Animal Liberation
Animal Liberation
Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Two Bombs Explode in Emeryville -- Federal Agents Investigate
by repost
Thursday Aug 28th, 2003 2:24 PM
Federal agencies were called in to investigate two bombs that exploded early Thursday morning outside an Emeryville biotech company.
Two Bombs Explode in Emeryville -- Federal Agents Investigate

Simon Perez

Federal agencies were called in to investigate two bombs that exploded early Thursday morning outside an Emeryville biotech company.

Agents were looking into possible links with animal rights groups, as Chiron employees have reported being harassed at their homes over the last several weeks.

The bombs went off between 3am and 4am at Chiron's offices on 53rd and Hollis. The devices were described as rudimentary -- five-gallon containers set off with egg-timers, investigators said.

"They were powerful enough to do damage," said Emeryville Police Sgt. LaJuan Collier. "They were powerful enough to shatter windows."

No one was injured.

Chiron has been targeted by animal rights protesters before, because it uses animals to test its cancer and infectious disease drugs. Recently, the company had sent an email to employees, asking them to be aware of anything suspicious.

"The FDA (news - web sites) requires that all pharmaceutical companies use animals for testing and research before they put any compound into human beings," said Chiron spokesperson John Gallagher.

"I'm not sure what's trying to be accomplished here," said Emeryville Mayor Ken Bukowski. "We're trying to save humanity with Chiron. We're not trying to do anything bad."

Agents from the ATF and FBI (news - web sites) were on the scene Thursday afternoon, along with officers from the CHP, the Emeryville Police Department, the Joint Terrorism Task Force, and the Alameda County bomb squad.

"Unfortunately, California has the dubious distinction of having more bombing incidents than any state in the United States," said Marti McKee of the ATM. "We have over 600 a year. Most of those have nothing to do with protest. They generally have to do with disgruntled employees, or personal relationships gone awry."
Add Your Comments

Comments  (Hide Comments)

by more reports
Thursday Aug 28th, 2003 3:26 PM
(08-28) 12:10 PDT -- SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Two small bombs exploded and shattered windows early Thursday on the campus of biotechnology company Chiron Corp., but nobody was hurt and authorities said damage was minimal.

A spokesman for the group said he was unsure if the bombing Thursday was related to any animal rights protest. ``But it looks like an action that we would support,'' spokesman Kevin Jonas said.,1282,-3081530,00.html

by schau
Thursday Aug 28th, 2003 4:27 PM
I don't know what their connection with Huntingdon Life Sciences is, but the group dedicated to shutting them down is very energetic and active right now, especially when you consider that there are many agricultural colleges around the country, and many many beef packing plants (that also abuse their desperate workers) and many research facilities. Actually, most animal research does not involve killing mammals and weird types of surgery - for instance, most people in the molecular & cellular biology department at UC Berkeley study cells, like yeast cells or blood cells, and at most they keep some rabbits that they inject with a protein, and then come back later and draw blood and isolate the antigen. But anyway, a quick search of the subject on google should demonstrate that some people really really are not happy with Huntington Life Sciences
by hmm
Thursday Aug 28th, 2003 5:29 PM
Not sure of the connection to Huntington Life Sciences, but the thing with some recent ELF/ALF attacks is that they dont have to have been real. If a business is losing money and burns down its own property it can blame ELF or ALF and its pretty obvious that someone will take responsiblity on the web since there are no actual connections between the people claiming the responsibility on the web site and the people carrying out the attacks (which is why nobody ever gets caught).

Its all rather silly really when you think about it since the tactics of ELF and ALF can actually help the very companies they claim to despise (no discoveries being made? If you do animal research you can burn your own business down and claim the wasted equipment as an insurable loss... Suddenly realize a subdivision shouldnt be built since the realestate market has changed? Burn it down and blame ELF and then use the money for something the market now supports)
by jilia
Thursday Aug 28th, 2003 7:19 PM
Yes - I remember an incident when mere tagging with black pen on a McDonald's saying 'ELF' or ALF was put into the AP wire as another strike by the group.
by a human with liver disease
Thursday Aug 28th, 2003 9:40 PM
Huntingdon Life Sciences is working the final bugs out of pig to human liver transplants. This will save countless human lives, perhaps even my own. If you prevent them from completing their task before I need a transplant, and no human liver is available, I'll die, it will be your fault, and I will spend my last days on earth hunting you down and taking you with me.

Leave Huntingdon Life Sciences alone.
by Red Beetle
Friday Aug 29th, 2003 9:05 AM
GOOD JOB ROD ! Your style is un-mistakable. To bad you have other folks doing your dirty work. See you back in Fieldbrook or at the post office in Blue Lake. The RED BEETLE is on to you.
by no moral justification
Friday Aug 29th, 2003 9:06 AM
First off, there is no proof that anyone from ELF/ALF did anything to Huntingdon Life Science, it is speculation and an anonymous person on the internet who "claims" responsibility. A corporation in need of new funds/equipment will be much more likely to recieve it in the event of a percieved "attack", corporate insurance scams are nothing new..

The issue of animal testing and animal cruelty needs to be addressed regardless of who set the fire. The fact that this corporation is keeping animals locked up and subjected to gross experiments is disgusting. Simply because human animals percieve themselves as smarter and more powerful, that doesn't justify imprisoning a non-human animal..

If human animals are sick, then we need to address the health and nutrition of the person. If we allow sugar soda (Pepsi, Coke) in public schools, then people will get diabetes, the trend follows the action. If we take the refined sugar drinks out of the schools, then less people will get diabetes. In this epidemiology and statistics among human animals will give us more accurate results than sticking a needle into a listless rabbit..

The rabbits don't operate junk food factories, nor do they dump toxic chemicals into the oceans. Human animals cause these problems, and we must deal with our bodies reactions to the toxins we created (or stop making them). Rabbits need not be locked up and injected with needles just so human animals can see just how toxic that toxin is. Anyway, most of these experiments are not accurate anyway, the animals are already depressed and unhealthy from living in unatural conditions..

Set the animals free from corporate cruelty!!
by we all need some sleep
Friday Aug 29th, 2003 9:47 AM
"Animal resting prevents many times more suffering than it causes"

I think everyone would agree with that. We all need to sleep sometime or we would die.

Animal testing as a whole other matter. Do you really think biotech companies are working on ANYTHING with animal testing that an average American (let alone nonAmerican) could afford. Claiming that corporate animal testing saves lives is like saying that genetically modified food saves lives; the whole issue of whether the technology can have a positive effect is only half the issue, the larger issue is the Capitalist system that determines distribution of both food and access to healthcare. Food and health are both primarily distribution problems rather than technological problem.

If some company can grow transplantable livers in pigs will that really save lives? Ignoring the suffering of the actual pigs (which is really a religious difference between you and the animal rights crowd), how many livers will be produced through this process and how much will it cost. If the total cost per liver is a million dollars, will it really save lives. A few rich people or others with really good insurance may have their lives saved but many more people could have been saved if the same money went to more standard health treatments for people without money or insurance. As with most corporate products one should also take into account the lives lost in the production of the products; the biotech company itself probably didnt have too many deaths of scientists but the products that make up a million dollar medical expenditure probably involved low paid labor in unsafe factories in some third world country.

To believe the corporate PR that animal testing saves lives is about as silly as believing that nuclear power, genetically modified food, or SUVs save lives.
by ?
Friday Aug 29th, 2003 10:20 AM
What is the primary use of animal testing? Cosmetics, biotech, testing new drugs before they are tested on humans? I dont know but this debate seems to hinge on that.

The coffee Im drinking while typing this was probably never tested on animals. I cant really think of any food products that would need to be tested on animals since we pretty much already know which ingredients are safe and which are not. The same goes for toothpastes, soaps etc.. I cant really think of a good argument for new ingrediants that would need to be tested on animals; new synthetic ingredients added to everyday products seems risky whether or not there is animal testing (Im sure thalidomide was tested on animals ...)

As for medicine I cant think of too many cases where animal testing would be needed either. But I'm not a doctor so thats a question someone else can answer. Are there any medical advances being made today using animal testing that really are good uses of the money? Does testing an anticancer drug require testing on cell cultures, mice or monkeys? What about antiAIDS drugs? Is the difference between a cell culture and a monkey much larger than that between a cell culture and a human? Is the amount of money spent on this type of medicine worth it or would investment in basic health care be a better use of the money? Is private medical research actually helping people or it it mainly looking into cash crops of new drugs like viagra and diet pills?
by hehe
Friday Aug 29th, 2003 11:09 AM
"D*mn right it will. My best friend died a slow, ugly, painful death from Hep-C that he was given by hospital. A pig liver transplant would have saved his life. Don't tell me pig's life is worth more than Clance's. I don't want to hear it. Tell me to my face, and I'll hit you."

So if it took five million dollars to save your friends life you think it would have been worth it. What if that same money could have been used to save 100,000 lives of those who needed more minor treatment but couldnt aford it?

The US healthcare system is messed up for this exact reason. Americans dont want the health system socialized becasue they want their expensive treatments that are only possible under capitalism. The American healthcare system would rather spend several million saving one life than spend the same money saving thousands of lives.

You may argue that this isnt true since your friend wasnt rich and somehow they could have still been saved with a million dollar pork liver through their insurance, but that ignores why the medical system likes expenive procedures. The medical system prioritizes expensive flashy technology over routine life savings since the private sector profits are higher and since doctors are forced to pay off huge student loans. There are not high profits in routine medical treatment that saves lives but there are huge profits to be made (even when the payee is the state) if a transplant needs to be performed or someone needs to get brain surgery.

Its always sad when a friend dies and if you were close to them it sometimes feels like their life should be saved at any cost. Hundreds of kids die in Oakland every year from diseases that are easily treatible. Kids get gunned down in the street and the ambulances dont show up for hours because they dont care. Many lives could be saved with just a few hundred dollars of medical care. ... But somehow we are supposed to feel sorry for you since your friend had a liver problem and needs a million dollar pork liver that probably will kill the first few people its tested on?

Supporting the corporate medical establishment (despite the millions it indirectly kills every year) because it might produce some magical pork liver is pretty sick. Capitalism maintains it grip on the American people for exactly this reason (remember the ads a few years ago against universal healthcare).
by ?
Friday Aug 29th, 2003 1:08 PM
What's a coed girl?
by are
Friday Aug 29th, 2003 1:28 PM
poisoning everyone with toxic mercury containing fillings (amalgam or silver).
Insurance pays for it but if you want to avoid these fillings and get composite, you have to pay out of pocket.
When you get sick slowly from the mercury in your system, the health system will deny that there is anything wrong and you are just suffering with depression and prescribe paxil.
by It's a College Girl
Friday Aug 29th, 2003 1:29 PM
You should learn how to use a dictionary. What are you, an anarchist?

Do you think dictionaries are capitalist tools to control the language of the working class?

by BBored
Friday Aug 29th, 2003 2:22 PM making me mighty hungry! I think I'll go to In 'N Out Burger for one of their tasty, juicy disks of flesh. And I'll be sure to ask for it "Animal Style" (part of their secret menu that's not advertsised.)

Bon appetite!
by no moral justification for animal cruelty
Friday Aug 29th, 2003 2:57 PM
Part of the problem we've created under western capitalism is the avoidance of death. A lady in a nursing home is kept alive on all types of life support (food, air, cardio), yet she cannot talk nor move. All day she lays in bed and stares at the ceiling. She is too old to improve yet her children and the nursing home are keeping her alive. Both are getting payoffs from the insurance company. Nobody, not even Jack Kevorkian, can set her free from the prison her life has become. Even when this tragedy is occurring around the USA, people still fear a natural, timely death..

This is an extreme example when compared to someone who could get a liver/heart transplant and survive. However, does this procedure justify killing an animal (pig or baboon) who wants to live also? How does this human have the right to the liver/heart of another living, breathing being? If the pig needs a liver transplant, would it get a healthy human liver?

It seems that it is more about power and oppression, the human simply takes the liver/heart from the pig/baboon because he can. This oppression of a weaker species is not a moral choice, yet people use religion and rationalization about human value over other living beings to justify this murder of an innocent animal. The millions of dollars needed to make this transplant could also be spent on food for third world children, as an earlier post..

Life and death are healthy parts of the natural cycle, some people live and some people die of natural causes. Oppression and animal imprisonment is interfering with the natural cycle. Whether wealthy capitalists oppressing impoverished people or animals (we're all animals), it is not part of a healthy cycle. This is humans taking more than what they need, even if it is to prolong their own lives..

When the native people hunted bison on the plains, they honored and respected this animal and used all parts for their food and shelter. The bison roamed free and lived a happy existence until it was met with the hunter's spear. Never was this animal imprisoned and subjected to a lifetime of cruel experiments. Compare this to Huntingdon Life Sciences and their caged animals being shocked, drugged and injected with all sorts of toxic chemicals..

Animal imprisonment and torture is wrong...

