5/15/13

Plant-based diet improves cardiovascular health

Please click on the link to read an article written by Drs. Kirshner and Spiegel published in the Desert Health News about how a plant-based diet improves cardiovascular health. 

http://deserthealthnews.com/stories/cardiovascular-benefits-of-a-plant-based-diet/

You may also listen to recent Animals Today interviews with Dr. Michael Greger on the latest evidence supporting the health benefits of a vegan diet. 

http://animalstodayradio.com/audio/042813.mp3
 

3/5/13

Response to Indio City Council Re: Animal Services

By Dr. Lori Kirshner:
 
(links to the original Desert Sun article and Dr. Kirshner's response are below)
 
In a recent Desert Sun article concerning the fate of the City of Indio Animal Shelter, a proposal to award the contract for animal services to Riverside County was described. Unmanageable costs in keeping the current shelter operational were cited as a key factor moving the City of Indio in that direction. Recently, Advancing the Interests of Animals, the non-profit animal welfare organization which I lead, along with a number of other individuals, filed suit against the City of Indio and a number of City employees in their official capacities, in a final effort to get the shelter to comply with State laws.
Our position is that Indio’s animals, citizens and residents and would not only benefit much more by having a well-functioning animal shelter in the City, but that this is achievable, even given the City’s finances. By abdicating responsibility, Indio would give up a fabulous opportunity to enhance the quality of life of its residents, and to improve the conditions for the animals in the community. Look at the example of Palm Springs. In just a few short years, and also in response to a lawsuit, the Palm Springs Animal Shelter was transformed, and now enjoys strong community support. Friends of the Palm Springs Animal Shelter, a not for profit organization, is responsible for virtually all the operations of the shelter. There is an animal foster home program, long, accessible hours of operation, training and grooming, and a host of campaigns to promote adoptions. The community strongly supports the shelter, sponsoring fundraising parties and events. There are literally hundreds of volunteers associated with this wonderful shelter, which did not exist just a few years ago. Palm Springs saw what could be and should be, and worked hard to achieve that goal. The result is a well-deserved source of pride for Palm Springs.
In terms of the City of Indio’s finances, the article only addressed costs, but did not consider the array of other methods of fundraising that would be available to an improved Indio shelter, such as private donations, fundraising events, and institutional grants.
The plaintiffs entered legal action only after years of failed attempts to improve the Indio shelter. We look forward to working with the City of Indio on a roadmap as to how to modernize and improve all the elements of the shelter. Coming to an amicable resolution would not only yield far-reaching benefits to the community, but would also permit the city to avoid a protracted legal process.
I would like to encourage Indio residents to call the members of City Council and the Mayor and encourage them to maintain, reorganize and modernize the shelter. The first step should be to hire an independent consultant to give an objective assessment of all matters concerning the shelter.
In a recent KESQ segment, a tearful shelter employee said that there was no alternative to euthanizing many animals that enter the Indio shelter. We emphatically disagree! Let a qualified consultant come to Indio, to show the way toward a better future for the community. Although transferring responsibility to Riverside Country may seem expedient, and perhaps less expensive in the short run, the residents and the needy animals of Indio would benefit much more by having a modern, quality animal shelter in the City.
 
 
The original Desert Sun article published on 02/14/13:
 
 
 
Dr. Kirshner's Response published on 03/05/13 under Valley Voice:
 
 

12/1/12

Ellen...Have You Forsaken Us?


By: Marilyn Ramos

What the hell happened? Ellen! Ellen! Did we really hear you say on your show recently that you are now eating eggs because those eggs come from “happy” chickens that your neighbors keep?

From Wikipedia: Veganism is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet, as well as an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of sentient animals. A follower of veganism is known as a vegan.

Vegans are confused. Just a couple of days before, Ellen’s appearance on the Katie show (Katie Couric for those out of the loop) had gone viral among the vegan community to much applause and kudos. However, after I saw the clip of Ellen saying she eats “happy” eggs, I immediately went to her ellentv.com website to see if she or her people had taken down her vegan resources, recipes, etc. etc.  Nope, still there. In fact, that section of the website is still titled, “Going Vegan with Ellen”. So you can go vegan with Ellen even though Ellen isn’t vegan?! Say what?

