffer from angina.
* An estimated 400,000 new cases of stable angina occur each year. (Framingham Heart Study, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute)
* The estimated age-adjusted prevalence of angina in women age 20 and older was 3.5 percent for non-Hispanic white women, 4.7 percent for non-Hispanic black women and 2.2 percent for Mexican-American women. Rates for men in these three groups were 4.5, 3.1 and 2.4 percent, respectively.*
* Among American adults age 20 and older, the estimated age-adjusted prevalence of coronary heart disease for non-Hispanic whites is 8.9 percent for men and 5.4 percent for women; for non-Hispanic blacks, 7.4 percent for men and 7.5 percent for women; and for Mexican-Americans, 5.6 percent for men and 4.3 percent for women.*

*Based on the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES, 1999-2002), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Center for Health Statistics."

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?ident ifier=4591

That means that 479,305/3,200 = 149.78 TIMES as many people die of heart attacks per year compared to terrorism and that is compounded year after year, in ten years you are literally a thousand times less likely to die of terrorism than a heart attack. That means that in less than 3 days, every 3 days we have a 911 of heart attacks, think about it. Than means the rational allocation of resources to actually prevent deaths in the U.S. is educating people about the da

There are many other diseases waiting for genetic therapy. For example Cardiomyopathy, which has no cure but heart transplantation. I myself was a cardiomyopathy patient and a heart transplantation acceptor. I sincerely hope decoding of human gene could provide a cure for cardiomyopathy and many other diseases.

Which would save on funeral costs I suppose. Artificial pacemaker

Are you seriously trying to argue that because America has gone and done something stupid like set up a black hole in Guantanamo that it somehow makes the EU's system of secret evidence and anonymous witnesses a good legal system? They're both bad!

I will be the first to admit that America is a hippocracy. Just ask the AMA and the AHA. But that doesn't mean that the principles of fairness should be tossed aside when judging other legal systems.

Or we can just eat bacon and tofu or fish, maybe in separate dishes the same day or week. That way we'll get the O3FA along with other nutrients, but without the genomic pollution roulette game.

What does bacon fried in fish oil taste like?

And, thus sayeth Clippy:

It looks like you're having a heart attack!

Would you like to:
1 - Continue the authentication process so that you can send an e-mail to our automated response system for help,
2 - Visit http://www.americanheart.org/ for some quick tips on surviving a heart attack,
3 - Launch the interactive Self-Administered CPR training wizard,
4 - See more options?

They're illegal because they can interfere with pacemakers
Like microwave ovens.
or car ignitions
or lots of other equipment that have the potential.

Gfunk said in their sig:

"Your right to walk the streets unmolested by the police outweighs my right not to get blown up."

Yet your chance of getting "blown up" by terrorists thus far

equals 3000/2,400,000 x 100= .0125%

meanwhile your chance of having a heart attack = 480,000/24000000 x 100=`20%

Source the American Heart association:

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?ident ifier=4591

Thus your chance of having a hear attack is 2500 times greater than being "blown up by a terrorist." And the terrorist attack was a one time event where as heart attacks are ongoing. Over ten years that means you are 25,000 times more likely to die of a heart attack than from a terrorist attack. Perhaps what we need is a war on Burger King and not a war on terror.

Please THINK before you mindlessly spout off in favor of surrendering our civil liberties based on the neo-cons fear mongering in your sig, MM K?

And yes I do have karma to burn.

American Heart Association probably can't sue if you don't superimpose a torch on the heart.

faliure magazine
failure comics
heart failure society of america
heart failure online
heart failure

How dare Google list these at the top of the first page!

Don't forget red wine helps prevent heart disease.
http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?ident ifier=4422

Now if they can figure out how smoking helps me live longer I can justify all my bad habits.

despite the lack of any evidence to suggest that there are any detectable consequences to periodic outdoor exposure, or occasional indoor exposure to secondhand smoke.

Just because you have either ignored or not bothered to look for any evidence doesn't mean it isn't there. Just off the top of my head, for example, there's this article. Heart attacks are both detectable, and consequences.

Sitting or laying in the same spot for any length of time, regardless of whether you're playing a game or doing work or lying in a hospital bed, can cause deep vein thrombosis and kill you with a blood clot.