BTW, isn't our prison system doing the same thing to human animals? Many new and dangerous drugs were first tried unknowingly on prisoners, who were monitored for effects. It shows that capitalism in USA has no respect for living beings, pig, baboon or human. Only power, greed and money..

by It's a College Girl
Friday Aug 29th, 2003 3:36 PM
life, death and oppression, would be an excelant title for a biography of radical liberal extreamist groups in the us.
obnoxious brats that live off mommy and daddy and spend their days disrupting the society, in some cases the society that dools out thier welfare chech.

if you are so un-happy move to Afganistan, then burn their buisnesses and see what happens.
by non-idiot
Friday Aug 29th, 2003 6:07 PM
It's refreshing to see that rather than discussing the specific issue at hand, we have some, uh, less enlightened posters turning this string into an error-riddled attack on animal-rights activism in general. Some previously-unheard-of group claimed responsibility for a bombing that could very well have been an insurance scam; and it's looking suspicious, what with the apparently weak connection to HLS, the warning inside the company, and the reported presence of employees during the explosions. I mean, how do y'all feel about this particular event? If there were indeed employees in the building who could have been harmed by the blasts, doesn't that make it morally questionable and tactically destructive? And if the company targeted has never done business with HLS, why bother attacking it? Also, as for Mr. Pork Liver: if anti-HLS activists are murderers for trying to prevent tests on animals that could possibly eventually save someone's life, then how do you characterize those who slaughter the pigs to obtain the livers that might someday save a dying human? Heroes?
by David Chain
Saturday Aug 30th, 2003 12:14 AM
as idiot would like to draw the conversation into a series personal attacks against anyone who draws the obvious conclusion
that this was the work of activists (or a better term Eco-terrorists) who even posted to their web sight that they did this.

but now the bait and switch comes in, Eco-terrorists now engage in finger pointing, to try to save them selves from being accused of what they have already admitted to. "armature at best"

if this is your gama plan you are riding on borrowed time!
by weir
Saturday Aug 30th, 2003 10:12 AM
coed is a stupid term, and shouldn't imply women more than men. The Rose Hulman Institute of Technology started accepting female students last decade, so maybe it is appropriate there, but other schools have had them for some time so they aren't a novelty, and usually are the majority.

Anyway, there's been lots of moves involving the FBI and not just local police against animal rights groups - not just ALF but also various mundane college clubs made up of 18 year old students:

The recent Patriot act changes the law with regards to conspiracy too - here is a good article to read.
My understanding is that organizing ahead of time to break a minor law, like arranging to jaywalk with use of walkie-talkies, will ratchet the penalty up to a felony or misdemeanor. Now, doing something like providing aid to an activist (like letting them sleep on your floor) who then goes on to commit a crime, makes it conspiracy, and the penalties are higher than before:

quote from link "Similarly, if you shelter dogs that are rescued from a laboratory by the ALF, or if you provided a room for a demonstrator who later became involved in a violent protest activity, you too could be arraigned under the Patriot Act. A foreign student involved with PETA or, certainly, the ALF, could be retained and deported for providing assistance to a "domestic terrorist" organization. Speaking out in support of the ALF or ELF can earn you a criminal charge, as can taking pictures of animal abuse in laboratories or factory farms and slaughterhouses.

"During the same time, the FBI interrupted a University of Minnesota meeting of the Student Organization for Animal Rights, asking for the names of all members of the group during the past few years. On the same day in late April 2003 the FBI raided the New Jersey office of the animal rights group Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) and the Seattle home of ALF-supporter Josh Harper. In the UK and New Jersey, SHAC now has to contend with new “exclusion zone” laws that severely inhibit their controversial protest tactics. And in May 2003, the FBI successfully subpoenaed Fresno State University for the tape of the direct action panel that addressed a public audience of over 500 people. In May 2003, the Rocky Mountain Animal Defense group, a mainstream animal advocacy organization in Boulder, Colorado, learned that the University of Colorado police had been monitoring them as suspected “extremists” and forwarded documents about group activities (such as organizing yard sales) to Denver police. At the May 16-17 World Agricultural Forum in St. Louis, Missouri, police raided buildings housing activists and indiscriminately harassed and arrested people. On a local cop chat room, one officer wrote salivated over the kind of stun gun technology he desired to deal with the protestors: "I want that 220 Volt model that blows the teeth out of their head, just before they crap their pants.”

by cp
Saturday Aug 30th, 2003 11:28 AM
Clicking on the 'bite back' magazine cover story interview with Paul Watson, captain of the Sea Shepherd, Watson says that he teaches ecology at UCLA. I googled his name, and found several areas on the net where he referred to himself as a professor of ecology at UCLA.

I went to the UCLA website and brought up zero references to a Paul Watson. If he actually teaches there, it must be that he was a guest lecturer to a student club, or part of an extracurricular 'experimental college' type of course that isn't really part of UCLA. It's like, I'm the first to argue that education should occur outside of official schools and that noncredentialed people can have a lot of knowledge or teaching skill, but if he agrees, he shouldn't claim credentialed titles like "professor of ecology at UCLA". I also went into the BIOSIS database of several decades of biology related journals, and I got zero hits of any articles published by him. Publishing an article (there are enough journals out there that most undergraduates are capable of publishing something after doing a two month project of some sort) is the basic function of researchers and academics - it's what they do.

Anyway, Ward Churchill describes a similar form of self misrepresentation by Paul Watson. Watson claims to have been at wounded Knee, and even to have been adopted by the lakota tribe in some way, yet *nobody*, among the many queried, can even remember having seen him before, and the details he gave about the tribe were inaccurate and have to have been pretty much made up
by ruby doomsday
Saturday Aug 30th, 2003 1:49 PM
Maybe you should spend the time you do have letting go of fear and finding the inner peace you are still not ready to leave without. Life did not need to be an 8hr shift tied to a computer staring into an artificial sun. The only purpose of learning to speak, so most of us can get jobs talking about nothing useful towards our personal growth as fellow time travelers. No real human interaction, no feelings. I spend time on BART and I look around, I listen. I see everyone completely aware that everyone exists so as not to touch each other, not to look at each other, and no one talking. That does not look like freedom to me, it does not feel like freedom to me. What happened? Why are we so tired? Why are we so afraid?

All we need is FOOD, AIR, WATER and a place to rest for an unexplainable (and now unused - lucid dreaming?) amount of time called sleep (WHY DOES HOUSELESSNESS EXIST? ALL WE NEED IS A PLACE FOR A SAFE SLEEP!) Everything else is extra. SO WHY ARE WE WAISTING SO MUCH TIME WORKING ON SHIT WE DO NOT NEED? I no longer want to work for a life, I want to live the life that I already exist. A life that already is time and traveling towards the unknown.

We spend so much time trying to stay alive, looking good, having the cool toys. A BUNCH OF SHIT. SPACE JUNK warping our environment and health because of it. THE ANSWER IS NOT PIG PARTS FOR HUMANS. THE ANSWER IS: CHANGE THE WAY WE THINK OF OUR SELF WORTH, OUR TIME SPENT HERE IN THE NOW, AND THE GOOD WE CAN BRING TO THE WORLD.


Life is not about profit. MONEY IS NOT REAL! Its only value is the value we place on it. SO WHY DO WE SPEND SO MUCH OF OUR 'NOW' BOTHERING WITH IT?

HOW MUCH IS THE REST OF YOUR LIFE GOING TO COST YOU? IS IT WORTH IT? We are no more advanced than any civilization before us. All our science has done is kept more and more people alive so we can live in fear longer teaching them to work work work your life away for stuff we do not need!

So back to my origional point. You need to let go and find your peace. WE ARE ALL MADE UP OF ENERGY (MOSTLY WATER.) AND KNOWING THAT ENERGY CANNOT BE CREATED NOR DESTROYED MEANS IT IS FOREVER. EVERYTHING IS FOREVER. EVERTHING IS CONNECTED BECAUSE EVERYTHING IS THE SAME AND ONE. IT IS ALL THE SAME. Just the unexplainable phenomenon of now. I myself would look at this as a learning experience in time travel and go with the flow.


I wish the best of luck for you my fellow time traveler but killing animals to test drugs to come up with new ways of fighting the end is foolish and selfish and self centered.

LOOK INTO CHANGING YOUR FOOD AIR AND WATER. Spend the rest of your life fighting for real freedom and real unity. Help the rest of us on this journey find a way to live simple so others may simply live. It starts with you. CHANGE YOUR THOUGHTS, BECAUSE YOU CAN. LET GO AND LET THE UNKNOWN GUIDE YOU TO YOURSELF AGAIN. FIGHT THE FEAR.

by repost
Saturday Aug 30th, 2003 3:21 PM


SULTAN, Wash. - Days after 10,000 mink were released from a farm in southern Snohomish County, hundreds of the animals not yet captured have converged on local farms in search of food.
The animals had killed at least 25 exotic birds and attacked other livestock in the area.
"Over half our livestock was shredded. Murdered. Eaten alive," said Jeff Weaver, who discovered the dead birds on his farm Thursday. "These are not like regular farm animals. They're our pets."
Weaver, who breeds Indian Runner ducks and Banny chickens, said his field was full of the animals Thursday morning.
"One of the mink had part of a chicken in its mouth and was headed for the creek," he said. "They're starving. They'll kill anything in their path."
The mink also killed Weaver's geese, chicken and ducks, as well as wounded a dog and ate a 50-pound bag of bird feed. With an estimated loss of $2,000, he said he plans to improve fences, set traps and, if necessary, use a shotgun to fend off future assaults.
Diane and Joe Sallee are sealing their chickens in at night after they found the mink had killed six hens and injured several other that had to be euthanized.
"This has just devastated our chicken population. We are just so upset by this," Diane Sallee said. "The people who do these things don't think it through."
Animal activists argue that while the farm animals' deaths are unfortunate, it proves minks raised in captivity can survive in the wild.
"The amount of suffering that has been prevented by releasing them from cramped cages and freeing them from an extremely cruel death more than justifies a temporary disruption to the ecosystem," said veterinarian Andrew Knight, director of research at the Seattle-based Northwest Animal Rights Network.
Owners of the mink farm from which the animals were released estimate about 80 percent of the animals have been captured, leaving more than 1,000 unaccounted for, said Teresa Platt, executive director of Fur Commission USA. The commission is offering a $100,000 reward for information leading to the arrests and convictions of those responsible.
The FBI, which is leading the investigation, suspects an out-of-state group is responsible for the mink release at the Roesler Brothers Fur Farm off U.S. Highway 2.
The Animal Liberation Front, considered a domestic terrorist group by the FBI, has claimed responsibility.
Weaver argues that the group that released the animals didn't think of the repercussions.
"I'm not into anyone running around with fur coats on," he said. "But you cannot let 10,000 semicarnivorous animals out without having serious consequences."

by Gerta
Saturday Aug 30th, 2003 7:21 PM
Maybe it's I who doesn't understand, but how compatible are ELF and ALF in their final aims?

I wouldn't necessarily guess that ELF has a wholly antitechnology philosophy like John Zerzan and the primitivists, but ELF has a theme in its actions of opposing sprawl and wasteful polluting machines.

So back in the pre-agricultural era of humans, what did they think people ate? Agriculture is what brings about concentration of power, increases of population, and the invention of technologies. I mean, most areas before agriculture weren't purely nomadic but were partially agricultural - for instance, some west coast indians often used fire to keep down growth of trees in fields and promote growth of berries and other plants. There is such a small fraction of the earth that would naturally provide a gathering-based vegetarian diet.
by ?
Saturday Aug 30th, 2003 8:18 PM
"As for all that other stuff about western medicine and capitalist health care, I agree with most of it. However, it’s off topic. Stop trying to change the subject. We’re talking about allowing human beings to die so pigs can live. That’s a Nazi attitude if ever one was. "

First of all the Nazi mark is a cheap attack that’s logically flawed. Buddhists and Jains also support animal rights but that doesn’t make Buddhists and Jains Nazis. And Jains have been around a long time before the Nazis so would that make the Nazis Jains (or Jain sympathizers) according to your flawed logic. Oppenheimer was sortof a Jain and constantly spoke of Ahimsa, so does that make nuclear bombs somehow something related to to Jainism or Hinduism? Oppenheimer went to CPUSA meetings in Berkeley and donated a good part of his income to a fund for veterans of the Civil War in Spain. Does that somehow tie Anarchists and/or Communists to nuclear weapons? The Nazis invented the VW bug but that doesn’t make VW bug fans supporters of Nazi policies? Hitler may have been a vegetarian but he didn’t stop animal research and was more into his diet for the health. There were many early Nazis who may have been into environmental causes but that hardly links the two movements. Many early Nazis were gay too does that somehow make gay rights groups pro-Nazi?

Secondly any argument about animal testing is as an argument about corporatization of health care. How many mom and pop businesses do you know that test on animals? I could perhaps see a small company using rats, but even then doing a full-scale study on animals before testing on humans requires a large amount of capital. Being for animal testing and being an anarchist seem contradictory in the same way that being for nuclear power and being an anarchist also seems problematic (both cant be done easily by small coops) Calling those skeptical about the benefits of animal testing primitivists is like calling people who don’t support GM products like Roundup primitivists.