Now I know Ellen is a huge celebrity and may be insulated in what is being said about her in the close knit vegan community. But, as Joe Biden would say, “This is a big fucking deal!” and I hope some of it trickles back to her because she needs a reality check. The comments amongst vegan websites/blogs go from dumbfounded (really? seriously? She didn’t mean it!) to demanding (we must kick her out of our vegan family until she sees the light!) to denial (there is no way she is eating eggs!).  Here are some comments:

I swear my heart broke when she said that two days ago. I'm so disappointed.

She went from eating meat, to not eating any animals products, to now eating eggs. It's a disappointment because she was such a role model and ambassador for veganism - and now she is not even a vegan herself, so we've lost this hugely influential voice.

There is a linear progression that exists here; a journey that many vegans take: omnivore to lacto-ovo and, eventually, vegan. If Ellen were lacto-ovo and decided to start eating only "happy" eggs, you could applaud her, hoping that she'll progress past that stage. However, she went backwards. Her decision trivializes the ethical basis for going vegan.

I'm glad she is still not eating meat, but the fact is, she's no longer vegan. She is an ovo-vegetarian. … And when someone that has that big of a soapbox starts eating eggs and still referring to herself as a vegan, it sends a powerful (and wrong) message - that if you find "happy" animals to exploit, that exploitation is ok. It's not ok.

Vegan = Vegan. There are no exceptions, nor should they be. I know people who've claimed to "go vegan" once or twice a week. You can eat at a vegan restaurant or make a vegan meal, but that doesn't make you a vegan. Is Ellen a bad person? Absolutely not. No one is bringing her decency as a human being into question. And I'm sure she'll continue to represent the cause of animal rights vigorously and passionately. However, she's not a vegan if she eats animal products or by-products. It devalues what we as vegan represent, especially when someone has so much notoriety.

It is always sad to me when anyone, celebrity or not, stops being vegan. To me, it is like saying to the world "being vegan really is too hard, I'm missing something without animal products in my life". Which we as vegans know to be false.

We’ve had few celebrities that we could rely on to tout the vegan message and do so consistently. Now granted, some of us had an issue with Ellen’s Cover Girl contract since Cover Girl is owned by Proctor & Gamble and we know they still test on animals but we assumed it was a contract that would expire and she would not renew it now that she was vegan. We thought for sure she would put her vegan ethics and morals ahead of financial gain. Heck, I even thought she might eventually go down the road of starting her own vegan makeup line. Why not? There was a rumor that she would either start her own vegetarian dog food line or buy an existing one (since her Halo dog food line contains meat). The whole “But, dogs are carnivores” argument is another blog but I will tell you that I had two poodles – one made it to 17 ½ yrs. old and the other to 16 yrs. old – and they were both vegan for the last 10 yrs. of their lives which coincided with my own veganism. They were just fine. Anyway, back to Ellen.

Other celebrities have dabbled in it for a few months or even a couple of years and we latched onto them with a lifeline. Ginnifer Goodwin was on Big Love, a huge HBO hit (I watched it religiously, pun intended), and she actively promoted veganism. She was great. Then what happened? She did a complete 180 degrees and stopped being vegan. She even got annoyed with family members (who had gone vegan thanks to her) when they didn’t want to cook or eat meat during holidays. In fact, she seemed downright hostile towards vegans (maybe it was because her body had now become a graveyard for dead animals again?) during an interview on the Jimmy Kimmel show. She came across as disrespectful to those of us who still cared about animals.

Ginnifer Goodwin was my first, “Ooooh, maybe we shouldn’t put so much weight on celebrities who go vegan unless they’ve done it for many years and don’t seem to be doing it because it’s a popular ‘fad’”.  (see Russell Simmons, Casey Affleck, Joaquin Phoenix, Chrissy Hynde, Woody Harrelson). Rosie O’Donnell suffered a heart attack a few months ago. She immediately went on a vegan diet and tweeted that she had lost 9 lbs. in 10 or 12 days thanks to her new diet. Of course, magazines, vegan bloggers, vegan websites, etc. glommed onto this and ran with it. The problem though is that she went back to eating fish almost immediately but not before People magazine declared that Rosie had gone vegan. Even dear beloved Natalie Portman had strayed during her pregnancy (I was dismayed when I read in an article that she was drinking milk and her hubby was fixing her chicken dinners) but it appears she may have come back into the vegan fold after having her baby.

