the vuvuzela as a biological weapon

Enjoy your vuvuzela, you germ-spreading hooligan, you.

make your own ice sling

Problem: You have a separated shoulder, requiring ice every few hours. But you can't just hold a Ziploc bag up there for twenty minutes at a time; after all, you have books to read, or topics to blog about.

Solution: Make your own ice sling.

Materials: Ice, quart-sized freezer bag, duct tape, neck tie.

Painkillers and holiday arrangement not included.

Steps:
1. Take an empty freezer bag and press it flat on a countertop. Set aside.

2. Cut 2 pieces of duct tape, in roughly 1.25" (3.2 cm) and 3.25" (8.3 cm) lengths.

3. Carefully place a shorter piece in the middle of a longer piece, adhesive-to-adhesive. (This is for making a "belt loop," with an inch of adhesive on both ends.) Affix to the front of the bag, about 1 inch from the edge.

The ice sling in action.  Note its stylish comfort.

4. Repeat steps 2 and 3, affixing the second loop near the other edge, completing the belt loop.

5. If you want, you may reinforce your loop by adding a strip of duct tape above and below (see illustration).

6. Thread the necktie through the loops, fill the bag with ice, place it tape-side down on your shoulder, and tie the tie around your neck. (Its's probably best to have a friend assist you at this juncture; if unavailable, tie the knot loosely before placing the ice, and adjust using a mirror.)

7. Ice your shoulder as recommended by a physician.

8. Blog about it.

hand sanitizer, mind tranquilizer

To the list of things that don't actually keep you from getting sick--chugging vitamin C, downing homeopathic remedies, using Airborne, staying out of the rain--add hand sanitizer.

To begin, the influenza virus mostly spreads via tiny droplets in the air (for example, from sneezes)—not by dirty hands or surfaces—which limits the role of Purell. It probably wouldn't matter even if flu transferred though hand contact, which is how most cold viruses spread. Though Purell kills them in the lab, hand sanitizers don't stop their spread in the real world. The average child touches his or her mouth and nose every three minutes, and both adults and children come in contact with as many as 30 different objects every minute. Even hospitals can't get staff to use Purell before seeing patients; it's impossible for day care staff, parents, or teachers to wash a child's hands 20 times each hour.

Too bad germs are resistant to the placebo effect.

the Siracusa Principles and compulsory immunization

For debaters creating a rights-based Negative for the immunization resolution, the UN's human rights jurisprudence is worth a serious look. In their study titled "Detention and the Evolving Threat of Tuberculosis: Evidence, Ethics, and Law," found in The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 2007, Coker et al. note that the Siracusa Principles of the UN's Commission on Human Rights, published in 1984, offer a criterion for determining whether individual rights can be restricted in a public health emergency.

Summing up the Principles, the authors write,

The first of the principles is the notion of whether any proposed restriction on liberty is a legitimate objective of general concern... Is the restriction provided for and carried out in accordance with the law? Many democratic countries have legal structures in which coercive public health interventions are sanctioned.... A second principle questions whether available alternatives that are less intrusive and restrictive have been tried.... Another principle addresses the arbitrary, unreasonable or discriminatory manner in which a sanction might be imposed.

When we look to the Principles themselves, we can see specific language regarding public health as a justification for limiting individual rights:

Public health may be invoked as a ground for limiting certain rights in order to allow a State to take measures dealing with a serious threat to the health of the population or individual members of the population. These measures must be specifically aimed at preventing disease or injury or providing care for the sick and injured.

The question is, which "certain rights?" Or, more to the point, which rights cannot be infringed--or, in legal terms, are "nonderogable?"

No State party shall, even in time of emergency threatening the life of the nation, derogate from the Covenant's guarantees of the right to life; freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and from medical or scientific experimentation without free consent; freedom from slavery or involuntary servitude; the right not to be imprisoned for contractual debt; the right not to be convicted or sentenced to a heavier penalty by virtue of retroactive criminal legislation; the right to recognition as a person before the law; and freedom of thought, conscience and religion.These rights are not derogable under any conditions even for the asserted purpose of preserving the life of the nation.

The rights concerned are detailed in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. And note that last sentence, which is about as strong a statement in favor of the Neg as you are likely to see in international law.

on the dubious 98.5% statistic

At a tournament this weekend, judging LD rounds on the immunization resolution, I heard one number over and over and over again: 98.5%.