The whole direction this debate has gone reminds me of those who criticizes Earth First types for being more for trees than for jobs. While from a moral standpoint it might be true, that has little to do with issues surrounding stopping clearcuts (which have actually destroyed jobs) or stopping the harvesting of Old Growth (which is such a small percentage of the total forests it has little to do with jobs)

As for this weird thing with growing human livers in pigs, I don’t know where to begin. First, it seem unlikely that it will work (the baboon to human heart transplants killed more people than they saved and that was with primates). Technology has advanced a little since the baboon heart transplants and a liver might be more simple than a heart but wouldn’t there still be the problems with rejection by either the pig or the human who its transplanted to? It also seems like there could be severe dangers with such types of research leading to new human diseases; most flu strains already come from human animal contact but the probability of a virus or bacteria crossing over (ie mutating through exchange of DNA with human viruses) to humans seems like it would go WAY up when a whole organ were made to be able to coexist between two species (more chance of both a human virus and a pig virus infecting the same cell seems like more of a chance of genetic crossover). Plus are you really going to say you can see a "No Boss" style business doing research on growing human livers in pigs? I'd bet that almost all the research is private and that increases the risk to both human test subjects (someone has to be tested with the first liver) and the general population (from new flu strains like SARS); perhaps a public study would be willing to wait to try to make sure things are safe (if that’s possible) but a private company needs to show a quick return on investment (especially with the whole downturn in biotech that came after the dot com bust). I'm not a medical student so I cant give an expert opinion on this whole issue, but I would guess that its not as simple as being a choice between pig lives and human lives.
by Patriot
Saturday Aug 30th, 2003 9:48 PM
nessie has been smoking dope again. It is impossible to drain a dog of his blood, freeze it, then revive it. Get real.

The rest of what he/she said makes equal sense.

If I see these animal rights terrorists carrying weapons in my vicinity, I will fell free to take what steps are needed todefend myself and my property.
by ?
Saturday Aug 30th, 2003 11:19 PM
"Guessing is how the ignorant decide things. Treating other people’s guesses as if they were facts is how stupid people decide. Intelligent, educated people decide only after examining all of the empirical data and employing scientific method to analyze it. "

Well then I guess I should support nuclear power, the use of DU, and GM crops too since I dont study any of those things either?

What are the risks and possibilities of growing human livers in pigs? You make it should like its a clear cut case but most medical sites I can find don't.

"Furthermore, there are questions about how effectively pig liver will perform the tasks of a human liver, Fabre wrote. And because the liver is so metabolically active, the foreign proteins it produces could set off further compatibility problems. "

""The promise of xenotransplants has been around for many years, and still has not been fulfilled," said Dr. Achilles Demetriou of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. "My guess is it will not be fulfilled in the immediate future." "

"Ann Tibell, a researcher at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, has been tracking ten patients who received fetal pig cell transplants, who underwent perfusion using pig liver "bridges" while awaiting a human liver, and who received pig skin transplants for serious burns. Tibell found antibodies reactive to swine influenza in all ten patients, porcine parcovirus in five, and five other pig viruses.

In a February 1998 Nature Medicine article, several physicians advocated a moratorium on all types of xenotransplantation procedures, including xenoperfusions, due to the risk of transferring viruses from pigs to humans. But the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control have denied such requests.

Do you propose that only scientists have a right to ask questions about technologies and the general public should be told nothing since they are too stupid? Should we support the war in Iraq because we dont have Bush's CIA document access? ( I thought Blair was lying about WMD but who am I to question that when I dont have access to the classified docs...) While I don't participate in animals rights activism, the first thought I would have about growing human livers in nonhumans is that its a little dangerous if it were to be done on any sort of scale. And there are plenty of human livers that could be used if more people became organ donors (in fact one of the few links I could find reporting on pig liver use to filter blood has the man whose life was saved pushing for more donations since he thought that animal testing should be needed ).

"They are already able to kill a dog, drain it’s blood, fill it with the blood substitute they invented, cool it to a degree above freezing, keep it down for an hour, replace the blood, warm the dog up, and it revives. "

Not being an expert I guess I shouldnt question your dog ressurection story. It cant be exactly as you describe since brain death occurs very quickly after blood loss to the brain and I havn't really heard of any cases of anyone being revived after brain death ( ); but then again who am I to ask since Im not a doctor... right? I'm guessing they were testing freezing a dog with a blood substitute which wouldnt involve killing it.
I know you will go on the attack since I already said I'm not a medical student, but In my opinion cryonics will never work due to issues in involving restarting brains and damage done by water in cells outside of the bloodstream (there are probably plenty of other reasons too). Animal research done for pseudoscientific reasons like this seems much more questionable than killing animals for meat or legitimate scientific research (but you said it seemed ok so that probably means what they did so far only caused minor brain damage). On a strange sidenote people who need organs donated should be AGAINST cryonics since it could reduce the supply of organs that are needed to save lives.
"If you sign up for cryonics, you'll have to burn your organ donor card, Mark. Almost every state requires proof of brain death (the brain as pudding) before harvesting organs for transplant. If you want someone coming back in the future who is more than a simple clone of yourself, then "brain death" is a definite no-no."

"Unlike Nazis and the ALF, neither Buddhists nor Jains use terrorism to attempt to force the rest of us to follow the tenets of their belief system. "
Your argument that the use of any form of violence by environmental protests makes them fascists seems also to be pretty anti-anarchist since its identical to what right wingers post on here all the time (Although I guess it does agree with what certain people at Global Exchange said about Seattle). Is a protest that results in the blocking of traffic or the breaking of a few windows fascist if its for the enviornment but not fascist if its for some other cause? Do you see Earth First! as fascist? Do you see half of those protesting at antiGlobalization protests as fascist? I tend to see fascism as corporate control of society rather than some crazy group that one might disagree with but definitely has no ties to either corporations or the state.

The Nazi connection is an attempt by you to sideline your support for the corporate medical establishment. A Mom and Pop business might be able to pump artifical blood into their dog, but they sure are not going to have a multimillion dollar research facility capable of large scale animal testing. HLS may be no worse than other MNCs but would you really go on such a ranting offensive against someone attacking DuPont, Bechtel, ADZ,... I cant see how one can be an anarchist and support any multinational corporation, unless of course your one of those anarchocapitalists? I could see a socialist of perhaps a syndicalist supporting the operation of a current MNC under state or worker control but HLS doesnt fit either currently.
by cp
Sunday Aug 31st, 2003 10:05 AM
Use scientific method. Scientific method is they only way to ever learn the truth about reality. Everything else is a bunch of superstitious crap.

Well, in my opinion, empirical scientific method is better than alternative methods, in many fields of science - it has a more solid history of generating knowledge and insight that is not soon overturned - compared to other epistemological methods of acquiring knowledge such as consulting experts, or using logical deductive reasoning.

However, scientific method is not the only way of gaining scientific knowledge, and it is almost impossible to use empiricism in some branches of science. For instance, much of geology, astronomy, evolution, taxonomy, psychology etc. are primarily observational rather than empirical. In digging up a dinosaur, scientists primarily engage in describing what they found, and using reason and educated guessing to gain knowledge about the dinosaur's behavior rather than the hypothetico-deductive method. Because they didn't carry out an experiment doesn't mean that their observations are suspect or that the data and knowledge is flimsy or up to interpretation as someone in another academic building engaging in literature critique.
by ?
Sunday Aug 31st, 2003 12:55 PM
"The Nazi connection is an attempt to educate you as to the roots of the animal rights movement. Nothing comes from nothing. History is a process. Everything that happens, happens because something else happened first. "
Great so Nazis came from Jains? The idea that nonhuman animals should have some rights isnt a Nazi invention and didn't begin with Germans at the time of Hitler. Quoting some weird thing about animals rights views in Nazi Germany is about as low as one can sink when it comes to this type of argument.

Your calling animals rights groups terrorists seems to sink even lower in this age of Homelsand Security etc... From the reports on the news it sounded like nobody was hurt and very little damage caused in the bombings a few days ago. The attacks on windows at antiwar protests caused a lot more property damage. You can label a group you disagree with terrorist for causing property damage but its a charge that will surely come back to haunt groups you support. The FBI is already using the recent ELF arson attack in San Diego to raid activists houses in Southern California. I'm sure there will be similar raids now in the Bay Area and it doesnt help when Leftists join with the state in the comparison of small property damage with terrorism.

As for your magic pig liver, I would say your whole view of science is severely flawed. Advances are very slow. From the first animal tests with blood transfusion to the common use of transfusion with humans took over two hundred years. Just saying that something must be possible since Science can do anything makes no sense. Time machines will never exist. Humans will probably never live much longer than 120 years old (afterall if you look all animals resulting from evolution the only ones that can live beyond 200 are giant clams and they can't live much longer than that. Evolution has had a long time and produced countless variations of nanomachines. Human engineering could have some advantages over random chance but its doubtful.). Like life extension cryonics is questionable.

If someone needs a liver to survive the best bet for the near future is to get one from a human. Growing a human liver in a pig seems like science fiction because for now it is. You like to go off on people about how much you know and how they are all stupid but you might try picking up a copy of Nature some time. If you look at the stories in the front and then compare them to the actual research studies in the back. You might be surprised that all the wonders of modern science are still pretty basic compared to the popularized hype that appears in popular science publications.

Ok enough back and forth for now. I can look up studies on the internet about pig livers and so can you. Animals rights is based off ones morality rather than logic (same goes for beliefs on equality, the value of human life, abortion etc..) so attacking or defending animals rights seems like it wont lead anywhere. I am more surprised by the strength of your feeling against animal rights groups than about your actual views; many animal rights activists are also active on other issues and threats to punch people in the face for their beliefs and the like seem pretty devisive and almost like the rantings of a right wing troll.
by Washoe
Sunday Aug 31st, 2003 1:52 PM
There is a good book that pertains to these type issues.
Roger Fouts : Next of Kin
The book is about chimpanzees and ASL.

by crosspost
Sunday Aug 31st, 2003 3:55 PM
Rick Ross is listing the ALF as a cult. This bully who lived up the street from me in 4th grade is the one who bankrupted Rick Ross for abducting him when he was over 18, when his mom paid to try to get him out of the local pentecostal cult. Of course, Walmart is a cult too, if you apply the definition.
by repost
Sunday Aug 31st, 2003 4:12 PM
well, this is weird. this british guy sez that ALF abducted him and branded the acronym 'alf' on his back,$msgNum=41551&page=3

but this animal rights journal says that they think he probably made it up and branded his own back:

And over here the Rick Ross site is saying that white supremacists are infiltrating the WTO protests:
by :)
Sunday Aug 31st, 2003 4:32 PM
Pet-eating giant lizard terrorises Beirut

He's big, he's a carnivore, he's terrorising the neighbourhood's residents, he's been swimming in people's pools and he's already claimed victims - several cats, a dog and apparently even a horse.

In Lebanon, a giant lizard has been roaming the streets of a Beirut suburb for several weeks, eluding all the attempts by the authorities to catch it.

He's Lebanon's own Komodo Dragon, or so say the witnesses who have seen him.

Komodo Dragons are an endangered species and live in Indonesia.

They belong to the family of monitor lizards.

It's believed that the one living just outside Beirut was brought to Lebanon by a German who lived here and eventually set him free.

About three months ago, one person sighted him, but his tale was dismissed as that of a crazy person.

But when pets started disappearing, people started paying attention.

It's still possible that the dragon is not a dragon at all, but one of many kinds of monitor lizards, all of which are carnivores.

The civil defence has stationed dozens of personnel all over the area, but it lacks the sophisticated equipment needed to catch the lizard without harming it.

The civil defence is now trying to take a picture of the lizard to prove it is indeed a Komodo Dragon and sent an appeal for help to nature and science TV channels.
by peanut gallery
Monday Sep 1st, 2003 6:50 AM
It seems as if this thread has drifted off into shoot from the hip barbs and retorts--boo-hooey shouts the peanut gallery! What! Yes, in spite of the compelling becomes obvious there is much passion on this subject, yet does passion cloud ones ability to bridge knowledge gaps. Bridging the knowledge gap is helpful when looking to advance ones sincere agenda/opinion/ideas--isn't the search for compelling argumentation equally exciting as voicing opinions in a debate format such as this? The work on artificial blood is fascinating and on the leading edge of modern science. Hopefully your friends work will be published soon. There are many doing this work on artificial blood, some we know are in the UK. Fantastic, much needed research with great implications for public health and containing infectious disease.

My question though is how can one ombat 'ignorance' if one refers to questions from others as 'stupid'? that type of language isn't very inviting, nor welcoming--them are fightin' words, not: hey! lend me your ear. More like: hey! come hear--BOO!! Too often, knowledge loses strength, meaning if not proferred as a path to greater understanding of one anothers positions...are these opinions posted for mental masturbation...ego and pride?--and i only say this in response to the underlying crabby tone here. Are arguments posted here as part of a debate with the goal of greater understanding and sharing ideas, or is this just virtual mental, 'mechismo' posturing high noon style--shoot 'em down, shoot 'em out? How can one convince others to take good ideas seriously when dialogue is reduced to base attacks?

My opinion: Life is a degenerative process--enjoy the ride; don't let your intellectual talents for debate follow suit...Nessie, certainly, I agree with your angle and opinion, yet when you digress--that is, er, make kinda comes off beagle-weasel like...back off a hare...don't be such a prickly pear! har de har har...[sincere joking tone here] Alhto, there is too much unnecessary waste of mammal life in labs today, and that's a fact which the research community should address.

Yet, as for stated desires for "immortality'?!! Is this for real?! Quality of life should be the ultimate goal, once quality lost, life cain't be worth living. Can't imagine you are looking forward to becoming a guinea pig for geriatric science and medical school residents experimentation...all cells have clocks--um, a many transplants does one have in order to live forever? It would be remiss not to try and persuade Nessie immortality is not very healthy, ie: that's a lot of going under the knife, that's a lot of Rx regimens, side-effects, general anestheia, graft rejections, blood stock, and reveals an uncanny, naiive trust in for-profit 'science' and 'medicine' to deliver without exacting flesh--flesh from you, your families,donors and community.