But Ellen seemed different. She felt different. She came across as different. She seemed unwavering. She came across as sincere and genuine in her veganism. You could see it was a true life change for her (and her wife, Portia) and that she “got it”.  She was a real sister in our plight to help animals. She featured on her show vegan chefs, vegan food, vegan recipes, vegan celebrities, vegan items, animal causes, animal sanctuaries, people who helped animals, etc.

But now she eats eggs.

Here’s my main issue with Ellen and her eating eggs from “happy chickens: Will fragile vegans (vegans who are just starting out or don’t know fully the horrors of factory farming) or “iffy” vegans think, “Well, heck, if Ellen eats eggs then I can too and still feel good about myself”?  Ellen is a wealthy person with access to many things you and I will never have access to including a neighbor who raises “happy” chickens and gives you the luxury of consuming eggs from chickens who are spoiled, enjoyed dust baths, ate the best feed, received veterinary care and, perhaps, were taken care of until they died,  etc.

Unfortunately, that is NOT the reality of 99.5% of chickens and that is NOT the reality of 99.5% of us humans. Therefore, unless Ellen clearly, consistently and regularly spells out the huge huge difference between her “happy” eggs and the standard factory farmed eggs found in our food chain, we will be stuck with people who think they can be “vegan”, eat eggs and feel good about themselves. In fact, Ellen may have done us a huge disservice and taken us a step backwards since animal activists will now have to explain why you can’t eat eggs and still be vegan. ”But, but, but, Ellen does?” Remember that for a while many people called themselves vegetarian only because they didn’t eat red meat or because they only ate fish but we all know that that didn’t make them vegetarian. That just made them people who rarely ate animals.

I will grant you that Ellen has done A LOT for the animal community and the vegan community. She may have very well raised more awareness overnight than what many animal activists have in a year. Nevertheless, can your website still say, Going Vegan with Ellen” when Ellen herself isn’t vegan? Does Ellen get to redefine veganism because she has access to “happy” chickens? (NO!).

I applaud Ellen for all the good she has done but I, as a true vegan, take huge exception to her calling herself vegan when she is not “abstaining from animal products”.

Just as I’ve taken issue in the past with people who call themselves “animal lovers” because they love their cat or dog (but still eat animals, go to the rodeo or circus, etc.), I take issue with someone who calls themselves “vegan” while they eat eggs. Ellen will have to be satisfied with “ovo-vegetarian” because until she eschews eggs, she doesn’t get to call herself vegan again.

I await Ellen’s explanation of her disconnect or her clear explanation that what she is privy to (“happy” chickens) she knows full well 99.5% of the rest of us don’t have that option and 99%.5 of chickens aren’t “happy”, and thus, her eating eggs again will only perpetuate the horrors of factory farming while potentially making people feel good about themselves because they are just like Ellen.


10/28/12

AIA files suit against Indio claiming deplorable and substandard conditions at animal shelter


Advancing the Interests of Animals filed a lawsuit on Friday, October 19  with the Superior Court of Riverside of California against the City of Indio claiming deplorable  and  substandard conditions at its city animal shelter, as well as numerous  violations of both state and county ordinances regarding the treatment of animals in the shelter.
In the suit, we are requesting that the shelter complies with state, county and local laws, that professionally trained staff is hired to manage the shelter, and other items.

We certainly would appreciate your support of the lawsuit and the work of Advancing the Interests of Animals by donating any amount you can to help us cover the legal fees for this action. The animals of Indio deserve better and finally, we are getting the city’s attention.


You may also mail a check to:
Advancing the Interests of Animals
PO Box 5066
Palm Springs, CA 92263




Other important updates from AIA:

Grant Program: The Advancing the Interests of Animals grant program for college and university animal advocacy groups and clubs has received its first applications. Grants of up to $1,000 will be made to winning applicants to fund specific projects that aid animals, educate about animal rights and welfare issues, or promote veganism. We have contacted more than 300 groups directly with invitations to complete an easy application.  Depending on the response, we may expand this campaign next year, and may seek outside foundation support for the program. Details are on the AIA website. Please spread the word to any applicable groups you know that may be interested.