Refs:
http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?ident ifier=3010041
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/00 0156.htm

The whole poverty thing was in response to your volunteering to going down to your local library and getting case studies.

Like I said later on, you implied it. By saying that there was blame to be put on parents, you are saying that there is blame to begin with, i.e. that violent games for kids is wrong, at least in part.

There is a difference between "It shuts up the social conservatives who can then shift the blame onto..." and "It shuts up the social conservatives, shifting the blame onto...". The former implies that the social conservatives shift the blame, while the latter implies you're shifting the blame.

But here's a better idea. Instead of shifting blame, real or fake, perhaps discourse and debate with proof that games don't cause violence is more in order. Getting social conservatives to shift their focus doesn't solve anything.

As for the second-hand smoke, the American Lung Association, the American Heart Association and the Canadian Cancer Society, amongst others, agree with me. I may not have any education in science, so I can't tell you what carcinogens and what chemicals are involved, but I can tell you what makes sense.

Large parts of what you said were conditionals, to which there is no reply. So I skimmed over those parts. And which party line did I toe again?

Patrick,
You have probably heard this from others already, but it sounds like you might have myocarditis http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/00 0149.htm or endocarditis http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?ident ifier=4436.

As someone who has been through endocarditis and congestive heart failure, your symptoms sound hauntingly familiar. Preferring to lay flat on your back, very little energy, dizziness where all things I experienced. My advice to you is keep looking for the BEST cardiologist (not a general practitioner) you can find. There are many things that a cardiologist will notice that a GP will not. Tell the doctor EVERYTHING you've been through; start a personal blog or journal and note down every time you have symptoms.

Don't give up, don't put it off, don't take "You're fine." as a valid answer; keeping looking until you find a cardiologist who is willing to listen with an open mind. Your health come FIRST! Without that, life is pretty miserable.

Cardivascular disease is the number one cause of death in your country, accounting for just shy of 40% of all deaths. (For 2001 figures, see this link here.)

Far as I can find, the NIH allocates roughly a billion dollars a year into heart disease research. The Homeland Security Agency has a budget of what, forty billion dollars? Or has it gone up since then?

You think that a breakthrough which brings down the number one killer of Americans (more naughty than Usama bin Ladin and Saddam Hussain combined) won't put a dent in the stockmarket? I know I'd invest in whoever found it.

However, if you agree with the original sentiment, please get rid of any firearms you own and proceed to protect yourself and your home with a pat of butter. After all... butter doesn't kill people either.

The AHA would disagree with that statement.
So please, protect yourself with a tub of margarine instead.

Unfortunately, many doctors are clueless about things outside there experience. Had the doctor done a bit of research, he would have found easy way's of getting proper nutrition from vegetable sources.

This is as silly as saying all computer scientists are socially inept geeks who tell everyone who will listen that they are stupid for using any Microsoft products.

Every vegan and vegetarian I've met has considered their diet a personal choice, and not everyone does it for ethical reasons, many do it for health.

Which brings me to my next point: the myth that vegan/vegetarian diets are inherently unhealthy. Fact of the matter is, it's not overly difficult to eat a healthy diet as a vegan, and even easier to do so as a vegetarian. In fact, there are numerous health benefits, like reduced chances of diabetes and coronary disease. Also, you aren't ingesting all the antibiotics and hormones they pump farm animals full of.

Is it possible to eat an unhealthy vegan diet? Of course, just as it's possible to eat an unhealthy omnivore diet(as many north americans do).

Why don't you quit with your FUD, and actually do some research first.

To suggest that such organizations should actual spend more time trying to figure out what is right, or what is the best course of action for all will just bring a harangue about one's naivity.

More people need to know that this is how politics work. Most are taught that voting is doing their part in politics, but that isn't even half of it. People need to "associate" with others of like mind or like profession to help exert influence. This is the ideal behind which political parties were created.

I actually wish more people would become members of an association if only to vote for who the Board Members of their PAC should be. This is the real way to effect laws in the US as it is the Board Members who have oversite of the PAC's lobbyist(s). I wish more geeks (no offense, to me it's a compliment) would think of that next time they're at Frys buying yet another $30 hub or wireless mouse. It's not money itself that is the key, it's where the money goes. If you're sick of stuff like this bullroading and want to change it, you know how to do it.

I'll step off the soapbox now...