Controversial public health dogma has been bandied about here, (so then): does it follow that the benefits must outweigh risks/costs? live beyond ones years would require unending intervention, hospital stays, surgery, pills, blood stock, poison--poison because at times reversing or stopping the bodies natural processes is much more damaging to the cyclical nature of our bodies, ergo ones health, ergo ones quality of life...immortality is not healthy--not with what is known about the for-profit biomedical research community!

Look at Rachel Carson's, Samuel Epstein's, Hubbard, etal...over 50 years of historical criticism linking HRT and other hormone based (elective treatments) to rising reproductive cancers in science intervened in the natural aging process--a silver bullet to make 'em feel 'younger'(?).... and potentially giving women flashes, dryness vs. cervical, breast cancer...hmmmm....what to do, what to do... This remained true despite knowledge that the for-profit pharmaceutical and biomedical research community traditionally does not use women in safety and efficacy trial groups...not even female rats because they cost more...and yet Premarin was one of the leading profit makers on the world market for many years. Thanks to the efforts of women's health activists, activist scientists, and others involved in the two recent studies linking Rx hormones to increased risks of cancer. Coincidentally, a majority of repro-cancer drug treatments are hormone based, or hormone antagonists...when profit is involved why not treat cancer with cancer causing agents?

Medicalization of natural bodily functions is a dangerous protocol; and is ethically corrupt, this should be a consideration when debating organs, reaping or rearing, for immortality(?!) must be kidding, right...altho, you keep mentioning it, which cought my interest. Don't get in a huff...a very dear, dear friend with bi-polar kidney cancer needed a transplant and after many years wait, received a kidney. There is graft rejection; and a 39 pill/day regimen that is sapping their energy. I want science to deliver quality of life for them, they deserve it, they are too young yet.

As for me, I will gladly, happily pass into dust and dirt and worm food, when my time comes at a ripe old, degenerate age, because that is the the natural course of life...I celebrate life's degenerative process, pro-aging, pro-passing...methane! Socially responsible medicine based on ethically sound science, preventive health, alternative medicine, science for the greater good--raising quality of life for all communities is common sense, something to fight for... yet scientific pursuit of immortality is simply, at this point, illogical, and sounds painful, creaky-creepy, sci-fi horror....twisted tales scenario, perhaps. Butt, to each bare...err, their own.
by biteback magazine quotations
Monday Sep 1st, 2003 11:52 AM
From the biteback Mag. link :
Paul Watson
"Put away the tired rhetoric about social justice. All people are the same. The poor are simply wannabe rich people.. Look at slavery. The blame lies with both races. Europeans never captured a single slave. They bought them from black Africans who captured them to sell as slaves. American Indians were slaughtering each other and stealing each other's land long before whit epeople arrived.

Why should I care about a Taliban or Saudi woman? Most of them embrace the primitive concepts of Islam. They are like beaten wives who defend the violence of their husbands. I reject all of these ridiculous anthropocentric monkey god religions. When these Holier Than Thou types fight each other, it is a distraction and changes nothing.. All that matters are the laws of ecology. the law of diversity of species. the Law of interdependence of species. The law that the interest of a species must take precedence over the individual rights of a single individual of any species (comment- these laws cannot be found in ecology texts).
by one of the editors
Monday Sep 1st, 2003 5:11 PM
it contained a text string that screwed up the wrap.
by willow
Tuesday Sep 2nd, 2003 1:22 AM
Why isn't A.L.F.protesting the mid sept. fund raising bar-b-q of earth first?
why is it wrong for science to kill living things, BUT EARTH FIRST CAN GRILL DEAD ANIMALS - FOR PROFIT! ( it's not nice to eat the dead )

Shunka's no better than the evil people who harvest fur! how many animals will give their lives for your bar-b-q

Shunka you have no sole
by blau
Tuesday Sep 2nd, 2003 12:20 PM
But, the ALF and other animal rights groups still *do* embrace a hierarchy of value of animal life in terms of their size and membership in the mammal clade. By far, the greatest number of species and number of individuals occurs in the invertebrate phyla, and this is where the greatest numbers of extinctions occur. but ALF and others devote far more attention to certain large mammals. In doing so, they replicate the value system that meat eaters use, where some species are valued more than others.

It's important to realize that absolutely no one is capable of escaping the hierarchical value classification of animals, because even a vegan must kill insects in the process of agriculture and daily living, But at the same time, the inevitability of having to devalue some species doesn't mean that the correct position is to devalue everything. Even people who eat meat at each meal typically value endangered species like eagles, and value family pets. The reality is that everyone must assume a position on animal rights between two impossible absolute positions (either full or no animal rights).
by willow
Tuesday Sep 2nd, 2003 1:35 PM
Why isn't A.L.F.protesting the mid sept. fund raising bar-b-q of earth first?
why is it wrong for science to kill living things, BUT EARTH FIRST CAN GRILL DEAD ANIMALS - FOR PROFIT! ( it's not nice to eat the dead )

speak out!
demand this event be canceled! this is no way for forest people to act!
by wondering
Tuesday Sep 2nd, 2003 1:49 PM
For something like '28 Days' to be set off in the near future as an experiment - why bother with costly trials when you can get ALF to set loose some infected animals on a small town?

I support animal rights, also science. It's interesting there is as much intensity on here as on the Zionist postings.

My general feeling is that we as a society are not ready for our level of technology - AT ALL. It will eventually kill us, one way or another. Animals shouldn't have to die or suffer in the process, but virtually everything will get sucked in, like the black hole of consumer technology. So both sides will suffer immensely, and then die.

Animals will also die along with all of the rest of us if we don't continue to focus on larger issues, like nukes and the government and generally allowing chaos to take hold in society.

Most people I know are still going around like nothing happened at 9/11 - movies, shopping, other bs.

What will it take for people to actually lift a finger to change the course we are headed? Animals are a tiny fraction of the suffering going on in the world, and 99% of Americans don't give a fuck about any of it. Why not focus on how to cope with the Amerinazis after the next - and inevitable - attack on the US? Amerinazis won't give a fuck about animals either, much less anyone who doesn't look exactly like them.

What will the Patriot Amerinazis do to groups like ALF?

Nonetheless, I have a fascination for fanatics of all kinds, UFOs, animals, Amerinazis, etc. How does it happen? Where does it lead?

Individual humans will use any and all technology to save their own lives. They'll kill animals or do whatever they have to. This is how we're designed. Animals would do the same if they could. Sometimes, they do. Sometimes, they win. It's part of nature.

The curious part is why ALF exists when our leader is ready and willing to nuke the planet. Is it a front (with real members primarily)?
by Re:wondering
Tuesday Sep 2nd, 2003 3:40 PM
Many groups think their issues somehow supercede the issues of every other protest movement.

It's all about class and everything else falls under that category. It's all about racism and anyone ignoring that is racist. Its all about patriarchy. Its all about stopping the "right"(usually this conjures up images of working class whites...). Its all about fighting the corporate elite. Its all about fighting the neonazis etc... Its all about the environment since when that gets worse (due to the greenhouse effect and ozone hole) all other problems will seem small...

Those who support animal rights probably see this as superceding other issues too in the sense that human are animals (and meat is a waste of resources that causes a lot of environmental destruction that leads to starvation too). Many animal rights activists may not see things this way and even many who do participate in activism on other issues.

One can always look at any local struggle and ask why its important when compared to some larger issue. Why worry about something like land use when there is a war going on? Why focus on the closing down of a local hospital when the right wing will eventually take over and shut down even more. In many cases the focus on indvidual issues is due to self interest; if you or a friend is getting evicted or needs health care an action by a local government may be much more important than national policy. I dont think many would argue against the need for clinic defense when right wing prolife groups try to shut down clinics (even though there are larger issues like the legality of abortion etc.. that those fighting on this issue may see as part of the larger struggle)

Asking "why focus on this issue now?" sortof makes sense when there are wars going on and increased dangers of government crackdowns, but its not a question one will get an answer to. If all activism focused one thing (like fighting against the PATRIOT act or making sure Bush doesnt get reelected) many local struggles would collapse and the intense focus on that one issue would probably ring hollow. This would be especially true for those engaged in struggles that directly effect their lives or effect their core beliefs. If you are sick with a curable disease and need healthcare, acces to affordable healthcare might determine ones survival. And, for many animal rights activists, those opposed to the death penality, and antilogging activists, not focusing on an issue for a "larger" struggle might seem immoral. Do we let a political prisoner get executed because we are focusing on Iraq? Its one life vs many but I dont think that makes the choice any more simple.

In terms of discussion, focusing one one issue (no matter how large) at the expense of others often just restricts those listening. This site has so much back and forth about Palestine, activists on other issues are pushed away. Animal rights activists, and environmental activists may post to this site but its not very welcoming (with attacks from the editors and trolls) so Im guessing the debate is already very restricted. I dont know how many cases Ive seen of activists who decide to unify some movement under a set of common ideals and hope that the effect will be to mobilize more people when the usual effect is that only those two to three people who decided on the universality of the ideals remain after the first few meetings.
by ted
Tuesday Sep 2nd, 2003 8:18 PM
If a stranger ever walks up and insults me like that, I’m gonna slug him. This is not because i’m a thug.

well i can see some one put his thong on backwards this morning!

nessie you might think about switching to decalf!
by Re:
Wednesday Sep 3rd, 2003 8:13 AM
"I thought this forum was dedicated to forest defense."

If you look at the front page of this site you will see that forest issues are only one of many issues that the site has assigned sections to. I'm hoping that any local news will always be considered "on topic" or Bay Area activists would need to find some other news site to post to; can you think of one?. I guess its up to nessie since it seems like hes the only self-identified editor who ever posts.
by one of the billions
Wednesday Sep 3rd, 2003 8:23 AM
Ever wonder....
Which is more 'ethical', 'moral' , or otherwise tolerable to the senses;
painful experiments conducted on a brain-dead paralyzed person, or a fully conscious lemur with all faculties intact?

Personally, I agree with the 'no moral justification' post.
If one was so inclined, they could research the multiplying effects of hydrogenated oils, refined sugar, radioactive isotopes, cigarettes, and a hundred thousand other homo sapien synthesized substances. Substances which are essentially poisons, our physical body has not had the evolutionary time to develop a tolerance or null reaction. On the contrary, many of the most common mutations(diabetes, cancer, birth defects) are lethal.
Lethal without medical treatment. There's the irony.
Poisonous science, healing science, poisonous science, healing science.
We're fucking ourselves up, in Lamens terms.

The future; 10 years, 50 years, 100, 140.....
6 billion people, 8 billion, 14 billion, 30 billion, 60.....
something has to give, it will probably be a huge portion of the mammal kingdom.

Empires, economies, nations, beliefs, cultures, species; here today, gone tomorrow.
Look to the universe. The sun will burn out, the earth will become dust, everything has it's period of existence, then evolves or disappears.

It is complete drudgery arguing and worrying about what will happen to the human race in evolutionary terms. Or which species is more important. It's an ultimate defeat of any purpose.
If we evolve, then eventually we might not even be accurately classified as 'human'. Like the classification of chimps as 'non-human', while we share over 98% common DNA. We might not have any classification at all.
Those lifeforms which spring from us could very well conduct painful experiments on what remains of our species. Who knows? They may even despise us, feeling we are an embarrassment, though resentment hardly seems like an evolutionary advancement. Hopefully, we will not pass on any Descartes like idealism. Maybe, that which jumps beyond our existence will hold the line on not fucking themselves up with harmful manufactured chemical compounds. Verily, that would be an evolutionary improvement.
by speed racer
Wednesday Sep 3rd, 2003 9:32 AM

soap box
forum jocks!
hot topic
melodramatic pocket!
slow painful hideous death
euthanize, take your last breath!
punch kick fight
armchair insight!
insult a stranger
healthy dose of danger!
pig can live
give pig, give!
primative mind
civilized bind!
terrorist group
mickey mouse troupe!
I'm not thuggish
opinionated rubbish!
debate a nonissue
XXX, grab a tissue!
<take it personal>

by another mental giant joins the chat
Wednesday Sep 3rd, 2003 9:46 AM
Thank you for sharing.
by giant mockery
Wednesday Sep 3rd, 2003 10:07 AM
Really, it was nothing.
by ?
Wednesday Sep 3rd, 2003 10:38 AM
" painful, hideous deaths so some pig can live.” "

I don't think anyone has actually said that on here. You are putting words in people's mouths. Its similar to how large agribusiness tries to rephrase the debate by trying to make it seem like those opposed to GM crops are willing to let people starve in Africa. Like hunger, healthcare is really primarilly a distribution problem; any new medical advance will save fewer lives than getting the existing healthcare to people who currently can't afford it. In some specific cases perhaps some medical advance could save an individual life, but from what you have described it doesnt sound like that was the case with your friend (since the technology is still a long ways off and the lack of available human donors is not primarilly a technical problem).

Different people have different moralities when it comes to value of nonhuman life. Most people who value human life more than that of other animals dont support cruelty towards other sentient beings. People will sometimes do a cost benefit analysis in their morality when it comes to torturing an animal to save a human life, but corporations can come up with a lot of long winded arguments about how their latest research is really about saving lives (rather than making money). In the end its a question of ones morality. One can easilly have a consistent moral system which finds no problem with eating meat but is opposed to the torturing of a primate for a psychology expirement. One can oppose eating meat but support animal testing if one really thinks it saves lives. Some Christian fundamentalists have no problem with the torturing of animals for even dubious research purposes but oppose anything that involves human DNA, embryos...