Film Contest: The AIA International Film Contest for Youth is also underway. Cash prizes and radio appearances will be awarded to young film makers in three age categories who produce winning short films (3 minutes or less) promoting animal welfare, animal rights or veganism. Again, please refer to the website and share the news of this contest with any young person who may be interested.



As always, we welcome your comments, suggestions and support.


Advancing the Interests of Animals,

Lori, Peter and Marilyn

10/27/12

Carpe Diem

 
 By: Marilyn Ramos
 
 
Carpe Diem = Seize the moment (or seize the day).
With 24 hours in a day, those of us who are animal activists have a unique opportunity to speak up for them each and every day, each and every hour. We should seize those special moments and opportunities throughout the day to get our message across. I know, however, that it is not always easy. We get distracted with our busy lives and busy schedules or if you have been an ethical vegan for a long time you sometimes can get complacent and forget why you became vegan in the first place. The fierce passion where you want to shout from the rooftops loses a little luster. I have to admit that I sometimes fall into the latter category although I try to do at least one thing per day for animals (besides not eating them, wearing them, etc.) – whether it is sign a petition, send an email or make a phone call; however, this isn’t much so it is important to look for those opportunities each day where you can make a difference or enlighten someone.
I had that opportunity last week when I went to City Wok to pick up my lunch. I usually order their hot braised tofu or their Szechuan eggplant. This was a particularly busy day and I was standing at the takeout counter waiting for my turn when an older gentleman next to me looked at me and smiled. I smiled back. He then asked, “Have you tried their BBQ honey pork? It is out of this world! I got some yesterday and my wife almost ate the whole thing herself”. GULP. Here was an opportunity! I smiled and politely stated that I don’t eat animals because I’m a vegan. The smile on his face disappeared. I then told him in about a minute or so how pigs suffer on factory farms, how they sometimes have their tails docked and teeth pulled without anesthesia. I also told him about gestation crates and how pigs are kept in these crates without the ability to stand up, turn over or simply move. I said, “This suffering is why I don’t eat animals”. Now the look on his face told me that he probably regretted making small talk. What I find humorous is that, more often than not, when you tell someone you don’t eat animals they spring into the, “Oh I don’t eat much meat either”. This gentleman said, “My wife is vegetarian a lot of the time but sometimes she wants meat”. I told him, “With all due respect sir, that doesn’t make your wife vegetarian, it just makes her someone who doesn’t eat a lot of meat. They do have some great tofu and eggplant dishes here if the two of you ever want to try something different”. He said, “Thanks”, paid for his meal and left. I tried not to be bitchy and kept a small smile on my face. I hope that the next time they eat pork (or any meat for that matter) that he will remember the quick facts about cruelty I gave him and reconsider his choice. Maybe even make a more compassionate choice. We never know how our speaking up for animals will influence others especially strangers but that doesn’t mean we shouldn't try.
I recall another time at an animal rights conference, I asked one of the staff to direct me to a specific room where a speaker was going to talk about factory farming. I didn’t ask, “Where is Ballroom B?”. I asked, “Where is the room where they will be speaking about factory farming?”. She wasn’t sure so I then said, “I think it is Ballroom B?” She gave me directions then asked, “So you are with the conference?”. I said, “Yes, why?”. She said, “Can you tell me what’s wrong with milk?”. I said, “Yes I can”. I chatted with her for about 3 minutes and she was engrossed in what I was saying. You could see the light bulb going off in her head. I then thanked her for the directions and said, “Now tomorrow, we can talk about what’s wrong with eggs!”. She chuckled, smiled and bid me adieu.
I will grant you that it took me some time to gain the courage to have these quick little conversations that mean so much. The key is to have 3 or 4 facts at the ready on any vegan topic – dairy, eggs,  meat, factory farming, animal testing, animals in entertainment, animal fur and skin used for clothing, etc.  On the occasion when they ask a question I’m not sure of, I always promise to get back to them or ask them for an email so I can follow up with an answer. Then do it! These little opportunities don’t cost us anything but a minute or two of our day but they can have a lasting effect. Of course, there is more we can do. In the past, I’ve treated coworkers to vegan pizza on World Vegan Day or World Farm Animals Day. The Berkeley Vegan Pizza from Z Pizza is great for that especially since they have the veggie crumbles and it fools the meateaters. They can’t believe that yummy slice is cruelty-free.
Many of us attend or organize protests against the circus or the rodeo or pet stores, etc. but it is these quick unexpected encounters on a daily basis that we need to seize so that we are speaking up for the innocent, speaking up for the voiceless. A bonus is that you feel pretty darn good afterwards! It also gets easier with practice.
 