A number of Negative cases argued that volunteerism is sufficient to reach herd immunity, even at high thresholds. Why? Because, in a "TV Washington survey," "98.5 percent of people said they were willing to be / have their children vaccinated."

Remarkably, out of the 6-7 times I heard this dubious statistic mentioned, at all three levels of LD, only one Affirmative challenged it: the eventual Novice champion.

Here's what I wanted Affs to do in CX.

Aff: Let's talk about that 98.5% statistic. What's the source?
Neg: TV Washington.
Aff: And how was the question worded, exactly?
Neg: Uh... I don't know.
Aff: The 98.5%... what sort of people were surveyed? Parents? College students? Middle schoolers? Hard-core gamers?
Neg: Uh... I don't know.
Aff: And what about the CDC's report that only 76% of American infants currently receive the full recommended series of life-saving vaccinations?
Neg: Uh...
Aff: That's what I thought.

As the old saying goes, "The spirit is willing, but the flesh sometimes recoils at the thought of being jabbed by a needle bearing a vaccine." Actions always speak louder than surveys.

Even if 98.5% of people really are willing to vaccinate their children, a substantial portion don't. Some ultimately refuse, some can't find the time, some forget. And some can't afford it:

Coverage for most vaccines remained lower for children living below poverty than children living at or above poverty.

Regardless of the reasons, actual vaccination rates don't reach 98.5%; most are in the 90s, but the DTaP rate comes in at 84.6%. (The overall rate is so low because different individuals miss out on different vaccinations.) Which leads the CDC to argue:

Sustaining high coverage levels and finding effective methods of reducing disparities across states/local areas and income groups remains a priority to fully protect children and limit the incidence of vaccine-preventable diseases in the United States.

And about those 90%+ coverage rates: the American experience, if not outright compulsory, is hardly purely voluntary. Parents know that their children can't attend public school without the proper vaccinations and boosters. If they forgo private school or homeschooling and take an exemption--which requires filling out government paperwork--their child can be forced to stay home in the event of an outbreak. (Some states, like Washington, are working to make this process more stringent, requiring philosophically-based objectors to have a conversation with a health care practitioner to be informed of the risks of refusing immunization.)

In fact, as Donya Khalili and Arthur Kaplan write in "Off the Grid: Vaccinations Among Homeschooled Children," found in The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, Fall 2007:

In states where immunization is obligatory officially but unmonitored, vaccinations could be required through enforcing child neglect, delinquency, and child labor statutes, as suggested by the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Bioethics. While health care professionals do not advocate its usage outside of emergency situations, they can contact state child protective services agencies if concerned about medical neglect.

So let's stop claiming that volunteerism works by relying on an obviously dubious statistic and a blithely simplistic view of American vaccination policy.

approaches for the affirmative for the immunization resolution

Regarding the November / December LD immunization resolution, a reader writes,

I'm having some trouble thinking of argumentation lines for the affirmative, insofar as a minority refusing a vaccine shouldn't affect the majority, because the majority has been vaccinated and is (of course, to a limited extent) immune. This is frustrating every brainstorm I have on affirmative argumentation lines. Some ideas?

Let me see if I can help you out of this self-imposed jam.

First, the "to a limited extent" is important. Vaccines don't provide 100% immunity. For some unlucky recipients, they provide no immunity at all; for others (and this number is most likely much larger), they merely reduce the severity of symptoms. So unimmunized persons are a danger even to the immunized.

Second, unimmunized persons are a danger to those who, for health reasons, simply cannot be immunized. (Of course, this also presents a dilemma for the affirmative; does "compulsory" allow any exceptions?)

Third, a minority refusing a vaccine can influence others to avoid the vaccine, decreasing "herd immunity" (which often requires a high threshold--90% or more). That's why, in recent years, outbreaks of dangerous contagious diseases have increased in areas where they were nearly a non-factor. Polio. Diphtheria. Whooping cough. All over the world, missed vaccinations are putting lives at risk.

Fourth, the risk of bioterrorism or a pandemic that might justify quarantine would probably also justify compulsory immunization in the interest of national security.

Fifth, children who would otherwise receive safe vaccinations risk dying due to their parents' unnecessary or even irrational concern.