There is the danger that the line between humans and nonhumans may get blurred due to advances in science but its unlikely to be a problem with humans evolving. If advances in genetics could allow a human liver to be grown in a pig (which isnt really what is being proposed with xenotransplants since the technical knowledge to do something like that would is at least 100 years off) most people would not apply their views about the value of human life to the pig (although they might to a dog or cat despite pigs being smarter than either). But what if humans could be grown without fully developed brains as organ donors? (thats actually probably within current technology when you really think about it)The difference wouldn't be that big (once the technology exists to grow real human parts in nonhumans), but in the second case there is not a clear difference between a human engineered to be born without a brain and someone who is born with severe mental retardation (thats why its within current technology). Fundamentalist Christians (and perhaps some extreme humanist moral systems) would have a consistent moral view on this since the value of human life would be applied to an engineered human too. Animal rights activists who value animal life regardles of the animal's ability to think would have a consistent moral view of this situation. But, the most common current moral system valuing life based off sentience would probably have issues. Most people would have issues with torturing someone with severe mental retardation even if it was for medical research that could save lives, but they might not with an equivalently sentient nonhuman primate. While probably never technically possible one can image even more complicated moral situations like that of an engineered human with the brain of a nonhuman primate capable of simple sign language communication.

The line between life that should be valued and that should not can easilly be a blurry one. Even for the most radical animals rights activists there is some blur when it comes to the definition of animal (what about sponges or sea cucumbers or microscopic organisms classified as animals) and there is of course the blur when it comes to life (fetuses, sperm, parasites, ...).

Where can this leave a debate on animal testing? You cant easilly change someones basic moral views so the most that can happen is a debate between those with similar moral systems. Most moral systems are not that self consistent (most people who claim they value sentience still value a dog or cats life more than that of a pig or cow), so perhaps someones views can be changed if they realize that their applied morals are not consistent.

Sometimes questions of protest tactics can fall under applied morality (nonviolence vs property damage at protests vs armed struggle...) and the inconsistencies are the most severe when people debate this. Most people will make a huge point about any group they oppose using any tactic that is not nonviolent (and even nonviolent things like blockades of abortion clinics), when the real issues are not the tactics but the view of the groups carrying out the tactics.

There is also a certain amount of debate that does not depend on morality. Does corporate medical research save human lives or on average or spend resources in a way that causes more deaths? Is a certain direction in animal research the best way to solve a given medical problem? Do certain forms of protest tactics work?

There are a lot of things that are productive to debate when it comes to animals rights protests and the specific incident that started this thread, but when basic moral belief systems differ the usual result is a debate that goes nowhere (since people merely restate their own belief system or make accusations about others beliefs systems). Trying to debate things that can actually be debated (corporate medical research and healthcare, protest tactics, unity between activist movements) is not really changing the topic unless this thread is going to be restricted to a back and forth between conflicting moral systems that can lead nowhere.
by ?
Wednesday Sep 3rd, 2003 10:51 AM
"soap box
forum jocks!

Yep, debating on this site is usually a form of mental masturbation.

"Look at me, I can use google".

"Look at me, I have a college eduction and can bring up obscure references"

"Look at me I can come up with a whitty putdown"

"Look at me, I can somehow afford to sit around in front of a computer all day and post without working"

At first sight it looks like toughtful discussion but Ive never really seen debate on an internet discussion board lead anywhere (although action updates and news on this site are really usefull).

Im as guilty as everyone else so I should probably just stop posting and actually participate in real activism.
by Priorities$1,000,000 Transplant or Basic Care
Wednesday Sep 3rd, 2003 12:44 PM
WASHINGTON, Sept. 2 — The Bush administration is relaxing rules that say hospitals have to examine and treat people who require emergency medical care, regardless of their ability to pay.

Under the new rule, which takes effect on Nov. 10, patients might find it more difficult to obtain certain types of emergency care at some hospitals or clinics that hospitals own and operate.
by something to consider
Wednesday Sep 3rd, 2003 4:49 PM
This is an illustration, directed at nobody in particular, it's just something to consider;

Our tribe is dying off from starvation quickly. We have to choose one of the following entities to take care of, then ultimately consume.
One man(outsider) and his morality, or a sow and baby pigs.
We're taking the sow with baby pigs and telling the man once to get gone. First of all, we're not about practicing cannibalism and second, we don't have the resources to take care of both. Besides, our morality has hit rock bottom, he means nothing to us.
Thus, the pigs are worth more than him. What good is his self preservation morality when my tribe is dying? Heeding our warning is about all it would be good for right then and there.
What is he going to do, attack us? Because he's insulted? We've got nothing to lose, we're dying of starvation.

You can actually read about situations like that;
Colin M. Turnbull, The Mountain People
There is good article in the latest National Geographic about slavery. Or an even better article pertaining to these type social conflicts is in one of the last issues, about Hindu 'untouchables'. Take India for example, many untouchables are held in lower esteem than sacred animals. I don't agree with the caste ideology, but that's not the point. The point is, millions of people are often treated with less dignity than animals. It's nothing new. People in some cultures live their whole lives beneath the basic respect given to certain animals.

I don't feel the ALF are terrorists. And I don't feel they are 'murderers', unless they have directly, personally, in the flesh, hands-on, without a reasonable doubt, absolutely, been there, blood on their hands, slain people, and I don't know about it.
But, I can certainly understand how one would label them terrorists. Besides, pointing out 'terror' is chic these days. Even typing it, the power of pride rushes down to my finger tips.

by not really
Wednesday Sep 3rd, 2003 4:51 PM
"Besides, this is not about economics. It's about the use of terrorism to deny other people the choice not to put your religious beliefs into pratice in your own life"

So youve now decided to label people who do property damage to corporations "terrorists". Is it because they are motivated by a different morality than your own? Do you see the recent ELF attack in S Cal against development as an act of terrorism? What about Earth First! spiking of trees? What about Palestinian groups fighting for independence?

And, how is animal rights activism denying you the right to "put your religious beliefs into pratice in your own life". Is torturing animals a religious belief? I dont see groups going around attacking people who sacrifice animals (is that the complaint). Or are you saying that if you want to stick a cat in your mailbox with a firecracker to watch it explode, thats your god given right as an American citizen (and anyone who says otherwise is infringing on your freedom).

Who a technology benefits (only the very rich or the general population) determines many peoples views on the morality of the technology. If GM corn could prevent world hunger maybe there wouldn't be opposition to it. In a happy futuristic anarchist utopia perhaps GM corn and animal testing could be done in a way where the costs are worth the benefits. But we live in the current world where doctors are encouraged to go into things like brain and heart surgery rather than general practice and the healthcare technology that corporations invest in are ones that will be very expensive and therefore guarantee high returns.

Unless you are really arguing that it should be anyones freedom to torture animals for fun, the economics of medical care is not "off topic".
by costs of medicine
Wednesday Sep 3rd, 2003 4:56 PM
"Advances in cardiac care have saved the lives of Luther and millions of other Americans. And as his case illustrates, they are one of the most powerful driving forces behind the nation's soaring health care costs.

With the United States spending an estimated $200 billion last year on heart disease and stroke, cardiovascular care vividly captures the competing stresses on the health-care system: The more it advances, the more chronically ill people it can keep alive, and the more costs rise. In a compassionate society, how do you strike a balance between insatiable need and limited resources?

``The real issue here,'' said Dr. Stanley Rockson of the Stanford University Medical Center, ``is the willingness to pick up the tab.'"
by yep
Wednesday Sep 3rd, 2003 5:45 PM
"It costs the life of pigs. It saves the lives of humans"

Yep your a smart one. I can say that GM corn prevents starvation in Africa but that doesnt make it so. Investing societies money and energy into expensive medical research rather than basic care costs more lives than it saves.
by ?
Wednesday Sep 3rd, 2003 6:29 PM
"But I do not share your delusions. When you prevent me from partaking in the benefits of animal testing, you are infringing on my right to choose. If it causes my death, you’re a murderer."

So if society outlawed the selling of body parts so that rich people couldnt buy extra kidneys and lungs off of the very poor you would see such a rule as murder? If Bush had some rare terminal illness and decided to devote billions towards finding a cure, would opposing this misallocation of resources be similar to murder? You sound like some corporate PR agent accusing environmentalists of starving poor people in Africa by standing in the way of biotech. How can denying a corporation the right to spend societies money on costly research be murder?

Everything that involves corporate policies in the US is related to economics since money is scarce. Either a homeless person gets their life saved in an emergency room or research gets done that might at some distant point in the future have saved a friend of your who already died. Its not a question of a pigs life vs your friends life, its a question of spending societies resources on the poor or investing in technologies that may help the rich in the distant future.

Deal with the questions at hand rather than repeating yourself. Are there cases where society should have a right to restrict the torture of animals or should torture of animals for fun be legal? Is the torture of animals for testing of cosmetics and other non-medical uses something that society should have a right to regulate ? Is corporate research into growing organs in animals a good use of societies limited resources (money, scientists, doctors, etc..)? I dont think these questions are as simple as asking whether a pig is worth more than your friend but you dont seem to like debating real issues, you seem to just like demonizing other activists and alienating people by calling them terrorist.
by landover
Wednesday Sep 3rd, 2003 6:29 PM
Things aren’t so simple any more. Witches have learned a lot since the days of the Puritans. They’ve learned that if they show their hideous faces in public, it won’t just be their warts we burn off. So, they’ve had to go undercover in their efforts to recruit the weak-willed to the service of their master in Hell. To induce these naïve innocents to join their filthy cult, they have been forced to come up with a politically correct justification for their association. They have had to conceal the real purpose of their late-night meetings, when they cast spells on the vulnerable, brew hideous potions, and sacrifice infants to the devil. They have had to come up with a modern message that will be attractive to the weak-kneed while not raising the ire of True Christians™ that much. That message is called “vegetarianism.” Today’s witches are called “vegans.”


I don’t know how Jesus could have warned us any more directly about these devils. They try to hide behind phrases like “animal lover” and “animal rights advocate.” That is devil-speak if I ever heard it! The Bible makes clear that God created animals for one purpose only - our nutritional and intestinal satisfaction. Just as God created woman solely to be the servant of man, meaning women are to obey their husbands at all times, keep their mouths shut in church and never teach (1 Timothy 2:11-15; Ephesians 5:22-24), so, too, God created animals so we would have something to fill our stomachs with after a hard day’s work. God told us long before He used Mary to incubate His son: “Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you” (Genesis 9:3). Every moving thing - not just the ugly ones, not just the dumb ones, like chickens and fish. Every living thing. The most beautiful fawn, the most prized heifer, the most graceful swan, the cutest bunny rabbit. According to God, they’re all nothing more than sausage fodder!

When the apostle, Peter, woke up hungry, what did God give him to eat? Not a pansy platter of carrot sticks, lettuce leaves and orange slices. He gave him every type of four-footed beast on the earth and every fowl of the air, telling him, “Rise, Peter, kill, and eat” (Acts 10:9-13). When Cain and Abel offered gifts to the Lord, Abel gave the Lord the fat he cut off the hides of his flock whereas Cain gave the Lord a fruit and vegetable tray. The Lord loved Abel’s offering of something that would stick to His holy ribs and despised Cain’s lesser offering of mere produce. Cain became jealous and murdered the brother with the superior gift-giving eye (Genesis 4:3-8). This was the first, but my no means the last, human murder committed by these vegans a/k/a witches a/k/a wiccans.

But add another a/k/a to that list - homos. You see, veganism offers a place of solace for sodomites every bit as attractive as a Catholic confessional. Fruits and vegetables are what housewives and sissies on Weight Watchers eat, whereas meat, cheese and butter are what real men eat. If every meal you eat doesn’t contain something that lives in, or comes out of something that lives in, a barn, you aren’t a real man. Jesus warned us that the men who would one day call themselves “vegans” are nothing more than nancy-boys looking for refuge somewhere. “For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs” (Romans 14:2). Just take a look at these losers - thin as a rail, pale as a ghost. The kind of men we used to beat up every day at school. If you asked any one of them, he would probably admit he supports feminism. The only protein these marys consume was created for a completely different purpose, the misuse of which is precisely what got Onan struck dead by God.

Watch out for these witches and fairies, my friends, for in today’s world of ailing morality, they are everywhere. They protest outside leather shops. They ruin other people’s valuable winter coats by hurling buckets of blood on unsuspecting ladies. And they try to destroy the cattle industry with their left-wing talk shows. If you spot one of these demons, detain it and, when you’re through roasting that side of beef you’re having for dinner, replace that meat on the skewer with the heathen, and help restore a long-missed moral tradition.
by Activist power is not terrorism
Wednesday Sep 3rd, 2003 7:31 PM
The Associated Press2 reported that Charles Schwab brokerage dropped its Huntingdon stock because ?An increasing number of employees was being ?personally threatened, harassed, and intimidated by protesters,? said Bob Duste, chief executive of Charles Schwab Europe. ?It is now impossible to trade the stock through normal channels,? Duste said.?

Winterflood Securities also felt the sting of terrorism for trading shares in Huntingdon.