 



10/8/12

Politics, Politics, Politics



By: Marilyn Ramos


With the Presidential campaigns in full swing, I often think, “Which party is more animal friendly?”  Which party regularly votes for the betterment of animals’ lives? The answer may be obvious but I don’t think it is necessarily a simple answer.

I recall attending an animal rights conference in July 2004. During one of the plenary sessions, the speaker suggested voting for so and so, a conservative anti-gay Republican who had a pretty decent track record (I wish I could remember his name) when it came to animals. I was a bit flabbergasted that this speaker would make such a suggestion. When I challenged him he responded with “So what?!”  He argued that we should be voting the animals’ interests not our own. Fortunately, the race we were discussing was not in California where I’m a registered voter so I didn’t face this dilemma.

Studies have shown that Democratic voters are generally 14 to 19 percentage points more likely than Republican voters to take a pro-animal rights position. The majority of animal rights activists and vegans I know (whether personally or just through our movement) lean to the left. The irony, however, is that in decades past both Republicans and Democrats were both fighters for civil rights. It has only been recently that the rights movement (women’s rights, gay rights, voting rights, etc.) seems to be buoyed by more Democratic leaning voters and Democratic voting Congressmen and women. So does it stand to reason that it will be Democrats and liberals who will also be in the forefront of animal rights? I believe so due to the federal congressional voting record of Republicans and Democrats but I truly hope that this can be changed. It needs to be changed. The animals need this to change.

 There is an animal rights organization that publishes an annual legislative scorecard scoring our federal representatives. I did a review and found the following numbers for those Congressmen and women who scored 50 and over:

In the Senate:      31 Democrats     4 Republicans     1 Independent

(a special shout out goes to Republican Senator Collins, Independent Senator Sanders and Democratic Senators Blumenthal, Kerry, Menendez and Reed for scoring 100 or 100+)

In the House:      148 Democrats   19 Republicans

(a special shout out goes to 57 Democratic representatives for scoring 100 or 100+. No Republican scored 100)

The lopsided numbers in the House are particularly troublesome. We need to do a better job of outreach to Congress but in particular conservative right-leaning representatives. I fear that the “animal rights” argument doesn’t seem to make a difference with a certain segment of conservatives but perhaps a more forceful argument based on the environment and health is how we can reach these people.

I also wish that more Republicans and conservatives in the animal rights movement would “come out of the closet” and make themselves known. I know it may not be an easy thing to do especially when it seems that 90% of the movement is liberal. However, I believe the conservatives in our movement have a duty and have a unique opportunity to do outreach that the rest of us may not be able to do.

I know that these things are not black and white and that many of you (like me) might have a dilemma voting for someone who is pro animals but might be against another position that is important to you. I guess we need to balance our needs with the animals’ needs and we need to do our homework on these politicians to determine how entrenched they are in all of their positions. Are they flexible? Are you flexible?

9/9/12

Dr. Kirshner Responds to the Journal of Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus Concerning Experimentation on Rabbits


Dr. Kirshner Responds to the Journal of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus Concerning Experimentation on Rabbits


Advancing the Interests of Animals: You wrote a letter to the editor of Journal of The American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus as a response to an article you found objectionable titled,

“Globe perforation during strabismus surgery in an animal model: Treatment versus observation.”

How did you become aware of the article? What specifically in the article by did you find objectionable?

Dr. Lori Kirshner: The thing that initially caught the attention of all of us, Peter, Dr. Larry Hansen and I was the sentence in the discussion section of the article, which reads,

"Due to anatomical differences between human and rabbit eyes, we cannot generalize the results of this study to human subjects.”

This was shocking to us because it effectively undermines the reason for the experiment on rabbits and the entire article. The title of the paper we replied to, as you mentioned above, is “Globe perforation during strabismus surgery in an animal model: Treatment versus observation.”  You can’t with a straight face refer to a performing research on an animal model (meaning an animal model of human disease) and later say that you cannot generalize the results to humans. So it is simply appalling. 