Sixth, people who refuse vaccination are a danger to themselves; in a paternalistic political philosophy, this is grounds for intervention.

Seventh, unimmunized persons who lack insurance are a drain on public coffers.

Eighth... well, that's all I've got in ten minutes.

Readers: other ideas?

the expanding waistline of public health law

Another in a series of posts covering the Nov/Dec immunization resolution.

Public health law seems to want to gobble up more and more legal categories, if Mark Hall, a law professor at Wake Forest, is correct. In an article titled "The scope and limits of public health law," found in the Summer 2003 edition of Perspectives in Biology and Medicine,, Hall describes, through anecdote and argument, how public health law is perpetually expanding in influence.

First, Hall distinguishes health care law from public health law, and what makes the latter inherently power-hungry.

Public health law is about enforcing government efforts to promote health. It starts with the assumption that public authority is plenary* and sets restraints on this authority only it if invades fundamental interests or is demonstrably unbalanced or excessive. Under public health law, the presumptions are all in favor of intervention, whereas under health care law, the presumptions are all in favor of privacy. Public health law is not troubled by making vaccinations mandatory, despite possible harm from side effects that may greatly outweigh the benefits of vaccination to any one individual (due to an individual's ability to free ride on the "herd immunity" of the community), nor is public health law troubled by requiring that more potent and riskier forms of a vaccine be used, even though the enhanced benefits accrue to people other than those who take on the risk.

*Absolute, unqualified.

This is the obvious first prong of a potential Neg strategy: pointing out that "public health concerns" are coldly utilitarian, and woe betide the unfortunate soul who is forced to take one for the team.

Of course, the Aff will argue that not only are the rewards worth the risks, but that the very nature of the problem demands compulsion. Hall again:

The classic subjects of public health law are communicable diseases, personal hygiene, sanitary water and sewer systems, safe food, and injury prevention. These disparate situations all involve significant collective action problems, meaning that individuals acting in their own self-interest, even if fully informed and rational, will not effectively address the problem because they do not internalize some of the major costs or benefits of action or non-action, or for other reasons a centralized response is much more cost-effective.... Identifying and eliminating the source of contagion for a communicable disease requires more effort and cost than any one individual or small group is likely to undertake. A public agency is necessary to garner the resources needed for collective action and to wield the authority for coercive restrictions on liberty or property.

But the Negative isn't done yet; the second prong of the argument regards the larger risk of allowing public health advocates ever-increasing power, which has

...a pervasive effect on public health officials' sense of what they are entitled to do and of the tools that are available to address a public health problem. The uncompromising authoritarian and utilitarian public health perspective... is intensely ends-oriented, which tends to ingrain the following habit of thought: once having identified a causal connection to a widespread health problem, action is necessary to eradicate the cause and eliminate the problem at its source, and it falls within the authority of public health or other government officials to take the necessary actions. The necessary actions are those that produce the desired results. Public health officials may start with less intrusive, more innocuous measures, such as information, education, or taxation, but if these fail, then the case is even stronger for pursuing a panoply of more aggressive and coercive strategies, including mandates and bans, closures and seizures, quarantine, and criminal sanctions. The metaphors of public health strategy are war-like. Its rhetoric is to attack, conquer, and eradicate, rather than to exercise prudence, balance, and restraint.

As the saying goes, "desperate times demand desperate measures." The problem is the tendency to see desperation in any risk, and to trample over individual needs, desires, or rights in the process. As problems like crime or poverty are cast in terms of public health, we risk going beyond the Nanny State to a form of medicalized tyranny.

vaccines... for the children

Professor of epidemiology Tara Smith explains why she'll be getting her children vaccinated this year.

Taking a brief hiatus from my hiatus to discuss a question I've been asked a number of times in recent weeks by friends and family: what about flu shots? Are you getting one for yourself? Your kids? The answer is yes to both, with more explanation after the jump.

And the post-jump reasons are worth investigating.

Meanwhile, Stephanie Tatel asks, have you considered those with limited immunity?

Ordinarily I wouldn't question others' parenting choices. But the problem is literally one of live or don't live. While that parent chose not to vaccinate her child for what she likely considers well-founded reasons, she is putting other children at risk. In this instance, the child at risk was my son. He has leukemia.