ABC News3 reported on April 4, 2001, that ?After the family members of many of the firm?s officers received threatening phone calls, and one came home one Sunday to find a crowd of protesters ?in balaclavas and death masks? waiting for him and his two young children, Winterflood capitulated and dropped the lab?s stocks.?
by hehe
Wednesday Sep 3rd, 2003 8:08 PM
Again Nessie didnt really answer any questions about the economics of corporate animal research and went on some rant calling people names again (a true sign of a weak mind) According to Nessie animal rights activists are Nazis,murderers, terrorists, and now rapists. What will he accuse them of being next, communist preverts? And all they do is attack corporations...
by just wondering
Wednesday Sep 3rd, 2003 8:58 PM
>a crowd of protesters ‘in balaclavas and death masks’ waiting for him and his two young children

And this is not terrorism, why?
by cp
Wednesday Sep 3rd, 2003 9:38 PM
Holy cow - you conservatives who keep coming to this site are sick - Just look at this horribly racist advertisement that appears on that landover Baptist website that the nut above linked to with his vegan=witch essay. This makes David Horowitz look like a liberal? I mean - what the hell - I didn't know that even very racist people are this bad:

Here are some pictures I took when the Phelps clan came to the UC football game with their signs. Notice the anti-american slogans that the teenage girls are holding:
by cp
Wednesday Sep 3rd, 2003 9:41 PM

sorry - that's pretty crappy to write anyway.
by Patriot
Wednesday Sep 3rd, 2003 10:59 PM
nessie does not have any credibility, because a few days ago, he/she was claiming to have personal knowledge of a dog brought back from the dead. That never happened.

But he/she is right--just this once. Animals do not have rights. Only people do. These wacko terrorists need to be treated with extreme prejudice.

By the way, you leftists morons need to realize that a corporation is just a pooling of private assets. As such, corporations are neither good nor evil. And attacking corporations is the same as attacking the property of the people who have invested their assets in these corporations. That's wrong.
by Fred
Wednesday Sep 3rd, 2003 11:35 PM
I decided long ago that corporations were evil because they have no conscience. Why? Because they are not human. They are a pool of money and power, not a human being, and yet they have the rights to disrupt the lives of humans all over the planet. They even can destroy the planet and think nothing of it, as long as they have an escape route.

They're essentially the Borg.

This is evil.

So don't try to spread the lie on here that they aren't.

They are destroying the world as we speak, hiring their private militaries. Very soon there will be a curious situation where a private corporate military begins to take over a democratically elected government in another country (overtly, not covertly).

They are evil, no question about it.
by Re:
Thursday Sep 4th, 2003 7:51 AM
None of those links even remotely suggest that cryonics will work. So a dogs blood can be replaces with a substitute and an organ can be kept in storage for several days. Thats a long way from keeping an almost dead lifeform alive for weeks or years. The blood replacement in the case mentioned still carried oxygen to the brain so while it did allow the animals blood to be cooled off without it freezing that doesnt say anything about the possible effects on other tissues. Plus there is no reason to believe it slowed down many of the processes of the animal; maybe it didnt need to breathe if oxgen was continuously being added to the fake blood but oxygen still was being supplied to the animals brain. Unless all cryonics is is having sick people die a slow death in a freezer this doesnt seem like an advance in the direction of science fiction.

In any case you still havnt explained why animal testing would exist in any form of egalitarian society without large corporations. And you havnt explained why all corporations except HLS are bad.

Perhaps you hate animal rights activists and call them terrorists since their tactics (which havnt physically hurt anyone) have managed to delist a company from a stock exchange (maybe you owned HLS stock?). Unlike simple protests where anarchists wander around carrying signs animal rights activists have actually achieved something, so you cover up the fact that their tactics are better than the ones groups you belong to support by calling them terrorists.
by rorret
Thursday Sep 4th, 2003 8:24 AM
Pointing out terror is chic. Terror, terror, terror!
It's a babbled buzz word. Terror, terror, terror!
I've seen & heard the words terror and terrorist in these past few years enough to last me an endless lifetime. Just to make sure, I'll type it three more times,
Terror, terror, terror!
Yep, I've seen and heard enough of it. But, sadly, it's only going to get worse. By the time cultural insanity has reached it's most severe pitch, everybody will be a lowly terrorist.
Here comes the mailman...terror! Granny is on the phone ....terror! Pass the rolls, please....terror! Will you marry me....terror! Listen, little Johnny is speaking his first words, what's he trying to say......TERROR!!!!!
by cp
Thursday Sep 4th, 2003 8:48 AM
nessie does not have any credibility, because a few days ago, he/she was claiming to have personal knowledge of a dog brought back from the dead. That never happened"

Oh, here's an authority speaking.

You know, this procedure has been carried out multiple times, and has been reported in the popular press - not just in academic journals.
by HLS
Thursday Sep 4th, 2003 1:49 PM
The development of many major medical treatments has also depended on animal research.
Without research on animals none of these would have been discovered or safely developed.
Below are listed some of the better known examples of these.

Corneal transplants

Insulin for diabetes

Modern anaesthetics
Diphtheria vaccine

Broad-spectrum antibiotics for infections
Whooping cough vaccine
Heart / lung machine for open heart surgery

Kidney transplants
Cardiac pacemakers
Replacement heart valves
Polio vaccines
Anti-hypertensive drugs
Joint replacement materials

Rubella vaccines
Coronary bypass operations
Heart transplants

Drugs to treat ulcers
Improved sutures and surgical techniques
Drugs to treat asthma
Drugs to treat leukaemia

Immunosuppresant drugs for organ transplants
CAT Scanning
Life-support for premature babies
Anti-viral treatments

Genetic therapy for cystic fibrosis
Recombinant technology makes purer drugs
Electronic implants for deafness and immobility

Many of these applications have also benefited veterinary medicine, which in some small way repays the debt humanity owes to the animals used.

Undoubtedly our quality of life has benefited enormously from this research and discovery and there are still many discoveries to come. While no one would want to use animals if there was an alternative, it is plain to see that their use has benefited all of us.

A Selection of Some of the Product Types that have been tested at Huntingdon Life Sciences since 1992


Anti-cancer treatments





Alzheimer's & Dementia

This is just a selection of some of the different products that have been tested by Huntingdon Life Sciences. Some of these products will not reach the market as their side effects outweigh their potential therapeutic benefits. However, this list is an indication of the contribution to human health that HLS has made.

In addition to human health, we have tested over 335 veterinary products since 1992 (including 14 anti-flea products). We also have considerable expertise in helping manufacturers to develop more-environmentally friendly agrochemicals. These in turn have helped to increase crop yields and to prevent unnecessary environmental contamination.
by Re: smart-alecky critics
Thursday Sep 4th, 2003 1:51 PM
As an animal rights (AR) activist I've endured my share of harsh critics, from the smart-alecky to the magnificently peeved. Mainly, I've survived really bad one-liners: "Vegetable have feelings too you know," or "So you think insects should have the right to vote?"

"Get a life," the uninformed inform me as they inspect my no-animal attire for the hypocritical leather shoe or belt. Skeptics often suggest that I save babies instead of animals. Why not both? If every couch-potatoed critic would grab a sign or write a letter, we'd create one powerful voice for the innocent.

Ringside cynics don't concern me. But the new wave of anti-AR propaganda does. In "The Evil of Animal Rights," authors Alex Epstein and Yaron Brook of The Ayn Rand Institute typify history's paranoid reaction to change. They represent a growing contingent who berate animal rights activists. "To attribute rights to animals is to ignore the purpose and justification of rights-to protect the interests of man," the writers contend. "Animal ?rights'-which demand man's destruction-are the antithesis of rights. This is pure man-hatred."

Man-hatred? Sounds more like philosophical poppycock to me. Nonetheless, fear propels prejudice and animal-rights haters are justifiably nervous. Society's infrastructure relies upon animals. If we were to spontaneously erect retirement sanctuaries for all animals used in food, research, entertainment or clothing, our animal-dependent civilization might collapse.

Animal liberty is the right of each species to live freely among its own kind. AR-haters envision an overnight revolution in which unshackled beasts overrun the planet and, according to Epstein and Brook, "destroy our property, eat our food, even kill our children." Such sinister forecasts are buried in intellectual reverie. All significant reforms-industrial, technological, political or social-span decades or centuries, as society is able to integrate them. Slow-trickle evolution occurs as entire generations gain consciousness and shift values.

In fact, the idea of inherent rights for non-human animals has been around for awhile. Abraham Lincoln said: "I am in favor of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the way of a whole human being." Leonard Da Vinci prophetized the day "when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as now they look upon the murder of men." Thomas Edison, another famous vegetarian, declared: "Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savage."

In any age, iconoclasts who rock the mainstream boat instill hatred and fear. Abolitionists, the 19th century edition of animal-rights "wackos," wouldn't accept the institutionalized domination of sentient beings. Slaveowners, however, dubbed Africans and their descendants a soulless species incapable of comprehending bondage. Slavery's proponents could not visualize human progress without the master-slave hierarchy.

Gary Yourofsky, founder of the animal advocacy group ADAPTT, compares the AR movement to numerous other moral uprisings. Whether the aggrieved fought to end slavery, religious persecution, women's suffrage or civil injustice the oppressed always outnumbered the oppressors. "That is how all revolutions happen, for humans and nonhumans," he says.

Even as Epstein and Brook dub animal-rights ethics a "formula for human extinction," and fellow Ayn Rand Institute author Michael S. Berliner warns that "a more malevolent, man-hating philosophy is unimaginable," the AR movement stubbornly advances.

PETA is now a household word. Hundreds of other watchdog groups expose suffering inside factory farms, fur ranches, research labs, circuses, zoos, rodeos, and puppy mills. Ten years ago, litigators didn't convict animal abusers with felony penalties. Supermarkets weren't stocked with soy substitutes for meat and dairy items. Today's no-animal circuses were unheard of. And the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods wasn't around to develop and validate non-animal research alternatives.
by Inside/Out?Diary Of Madness
Thursday Sep 4th, 2003 2:09 PM
Inside/Out: Diary of Madness recounts the daily horror inside Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS)?one of the world's largest contract research laboratories. It also details the concentrated protest efforts of animal rights activists outside Stephens Inc., the Little Rock, Ark. based investment firm that kept a nearly bankrupt HLS afloat with substantial shares and loans. Inside/Out is a collection of articles, reflections and images from protesters outside Stephens, Inc. and undercover investigators inside Huntingdon Life Sciences.
by scientific method
Thursday Sep 4th, 2003 2:14 PM
Q: Didn't the polio vaccine come from animal experimentation?
Animal experimentation actually delayed this much-needed vaccine throughout the first half of the twentieth century.

Polio first broke out around 1835, with victims rapidly becoming paralyzed and dying. In 1840, an orthopedic surgeon wrote that the spinal cord was the seat of infection, a hypothesis that was proven twenty-three years later.

In 1908, scientists suggested that a virus was responsible, a virus that might be eradicated with a vaccine. In developing a vaccine, it is very important to determine how the infection enters the body and takes hold. You cannot interrupt its contagion unless you determine its path. Pathologists discovered the poliovirus in human intestines as early as 1912, which suggested it might enter humans through the digestive track.

Meanwhile researchers successfully infected animals with polio. This "triumph" wound up postponing the development of an efficacious vaccine by decades. As it turned out, our close relatives the monkeys contracted polio nasally (not through the digestive system), and the virus moved directly from the nose to the brain. Incredibly, the scientists working on the vaccine chose to ignore the human digestive data in favor of the monkey data!

The pro-animal experimenters are not incorrect when they claim that a polio vaccine was derived from animal experiments because in 1934, a polio vaccine manufactured from monkey tissue was released. What they fail to mention is that it resulted in twelve people being paralyzed and six deaths. In 1937, animal experiments led scientists to spray zinc sulfate and picric acid alum into children's noses, reasoning that if the human transmission route was via the nasal mucosa as it was in monkeys, this would kill the virus in the nose. The only result was that some children permanently lost their sense of smell. In 1941, thirty years after the original animal experiments, Dr. Albert Sabin worked with autopsy findings to demonstrate that the human nasal mucosa did not have virus. What he did find was that the virus was confined to the gastrointestinal tract, as had been determined nearly thirty years prior. Years later, Dr. Sabin recalled the folly of the monkey models for polio:

Paralytic polio could be dealt with only by preventing the irreversible destruction of the large number of motor nerve cells, and the work on prevention was long delayed by the erroneous conception of the nature of the human disease based on misleading experimental models of the disease in monkeys.

In 1949, John Enders grew the virus in tissue culture. This paved the way for vaccine. For this achievement he won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1954.

The vaccine could have been produced from non-animal tissue, however manufacturers opted for monkey kidney tissue instead. The older animal-based vaccine contained live virus, causing 204 people to contract polio, and eleven documented deaths.

The polio vaccine is now grown in human diploid-cell culture instead of in animal tissue. (More on polio)

Q:Wasn't it through lab animals that scientists discovered diabetes
and developed insulin?

A: Pro-animal experiment contingencies always site the development of insulin as support for continued animal testing. They assert, with justification, that without insulin harvested from slaughterhouses many diabetics would have lost their lives. Whereas it is true that animals have figured largely in the history of diabetic research and therapy, their use has not been necessary and furthermore has not always advanced science.