AIA: What was your motivation in submitting the letter?

LK: Well, after Peter and I decided a reply was appropriate, we asked Dr Hansen for his opinion and input. He is a Professor of Neuropathology at UCSD, and we knew he was opposed to unneeded research on animals. And he agreed that we should submit a letter, and provided his input. Our goal was to point out the absurdity of the research and that this well respected journal would publish this paper. Peter, as you know, is Pediatric Ophthalmologist and a member of the society which publishes this journal. We also wanted to bring attention to the issue of thoughtless vivisection to the medical community, which we feel is overall, fairly insulated to the various issues of efficacy and ethical concerns. 

AIA: What was the reaction to the letter when it was published?

LK: Well, I have to say I think we really attracted the Journal’s attention! First, there was a written reply by the authors in which they offered the usual arguments for testing on animals, advancing science and so on. Then, and I was very excited when I initially saw this, there was an additional reply by the editor in chief, Dr David Hunter, also defending the article and its methods. That’s pretty rare, that an editor in chief chimes in to defend an article.

AIA: As an aside, do you know any of the authors or Dr. Hunter?

LK: No, I do not, but Peter has told me he is familiar with Dr. Hunter's work and role in the Pediatric Ophthalmology community. Remarkably, in Hunter's defense of the article, he claims that we took part of it out of context and did not read the sentence "Due to anatomical differences between human and rabbit eyes, we cannot generalize the results of this study to human subjects.” as it should have been read. Well, in my opinion, this really brings out the desperation of their defensiveness.

If the whole thing hinges on taking the essential part of our objection out of context, then as Editor in Chief, Dr. Hunter could have and should have simply dismissed our letter as not worthy of publication. But he could not because there was more to the issue that taking a sentence out of context. We were questioning the thinking and rationale behind the research. Plus, if the sentence in question is so problematic, why did the reviewers or editors not correct it? Well, I am going to guess (and I mean guess) that the reviewers failed to recognize the problem because they are not tuned into the animal welfare elements involved in vivisection.

AIA: What do you think you achieved? Did you win a battle here?

LK: Well, one does not win these skirmishes. I doubt anyone will close down his or her animal lab after reading our letter. But I am hopeful that perhaps we may spark a greater sense of thoughtfulness when performing research on non-human animals. Why am I doing this research on animals? Is this research important? Will the results of this research advance science in a meaningful way? These are questions that I believe ought to be carefully considered by those who perform scientific research on non-human animals and to me it is evident the authors of the present paper did not ask these questions.

AIA: Do you oppose all research on animals?

LK: Let me say that I strongly believe we do way too much research on animals. I think a lot of it is unneeded. I think the Bagheri study is an example of this. No matter what this study found, it would not change anyone’s practice of surgery on a human. So the authors state they are advancing science; that is their rationale. Dr. Hunter assures the readers that the animals were treated appropriately. Well, maybe. My view is that if you are going to torture and kill sentient beings in the name of science, you should be doing better science. But if the value you place on the life of a rabbit is zero, then it doesn’t matter at all what you do to them. So even with institutional animal care and use committees, talk about the fox watching the henhouse, this is the current reality of medical research.
And of course the other huge issue of efficacy  - I have to mention that. The use of animals as models for human disease, especially in drug development, frequently leads us astray and causes harm to people, as in the case of Vioxx. Merck paid more than 3,000 claims to families of people killed an injured by Vioxx – that’s almost 5 billion dollars! What did animal experimentation accomplish in this case? It gave false assurances that Vioxx would be safe and effective for humans, thereby causing an estimated 27,000 to 55,000 preventable deaths! So, I hope for a time in the near future when we will look back upon the practice of vivisection as an ancient cruelty from unenlightened times, like slavery and torture.



AIA: The article cited is Bagheri A, Erfanian-Salim R, Ahmadieh H, et al. Globe perforation during strabismus surgery in an animal model: Treatment versus observation. J AAPOS 2011:15:144-147.

The citation for the letter by Drs. Kirshner, Spiegel and Hansen is: Globe Perforation during strabismus surgery in an animal model. J AAPOS 2012;16:217-218.

The author’s reply to our letter may be found here: J AAPOS 2012;16:217-218.

Dr. Hunter’s Editor’s note’s citation is: J AAPOS 2012;218-219.