What does any of this have to do with vaccinations? While the purpose of chemotherapy is to kill the cancer, it also kills the good cells—most notably the infection-fighting white blood cells. That means my son has limited ability to fight off anything. A single unimmunized child in an ordinary child care setting is the equivalent of a toddler time bomb to him.

For students of the November/December LD resolution--or for any parent of a youngster--something to think about.

the tensions inherent in public health law

The November/December resolution throws light on a growing area of legal interest: public health. In "Mapping the Scope and Opportunities for Public Health Law in Liberal Democracies," found in The Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics, Winter 2007, Roger Magnusson, a law professor at the University of Sydney, notes (among other things) the tensions in contemporary public health law.

The first, as always, is the tension between proper government action and individual rights:

Lawrence Gostin points out that the protection of the public's health is necessarily a public function that should also be regarded as a duty of government. Discharge of that duty carries "intrinsic and instrumental value for individuals, communities, and entire nations." At the same time, public health law is that body of law which - in a liberal democracy - keeps the state on a short leash, and there is considerable resistance to lengthening it. At the same time, in one of many contradictions in American law, Nan Hunter argues that this is precisely what is occurring as public health and national security have moved closer together to meet the threat of bioterrorism and pandemic influenza.

The "national security" angle is one that affirmatives should explore. The resolution doesn't specify who would be receiving compulsory immunizations; the Negative, presumably, would have to defend the right of medical workers and soldiers (among others) to refuse immunization, even in a crisis.

However, an important Negative consideration is the tension between wider and narrower conceptions of just what constitutes "public health concerns"--and the propensity for the debate to expand into the international arena.

The health and human rights movement provides a further example of public health law expanding to embrace, in this case, global human rights norms and laws, exploring the potential for the promotion or neglect of global norms to enhance or harm the health of populations. The usual criticisms of these approaches is that they turn "life, the universe and everything" into a subdivision of health. In Mark Rothstein's words, "just because war, crime, hunger, poverty, illiteracy, homelessness and human rights abuses interfere with the health of individuals and population does not mean that eliminating these conditions is part of the mission of public health."

The effect of such a broad definition is not only to increase government overreach, but to insulate the government from criticism, since "public health" is a powerful way to frame policies that might otherwise be seen as the normal risks of everyday life, accepted in a free society. Furthermore, globalization puts the drafting and enacting of such policies out of the reach of citizens within any given nation. Thus, from a social contract perspective, a widening "public health" definition is doubly a menace to individual rights and governmental legitimacy.

today's vaccination links

The Nov/Dec LD resolution, "Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization," couldn't be more topical.

You're all over the CDC's website, right?

Swine flu vaccines are ready. But not everybody wants one--for themselves, or for their kids.

How distrust of swine flu vaccine unites right and left.

It doesn't help when journalists get the facts very, very wrong.

Something to think about: let's say smoking is a public health concern. Does that justify compulsory anti-smoking vaccinations?

definitions in the compulsory immunization resolution

The November / December NFL Lincoln-Douglas debate resolution...

Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization.

...offers some interesting definitional possibilities.

(Unless otherwise noted, definitions from Dictionary.com, which uses the Random House Unabridged Dictionary.)

Public health
"Health services to improve and protect community health, esp. sanitation, immunization, and preventive medicine."
Note the largely preventive nature of public health. Immunization is meant to prevent unnecessary sickness, suffering, and death. Note also that the word "public" is important. The agent of action in this resolution is the government, which brings social contract reasoning into play.

Concerns
"something that relates or pertains to a person; business; affair"
"a matter that engages a person's attention, interest, or care, or that affects a person's welfare or happiness"
This is a particularly prickly word for the affirmative. Although "concern" carries a connotation of anxiety or worry, negatives might argue that the term is vague, and (as a general principle) doesn't rise to the level, say, of an emergency. Affirmatives would do well to combine the above definition of "public health" with the first definition of "concern"--arguing that the very business of "public health" is that of prevention through, among other things, immunization. (Also, they should point out that governments rarely compel trivial immunizations, trying to block out negative arguments about wholesale rights-trampling.

Justify
The two major senses of justification may lead to completely different kinds of arguments. Those (especially on the negative) defining the argument in terms of rights will use the first sense: "to show (an act, claim, statement, etc.) to be just or right."