Diabetes is a very serious disease, even today affecting ten to fourteen million Americans. It is a leading cause of blindness, amputation, kidney failure and premature death. Although the clinical signs of human diabetes have been known since the first century AD, not until the late eighteenth century did physicians associate the disease with characteristic changes in the pancreas seen at autopsy. As this was difficult to reproduce in animals, many scientists disputed the role of the pancreas in the disease.

Nearly a century later, in 1869, scientists identified insulin-producing pancreatic cells that malfunction in diabetic patients. Other human pancreatic conditions, such as pancreatic cancer and pancreatitis (inflammation of the pancreas) were seen to produce diabetic symptoms, reinforcing the disease's link with the pancreas.

Animal experimenters continued to interrupt the nicely progressing course of knowledge regarding the pancreas and diabetes. When they removed pancreases from dogs, cats, and pigs, sure enough, the animals did become diabetic. However, the animals' symptoms led to conjecture that diabetes was a liver disease, linking sugar transport to the liver and glycogen. These animal studies threw diabetes research off track for many years.

In 1882, a physician named Dr. Marie noted the association between acromegaly, a pituitary disorder, and sugar in the urine, thus connecting sugar metabolism and the pituitary gland. Another doctor, Atkinson, published data in 1938 that revealed 32.8 per cent of all acromegalic patients suffered from diabetes. Bouchardat published similar findings in 1908. For some reason, the scientist who reproduced this in dogs, Bernardo Houssay, ended up winning the Nobel Prize in 1947. Obviously, it is hardly fair to say dogs were responsible for his kudos, since knowledge predated Houssay's experiments and any number of human-based methods would have produced the same findings.

In the early 1920s two scientists, John Macleod and Frederick Banting, isolated insulin by extracting it from a dog. For this they received a Nobel Prize. Macleod admitted that their contribution was not the discovery of insulin, but rather reproducing in the dog lab what had already been demonstrated in man. They were not obliged to extract insulin from dogs, because certainly there was ample tissue from humans. They merely did so because it was convenient. In that same year Banting and another experimenter, named Best, gave dog insulin to a human patient with disastrous results. Note what scientists said about the dog experiments in 1922,

The production of insulin originated in a wrongly conceived, wrongly conducted, and wrongly interpreted series of experiments.

Banting, Best and other scientists modified the process using in vitro techniques and later mass-produced insulin from pig and cow pancreases collected at slaughterhouses.

In coming years scientists continued to refine the animal-derived substance. Though it is true that beef and pork insulin saved lives, it also created an allergic reaction in some patients. Beef insulin has three amino acids that differ from human amino acids while pork insulin has only one. Whereas this sounds negligible, it takes very little amino acid discrepancy to undermine health. (Only one deviant amino acid is enough to produce certain life threatening diseases, such as cystic fibrosis or sickle cell anemia.) Injecting animal-derived insulin also presented the sizable danger of transmitting viruses that cross from one species to another. Had researchers then recognized these potentialities as well as the gulf of differences between humans and farm animals, scientists would have hastened to develop human insulin more quickly.

The ability to treat patients suffering from diabetes without giving them insulin injections was discovered by chance on humans. Today, the administration of oral anti-hyperglycemics, which arose from serendipity and self-experimentation, eliminates the need for insulin injections in many patients.

Diabetes is still stunningly enigmatic, in large part due to our continued reliance on the animal model. Most clinicians believe that strict glucose control though insulin injections offers advantages over a less regimented treatment plan. However, insulin is a treatment not a cure for diabetes. The exact biochemical process through which insulin regulates blood sugar is not yet known.

Q:Would drugs be safe for us without being tested first on animals?

A:Yes. Drugs would be just as safe and probably safer than they now are if the animal testing phase was eliminated. Presently, legal drugs kill more people per year than all illegal drugs combined.

It is first important to recognize that drugs do not spring from lab animal to bottle. There are four methods of designing drugs. Scientists begin by one of the following methods:
Discovering new substances from nature
Uncovering a different curative value in an existing medication
Modifying the chemical structure of a similar medication
Designing a new medication from scratch based on anticipated chemical reactions

Once researchers have theorized about a substance's usefulness, they administer it to animals to see whether or not it works on them. They obtain plenty of feedback about the substance's effectiveness in the species tested. Positive animal results are reported in the popular press, generally mentioning only scantly the huge unbuilt bridge between lab animal results and human cures. At this stage there is still no reliable information about what the substance will do in humans, because our metabolism is unique.

Though subjecting the substances to animal testing is designed to reveal anticipated effects and side effects in humans, very often the results differ dramatically between species. Substances that could save many human lives are not approved because they are harmful to animals. And substances that are therapeutic in animals get approved, then harm and sometimes kill humans. Instead of safeguarding human consumers, animal testing creates a false sense of security.

The proof of this is apparent in any thorough assessment of drug development history. Numerous of our most popular drugs including aspirin, acetaminophen (Tylenol) and ibuprofen (Advil or Motrin), can be quite detrimental to animals. Diuretic medications, a mainstay in the treatment of hypertension, were in common use before animal testing became the rage. Many of these drugs, safely used by millions, would be hard pressed to pass today's mandatory mouse tests.

There is justifiable concern that animal tests are preventing us from acquiring much- needed medications, one scientist stating:

...for the great majority of disease entities, the animal models either do not exist or are really very poor. The chance is of overlooking useful drugs because they do not give a response to the animal models commonly used.

Innumerable animal-tested drugs make it to market, and then cause problems. It is well accepted that approximately 100,000 deaths per year from legal drugs, and approximately fifteen per cent of all hospital admissions are caused by adverse medication reactions. In one decade more than half of all newly approved medications were either withdrawn or relabeled by the FDA secondary to severe unpredicted side effects. All of these drugs had undergone extensive animal testing!

Clearly, the animal testing protocol works against human safety. It also diverts valuable research dollars away from solid human-based testing methodologies.

Q:If we don't use animals, what will we use?

A:Note that this view assumes that animal experiments have been responsible for medical advances in the past. If this were true, the concern would be valid. But it is not. Benchmarks in medical history have relied on the following nonanimal-based methodologies, as will future developments:

In vitro research or test tube research on living tissue has been instrumental for many of the great discoveries. Though human tissue has not always been employed; it could have been, because it has always been in ample supply. Blood, tissue and organ cultures are ideal test-beds for the efficacy and toxicity of medications.

Epidemiology is the study of populations of humans to determine factors that could account for the prevalence of the disease among them, or for their disease immunity. Combined with genetic research and other non-animal methods enumerated here, it provides very accurate information about whole systems.

Bacteria, viruses, and fungi reveal basic cell properties.

Autopsy and cadavers are used for clarifying disease and teaching operating techniques such as fracture fixation, spine stabilization, ligament reconstruction, and other procedures.

Physical models can be made for studying the wear on joints and other physiology.

Genetic research has elucidated many genes that are responsible for specific diseases. Since physicians can now ascertain their patients' predisposition to certain diseases, they can monitor them more carefully as well as suggest optimal nutrition, lifestyle and medications.

Clinical research on patients shows how humans respond to different treatments and determine whether or not one treatment is superior to another. We can attribute our fundamental knowledge of disease and hospital care to clinical research.

Post-marketing drug surveillance (PMDS) is the reporting process whereby every effect and side effect of a new medication are reported to a monitoring agency, eg., the FDA. (Despite its obvious benefits, post-marketing drug surveillance is presently practiced erratically as reporting methods are neither easy nor required.)

Mathematical and computer modeling is a complex research method that employs mathematics to simulate living systems and chemical reactions.

Technology is largely responsible for the high standard of care we receive today. MRI scanners, CAT scanners, PET scanners, X-rays, ultrasound, blood gas analysis machines, blood chemistry analysis machines, pulmonary artery catheters, arterial catheters, microscopes, monitoring devices, lasers, anesthesia machines and monitors, operating room equipment, computer based equipment, sutures, the heart-lung machine, pacemakers, electrocardiograms, electroencephalograms, bone and joint replacements, staplers, laparoscopic surgery, the artificial kidney machine and many more are examples of technological breakthroughs.

Specialization also saves countless lives. For example, the field of pathology allowed better understanding of diseases. Specialization of medical care into disciplines such as cardiology, oncology, orthopedic surgery, pediatrics, infectious diseases etc. allows physicians to increase and share their understanding of one field. Specialized areas of care in the hospital, like the neonatal intensive care unit (ICU), cardiac ICU, and surgical ICU, improve patient care. Nurses, specially trained for the operating room or the ICU better administer to patients.

Q:What about the claim that animal experimentation is necessary
because there are no other whole system models for metabolic
processes other than animals?

A:This assertion suggests that in vitro research methodologies, though valuable, cannot predict what will happen in a whole living system, which is true. But history has proven that results in lab animals are even more inadequate. Though predicting what happens in particular animal tested, animal experiments do not predict what will happen in humans.

Given that metabolic processes differ greatly between species, information garnered in animal experiments is entirely unreliable. Since it has no predictive value, except for the species tested, it is wholly unscientific when applied to humans. It does not provide the results it professes to provide. Very often substances that have proven effective in animals do not demonstrate curative value in humans and may even harm them. Just as often, animal testing often works at cross-purposes to discovery when poor results bar medications that could alleviate pain and save lives from the market.

As this is the case, all drugs must eventually be tested on humans, and those humans are every bit the lab creatures that animals are. These "clinical phases" of drug testing, as they are called, submit human volunteers to what are at first very small dosages, monitor their reactions, and slowly increase dosage.

Clinical testing and subsequent non-animal methods provide what lab animals cannot - totally accurate readings of human metabolic processes. These include epidemiology, and post-marketing drug surveillance.

Q: How can we know that medications will not cause birth
defects without testing them on animals?

A: A principle called Karnofsky's Law states that any substance can be teratogenic (cause birth defects) if given to the right species, at the right stage in development, in the right dose. Even common table salt and water are teratogens in some species if given at a vulnerable time in ample enough amount. In other words, all medications can cause birth defects in some creature. An immense amount of experimentation supports this rule.

Data also supports the fact that not all species are equally susceptible to teratogenic influences by any given chemical. Likewise, an agent that is teratogenic in some species may have little or no teratogenic effect in others. According to a respected treatise on birth defects, "because substances cross the placental membrane by a number of mechanisms, some differences in species reactivity to teratogens may be due to accessibility of the drug to the embryo." Of over 1,200 tested chemicals that cause birth defects in animals, only thirty cause them in humans, according to the New England Journal of Medicine. Articles in many other publications repeat these conclusions.

Many safe and useful drugs have been shown to cause birth defects in lab animals:
Chondroitin sulfate
Meperidine (Demerol)
Other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs
Nitrous oxide
Many antibiotics, antifungal medications and antiviral medications
Triiodothyroacetic acid

Most of the medications used to treat nausea and vomiting, allergic conditions, and respiratory ailments cause birth defects in animals, but not humans.

After epidemiology or clinical observation links drugs to birth defects, animals can usually, though not always, be found to demonstrate that effect. Researchers have not been successful in reproducing birth defects in other animals for the following drugs that are teratogenic in humans: Captopril, Enalapril, Minoxidil, some calcium channel blockers, or Warfarin.

The popular lab animal, the rat, has been shown to get birth defects from almost every chemical that causes birth defects in humans. This is meaningless though. If chemicals that harm rat offspring do not cause birth defects in humans, the rat tests are not predictive.

What is teratogenicity testing good for and why does it continue? As Dr. Hawkins, professor of Obstetrics, pointed out,

The great majority of perinatal toxicological studies seems to be intended to convey medico-legal protection to the pharmaceutical houses and political protection to the official regulatory bodies, rather than produce information that might be of value in human therapeutics.Just as Karnofsky postulated, if researchers try hard enough they may eventually inflict birth defects on some animal species with a substance that is teratogenic in humans. But to what purpose? Animal experiments that are not predictive are of no value. They just use up money that might otherwise fund research of real medical value. There is no sense in "validating" something that is already known from human data.

Q:Didn't all winners of the Nobel Prize in Medicine and
Physiology experiment on animals?

A:Yes, most did, but in no case does that mean the discoveries would not have occurred without animals. It only means that the market for lab animals was thriving and employing them was easy. In addition, from the second half of the nineteenth century forward, experimentation on animals became part of all medical curricula. So researchers were obliged to perform animal experiments to get their degrees. However, it is hardly accurate to deduce that those experiments bore directly on the Nobel-winning results. In the instances wherein animals were used for the Nobel-winning results, they were not necessary. Though animal tissue research was the convention, human tissue was available and more viable, as many Nobel Prize winners have since remarked. See Science page for more details.

Q:How will we combat AIDS without animal experimentation?

A:Billions of dollars have been spent trying to inflict AIDS on animals over the last twenty years, and these efforts have been entirely futile. Though researchers have succeeded in infecting chimpanzees with HIV, none has progressed to AIDS. Given this inability to produce an adequate animal model, it is foolish to assume that animal experimentation will lead us to therapies and cures for this terrible disease. Some in the AIDS community, with lives hanging in the balance, have come to this conclusion and engage in political protests against animal experimentation. Even scientists who have supported the chimpanzee model now vehemently criticize its lack of scientific merit:

The chimpanzee model doesn't get a lot of support in the scientific community.

I just don't see much coming out of the chimp work that has convinced us that that is a particularly useful model... [an animal model] that takes 12 to 14 years to develop doesn't sound to me to be ideal.