Those advocating a utilitarian approach might use the second definition: "to defend or uphold as warranted or well-grounded." This is much, much broader, and works with a wide array of criteria, including cost-benefit analyses.

Compulsory immunization
The resolution offers no bright line for how immunizations might be compelled: through fines or taxes? Through force? Affirmatives will want to look at the history of compulsory immunization for examples of how governments usually go about it.

Note: a phrase that isn't found in the resolution, but is critical for both sides to understand, is "herd immunity"--the idea that when enough members of a community are resistant to infection, it will effectively disappear in a population, protecting even those members (like conscientious objectors) who refuse to be vaccinated. The threshold is usually above 80%. The aff will argue that, historically, reaching the threshold has required government meddling, if not outright compulsion.

Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization .

Update: The November/December Lincoln-Douglas debate resolution has been released:

Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization.

Scientists and public health officials get frustrated, even angry, by vaccine dissenters, a small, but increasingly vocal minority. After all, the argument runs, vaccinations have undoubtedly saved millions of lives since their inception. The risks are minimal; the benefits massive. Besides, without compulsion--without the greatest possible protection of the population--those benefits aren't seen.

So, from an LD perspective, how might we approach the resolution?

Affirmatives will probably use broad-based utilitarian reasoning. If, on balance, compulsory vaccination saves more lives than it puts at risk, then the decision, societally speaking, is a no-brainer. Assemble a few statistics and expert quotes, value "life" and set your criterion to utility, and let logic do the work.

Negatives could respond by attacking the stats, or taking a more philosophical approach, citing the John Stuart Mill adage that "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." This is the classic argument against inoculation; go back to the 1907 anti-immunization book Vaccination by John Pitcairn to see an example.

The rejoinder to this sort of argument is to quote Mill against Mill, as the Washington State Board of Health does in this vaccination briefing [pdf].

John Stuart Mill in On Liberty wrote that “The only purpose for which power can rightfully be exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.” This thesis has become known as the harm principle. The Immunization Advisory Committee endorsed the harm principle and interpreted it to mean that vaccine mandates are justifiable when without them:
• An individual’s decision could place others health in jeopardy
• The state’s economic interests could be threatened by the costs of care for vaccine preventable illness, related disability or death and for the cost of managing vaccine preventable disease outbreaks
• The state’s duty of educating children could be compromised

The crucial thing about communicable disease is that it requires no agency on the part of its victims. Innocents are vectors, too.

Since the recipients of vaccinations are most often children, the persons being harmed--or at least risking harm--aren't legally able to accept or refuse inoculation on their own. As the briefing shows, this adds an "it takes a village to raise a (healthy) child" dimension to the debate.

Returning to Pitcairn, at the close of his book, a diatribe against "man-made science" interfering with "God's handiwork" points to another classic argument: that vaccination tampers in God's domain. Updating this logic for the evolutionary era, some anti-vaccinationists will argue that inoculations destroy natural immunities or upset nature's balance. (Want to really go crazy here? Open to a page from the policy playbook, and argue that vaccination is responsible for overpopulation and its concomitant harms. Just don't be surprised if your judge finds you scary.)

Lastly, the Board's briefing cited above refers to allowable exemptions for religious reasons, another argument both sides must prepare for.

For a backgrounder, Wikipedia's page on anti-vaccination arguments is a great place to start. I also like Douglas Diekema's accessible intro to the ethical debate [pdf].

Added: An example of the practical effects of the contemporary debate on vaccination.

Added 10/1: For an accessible introduction to the vaccination controversy from a pediatrician's perspective, I highly recommend Jamie Loehr's The Vaccine Answer Book. It's clearly organized, scientifically minded, and humane.

Added 10/4: I survey some critical definitions.

Added 10/11: An initial list of value/criterion pairs.

Added 10/12: Some thought-provoking links, and a critical question. What if they had a vaccine for smoking cessation? Would public health concerns--which in the modern day certainly include smoking--justify compulsory anti-smoking vaccination?

Added 10/16: How far does the logic of immunization stretch? One blogger considers Gardasil as a paradigm for the question.

And read this NewScientist article on the potential for a "universal flu vaccine."

Added 10/18: An article discussing the tensions in public health law, with implications for the resolution.

Added 10/21: Two parents talk about why they're in favor of vaccination. Hint: it's for the children.

Added 10/22: Why public health law threatens us with "medicalized tyranny."

Added 10/25: Some lines of argument for the affirmative.

Added 11/14: An open thread: what good/bad arguments did you face this weekend?

Added 11/22: In which I tackle the dubious 98.5% statistic.

Added 11/24: The Siracusa Principles as a criterion for the Neg.

Added 12/7: The future brings us... personalized vaccines?

More links and analysis to follow. Add your questions and thoughts in the comments. (This post was updated and edited from a preview written during the summer.)

today's health care links

I had been working on a great big post about medical ethics and the health care debate--which, at least on the television, is more like the battle of Talking Points vs. Shouting Points. But in my research and reading, I kept getting sidetracked by more and more links of interest, so for now, I'm taking the cheap way out, and letting you experience the fun for yourself. (The medical ethics piece is still coming, promise.)

1. Debate about the debate: Jesse Walker on various shades of Astroturf.

2. Similarly, David Harsanyi on who really controls the conversation.

3. Oh, you mean you actually want to compare reform proposals?

4. What Obama's grandmother has to do with the debate.

5. Hopefully, you'll never have to battle your insurance company for coverage.

6. How to put a price on life.

7. When the health care debate pits brother against brother.

looking for Solomon in triage

A medical ethics hypothetical.

On a Wednesday night in a small town, four men, Smith, Jones, Lee, and Gonzales, suffered immediate liver failure. All four rushed to the town's only hospital, hoping to receive a transplant within an hour--lest they die. The only problem: the hospital had just one liver available for the next sixty minutes.

As the Triage Nurse quickly jotted down their information, all four men began to argue about who should receive the transplant.

"It should be first-come, first-serve," Jones said. "Simple as that." Of course, Jones had arrived in the emergency ward first, shouting "Dibs!" (This was over Smith's protests that he had shouted "Dibs" in the parking lot as they raced toward the hospital.)

"You might as well play rock-paper-scissors or draw straws," Smith said in reply. "That's not rational--that's sheer chance." He argued that they should consider which had contributed the most to society. "After all," Smith said, "I'm a brilliant scientist, and have four brilliant children, all scientists. I cured whooping cough, and my children are working together on a cure for AIDS. I have to survive so I can supervise their research. I should get the liver."

"But I'm the sickest," said Gonzales. "We all have an hour to live, but my liver failed a half hour before any of yours, time I spent driving here from out in the sticks. I should get the liver." He coughed, as if to punctuate his point.

"Not so fast," Lee cut in. "I'm clearly the youngest here. I have the most to live for. I deserve the liver."

"I'm oldest," Jones said, his voice rising. "Age before... beauty."

"Pearls before swine," Lee said sharply, and the conversation broke down into indiscriminate shouting and hollering. Fists were about to fly, when--

"EVERYBODY SHUT UP," shouted the Triage Nurse. "That's it. We're going to..."

What?

Put yourself in the place of the nurse. If you had to decide who got the emergency liver transplant, how would you go about it? What principles or criteria would determine your selection? After all, only one can get the liver--and you'll have to live with the choice for the rest of your days. (Presume, for the sake of argument, that there is simply no other way to save any of the four lives; it's transplant or nothing.)

If you have a solution that, morally and practically speaking, might satisfy all four men--in other words, all four men would agree that the right choice had been made--and that would ease your conscience, put that solution in the comments. I'll share mine, and the situation that's prompted this post, in the very near future.

are you a hypochondriac?

Read this article to find out for sure.

[via Kenneth Anderson (no relation)]





(Actually, it's a trick: you will be by the time you finish reading it. Sorry.)

quackery's popularity tied to its disutility

NewScientist has the story:

To understand why these quack medical treatments persist in the face of better proven remedies, Tanaka applied mathematical models used to measure evolutionary fitness to medical treatments.

His model accounted for factors including the rate of conversion to a treatment, the effectiveness of a treatment, the rate at which people abandon a treatment, the odds of recovering naturally, and the chances of dying. The model starts with a single person demonstrating a treatment – rubbish or not – and measures how many people are influenced to go on to give the treatment a try.

Under a wide range of conditions, quack treatments garnered more converts than proven hypothetical medicines that offer quicker recovery, Tanaka found. "The very fact that they don't work mean that people that use them stay sick longer" and demonstrate a treatment to more people, he says.

Bad treatments don't always win out. Recurring diseases are more likely to promote effective treatments than rare diseases because repeated demonstration weeds out bad treatments, Tanaka found.

I'm certain this model can be applied to the entirety of the Internet with identical results.

the folly I lack

I know you need sleep to have a strong immune system. I know from experience: almost all my colds start during Debate season, primed by the late-Friday-night-early-Saturday-morning turnaround.

But I am not this foolish:

For 14 days, the researchers monitored and recorded the sleep time of 153 healthy men and women ages 21 to 55. They also scored their sleep efficiency, the percentage of time in bed spent asleep.

Then they dripped a solution containing a rhinovirus into their noses and monitored their health for five days. Almost all subjects became infected, and more than a third had cold symptoms.

Did it really take a study to prove this one?

cat people in trouble again

Judith Ann Lawson of Olympia...

...was jailed for investigation of 20 counts of felony animal cruelty after animal control officers found 20 Persian cats locked up in cages inside the garage of her home.

The animals were found living in filth. Feces covered their bodies. In some cases, the weight of the hardened waste pieces had caused their heavily-matted fur to tear right off of their bodies.

One of the cats was found covered with open and infected sores. The cat also had a broken tail and severe respiratory problems that affected its breathing.

Test her for Toxoplasma gondii. Test these brothers, too. There are too many cases like this; it seems quite evident to me that living with too many cats is an invitation to dementia, and my hunch is that Toxoplasma is the cause. But I'm no researcher, and can't prove my case.

Added: The Olympian has much more detail, placing Lawson in Lacey. Seattle media often miss the distinction.

breathe easy

Calabasas, the much-loved City of Shining Air, is back in the news. Perhaps in response to Belmont's no-smoking-and-we-really-mean-it measure, the city has banned smoking in most apartments.

Last week the Calabasas City Council unanimously approved an ordinance that requires landlords to reserve 80 percent of their units for nonsmokers as of January 1, 2012. The law (PDF), which was supported by the L.A. chapter of the California Apartment Association (clearly a bad sign), not only allows smokers to rent up to one-fifth of apartments; it grandfathers current tenants who smoke.... The ordinance's one saving grace is that it "prohibits smoking on all multi-unit apartment residence balconies, porches and patios." Now there's the Calabasas I love to hate.

Even though the summertime toking of my downstairs neighbor bugs the crap out of me, I'm not going to throw down the wrath of the State upon him over some bogus health concern--and I'm entirely uninterested in making him homeless.

science odds and ends

Some semi-random notes and observations.

1. I'm late on this, but it's still good. Edge Magazine's yearly question for scientists: What have you changed your mind about? I'm perpetually amused by the number of completely contradictory answers, usually in the most interesting fields, like neuroscience and artificial intelligence.

2. One answer that caught my eye, and got me thinking: Linda Stone's thoughts on breathing.

In observing others — in their offices, their homes, at cafes — the vast majority of people hold their breath especially when they first begin responding to email. On cell phones, especially when talking and walking, people tend to hyper-ventilate or over-breathe....

The parasympathetic nervous system governs our sense of hunger and satiety, flow of saliva and digestive enzymes, the relaxation response, and many aspects of healthy organ function.... Shallow breathing, breath holding and hyper-ventilating triggers the sympathetic nervous system, in a "fight or flight" response.

The activated sympathetic nervous system causes the liver to dump glucose and cholesterol into our blood, our heart rate increases, we don't have a sense of satiety, and our bodies anticipate and resource for the physical activity that, historically, accompanied a physical fight or flight response. Meanwhile, when the only physical activity is sitting and responding to email, we're sort of "all dressed up with nowhere to go."

This clicked: the recent research linking sleep deprivation and diabetes could be pointing to poor breathing as an underlying cause.

3. A miracle cure for Alzheimers? Maybe. It's a limited study, and short-term. Back in the 1960s, L-Dopa, when first administered to Parkinson's patients, provided the same sort of wonderful transformation, but over time, its effects would fade and symptoms would return.

There's hope, though. [via The Speculist]

4. Parasitic butterflies trick ants into raising their young. Some call it day care.