Investing AIDS research dollars in lab animal science is wasteful and keeps AIDS patients ill. Anyway, animals are not our only test-beds for development of AIDS therapies and a vaccine. As many as 34 million humans are infected with HIV worldwide. Blood cells from these unfortunate people serve as our most illuminating research material.

In vitro research on human blood cells, not animal experimentation, revealed the following idiosyncrasies. HIV's efficiency in humans relies on very specific and minuscule aspects of human white blood cells called helper T-cells. These cells have portals on their surface called receptors. These receptors work in tandem with precise proteins to invite HIV into the white blood cell where the virus then reproduces. Receptors can be very species-specific and sometimes vary even within species, which explains why chimpanzees and even some people whose helper T-cells are exposed to HIV never progress to AIDS.

HIV-infected humans who do not progress to AIDS offer very good insights into possible ways of countermanding the disease. Their identity is epidemiologically derived, and in vitro research has isolated the human gene believed responsible for their immunity. The sequencing of the HIV genome was also accomplished via in vitro research. The animal experimentation community claims that AZT and other anti-AIDS medications were developed as a result of animal experiments. However, a look at the history of these drugs' development proves the contrary. All this human data has reliably informed the development of HIV medications and the effort to produce a vaccine.

AIDS kills at the cellular level in humans, and that is where it needs to be studied. According to one scientist, we will only know which animal model is useful after "we understand the pathogenesis of AIDS, and when we have the vaccines and therapies to prevent it." Why would we need the animal model if we already have the cure?

Q:How will we ever cure cancer without animals?

A:The "War on Cancer" dates from the Nixon administration, and though information regarding cancer in animals is an expanding volume, researchers have not yet won the war. In fact, deaths from cancer are higher than ever. One major reason we have not yet stemmed mortality from cancer is this: Animal cancer is not the same as human cancer.

Cancer is not one disease. It is many. In humans alone, there are over 200 different forms of cancer afflicting different organs, tissues, and cells. Though comparable animal organs, tissues, and cells may become cancerous, the cancers are never identical to human carcinomas.

Susceptibility to cancer may be genetic. Exposures, diet, and lifestyles can also increase vulnerability. To turn animals into pseudohumans, researchers implant them with human genes, then expose them to known human carcinogens. The key word here is "known." If we already have significant human evidence that a substance, diet, or lifestyle is carcinogenic, why do we tool up to repeat that episode in animals?

In any event, different substances are not necessarily carcinogenic to all species. Though one would expect rats and mice to acquire cancers similarly, studies conducted on both species found that forty-six percent of chemicals found to be cancer-causing in rats were not cancer-causing in mice. Since species as closely related as mice and rats do not acquire cancer the same, it is not surprising that of twenty compounds known not to cause cancer in humans, nineteen did cause cancer in animals. The National Cancer Institute treated mice that were growing forty-eight different "human" cancers with a dozen different drugs that were already used successfully in humans. In thirty out of the forty-eight, the drugs did not work. Sixty-three percent of the time the mouse models were wrong.

The National Cancer Institute also undertook a twenty-five-year screening program, testing 40,000 plant species on animals for anti-tumor activity. Out of this very expensive research, many positive results surfaced in animal models, but not a single antitumor drug emerged for humans. As a consequence, the NCI now uses human cancer cells for cytotoxic screening.

As Dr. Richard Klausner, the director of the National Cancer Institute itself said,

The history of cancer research has been a history of curing cancer in the mouse...We have cured mice of cancer for decades--and it simply didn't work in humans.

Q:Isn't it true that animals are just like people on a cellular
level? They are made up of cells and don't all cells act alike?

A:Whereas all animal cells have properties in common - a nucleus, ribosomes, mitochondira and so forth - we now know that even smaller idiosyncrasies distinguish the way the cells of different species react to food, environment and medications. These idiosyncrasies, visible only through an electron microscope, are both the cause and the result of the evolution that created dissimilar creatures.

Failed animal experimentation has irrevocably proven that tiny differences can prevent or enable disease. White blood cell surface receptors, for example, leave humans vulnerable to AIDS. Among primates, only humans have sialic acid, a glycoprotein molecule on the cell surface. Scientists now suggest that this explains why other primates are so immune to diseases like malaria, prostate cancer, and cholera.

In struggling to learn why animal experimentation does not lead to the same results, scientists are slowly defining the microscopic factors - such as enzymes, glycoproteins receptors, and beta-chemokines - that create variability between human and non-human cells. All cells do not act alike because they are different. And very small differences between humans and animals lead to lethal errors when applying animal data to humans.

Even the book widely regarded as a sort of Bible for animal experimenters, The Handbook of Laboratory Animal Science, states,

It is impossible to give reliable general rules for the validity of extrapolation from one species to another. This... can often only be verified after the first trials in the target species (humans)... Extrapolation from animal models... will always remain a matter of hindsight.... (Emphasis added.)

Q:Don't surgeons train on animals before operating on humans?

A:Many surgeons do trials on pigs and other lab animals. Many other surgeons - both present day and past - have admitted that work on animals confuses procedures. Even with limited medical knowledge, common sense suggests that orthopedic surgeries will be much different in a dog, for example, than in a human. Ophthalmologists perfected radial keratotomy on rabbits, then tried them out on humans. Only after completely blinding several humans, did they finally correct the procedure.

The field of neurosurgery offers another example. Extracranial-intracranial (EC-IC) bypass procedures for inoperable carotid artery disease were tested and perfected on dogs and rabbits. Neurosurgeons performed thousands of EC-ICs before it was discovered the operation did more harm than good. More patients died or suffered strokes because of the operation than were saved as a result of it.

Transplantation surgeries are much the same story. Hundreds and hundreds of cats, dogs, pigs and primates have been sacrificed as surgeons tried to fashion surgeries that move organs from one creature to another. No matter the number of practice surgeries on animals, the first human operations fail. Carrying the animal data over to the human body always proves deceiving. Only conducting procedures on humans provides dependable techniques.

Q:Don't all doctors support the concept of animal experimentation?

A:No, but many medical professionals endorse lab animal research, as a matter of principle rather than informed conviction. With busy specialized careers and only thin information to the contrary, few physicians are willing to shoulder the burden of publicly dissenting with their peers. This dissent requires too much research and too much risk. However, if consulted privately, they will admit that they study human data, not animal data to determine how best to treat their patients. The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and The Medical Research Modernization Committee are two physician-based organization that agree with AFMA that experiments on animals do not lead to cures for human disease.

Animal experimentation is part of the curricula at some medical schools. Moreover, many medical schools are associated with research institutes; these rely on animal experimentation for grant money. This style of education, therefore, leads physicians to believe that experiments on animals are associated with medical progress. Note, this does not mean animals are responsible for medical progress. Animal experiments provide results; however, physicians themselves will have to admit that the results they themselves were exposed to did not provide new data of relevance to humans. When pressed to provide examples of how animal experimentation has contributed to their field, these professionals invariably come up short. They may hold onto the possibility that the animal model, though not germane to their field, is of use in other disciplines.

In this litigious climate, doctors would be reluctant to prescribe drugs if they knew that the animal-testing aspect of the drug's development worked against, rather than for, patient health. Hence, pharmaceutical companies promote the belief that animal testing assures the safety and effectiveness of medications that physicians rely upon. This "bill of goods" is another reason why physicians support animal experimentation.

It must be added that physicians, if not proactively in pursuit of facts to the contrary, are also very easily persuaded by the steady influx of public relations perpetrated by animal experimenters. Animal experimentation has a long history, and with tens of thousands of people and some of the world's largest corporations entirely devoted to maintaining the status quo, it would take a brave physician, and one with a lot of time on his or her hands, to speak out against it.

Q:How did animal experimentation become so established to begin with?

A:However unreliable, subjecting animals to experiments for which humans would never volunteer has immeasurable plusses, evident throughout time. Animals cannot dissent.

There have always been abundant human bodies, tissue and blood to illumine our knowledge base. However, in the West, Christianity pervaded, and papal decree forbade autopsy. During the second century AD, a Roman physician named Galen performed endless animal experiments to inform his over-500 treatises that drew conclusions about human physiology. Many of these conclusions were entirely faulty and contributed to the "darkness" we now associate with medieval times, during which powerful Church officials continued to frown on autopsy.

The Renaissance offered a slight reprieve. Competitive intellectual inquiry emerged to overwhelm Church injunctions. Autopsies revealed medical inaccuracies that had prevailed for 1,300 years since Galen. They began to cast light on real causes of disease.

In the mid-nineteenth century a man who had failed as a playwright, Claude Bernard, took up animal experimentation. His tremendous zeal and the sheer volume of results - accurate or not - that issued from his subjugation of animals effectively created an animal experimentation business. Medical research would henceforward extend beyond the purlieu of physicians; people who could not make it as doctors could still make a living as animal experimenters, as well as wield wide influence. In fact, the machine of animal experimentation generated such an abundance of conclusions that those conclusions very often overwhelmed human evidence to the contrary.

Soon animal experimenters were asking for and receiving money for their research. Animal breeders began to profit. Suppliers of lab equipment enjoyed their expanding market. And so forth. The growing new industry seemed useful for the study of diseases, even though there were huge disparities in results between animal species, and between animals and humans. Then, in the 1930s a single incidence of a drug effecting an animal the same as a human effectively routinized the use of animals for drug development too. Of course, the same problems persisted: Animals often reacted differently to the same chemical substances.

However, the pharmaceutical industry was off and running, developing strong ties with animal experimenters and using their results to boost profits. The disaster of thalidomide, a drug designed to suppress morning sickness that led to over 10,000 babies with birth defects, spurred the US Congress to offer the American public every possible guarantee of medication safety. That "guarantee" took the form of animal testing.

Nevermind that thalidomide itself had been tested on animals prior to release and had not imposed birth defects on them. And that even after scientists knew what to look for, they found birth defects from thalidomide only occasionally.

In approximately 10 strains of rats, 15 strains of mice, 11 breeds of rabbits, 2 breeds of dogs, 3 strains of hamsters, 8 species of primates and in other such varied species as cats, armadillos, guinea pigs, swine and ferrets in which thalidomide has been tested, teratogenic effects have been induced only occasionally.

Nevermind also that there was already ample evidence that chemicals react very differently in different species. By legislating that all drugs must prove safe and effective in animals prior to release, the government created a legal safehouse for pharmaceutical companies and any other industry with a product of questionable medical safety. Ever since, when lawsuits occur, big business can justifiably claim that they acted with due diligence to the full extent of the law. Inevitably, big business' enthusiasm over this legal safety net has played a large role in making animal experimentation a sacred cow.

Q:Since all this is true, why does animal experimentation continue?

A:Many factors perpetuate animal experimentation, the most obvious of which is momentum. The practice is now very engrained and the systems are resistant to change. Egos are on the line. Scientists who have devoted their entire lives to animal experimentation are reluctant to admit that those methods were useless, much less dangerous.

Some research scientists do not even realize their travesty. They are far removed from patient care. If their investigations are compelling enough, they may never think beyond to question applicability. They often revel in the glory of discovery, never pausing to consider the human patients who are deprived of useful remedies while they squander money on knowledge for knowledge's sake. Animal experiments fuel the scientific papers they are obliged to write, and these result in promotion. Animal experimentation works for them, if not for humankind. Imagine the guilt these PhDs would feel if they were to face the true consequences of their work, if only in terms of its costly wastefulness and its effect on patient victims.

Simply put, animal experimentation continues because it is highly profitable. All the following constituencies make money: scientists, physicians, hospitals, regulation agency bureaucrats, pharmaceutical companies, medical conglomerates, politicians, animal farmers and vendors, lawyers, reporters, and news media, to name a few. Other companies, whose products may or may not pose human health problems, use animal testing to secure themselves against litigation too. Think asbestos. Think tobacco. None of these constituencies can afford for the public to lose confidence in the idea that animal testing protects them.

Their interdependency is finely tuned: The more animal experiments the researcher does, the more articles he or she publishes. The more articles published, the more grant money received. The more grant money, the more money the university or research facility receives. The more money the university or research facility receives, the less liable big business is and the more products big business can sell. The more big business sells, the more money for advertising and hence the more compliant is the media. Anytime animal testing is questioned, there are outcries from many vested quarters. All hasten to shore up their positions and keep clear of litigation.

And on the other side of this cabal is the unwitting American consumer, paying through the nose for, at best, nothing and worse, ill health. Trillions of taxpayer and charity dollars continue to be funneled into wasteful experiments that are of no use to the consumer who supports them. Animal experimentation is a kind of "white coat welfare." But the animal testing machine, now large and in perpetual motion, will be difficult to stop
by Ecce Homo
Thursday Sep 4th, 2003 2:17 PM
If you want to obtain consistent conclusive data concerning human ailments, you test on human research subjects.
Other species have their own unique DNA, their own evolutionary trail and error survival mechanisms. Experimenting on random animals for our benefit is like taking an unessecary, undesirable, complicated detour 1000 miles out of the way, on foot.
This is not a theory, the scientific method has proved this time and time again. If a new disease is discovered in cats, science doesn't conduct physical experiments on humans to find the cat cure, though it may compare relative data. Or I should say, scientists would probably never openly admit to conducting that kind of experiment.

All this other bunkum about right/wrong, worth/rights, evil/terror is egocentric drudgery.
You are from either one of two schools;
1. Darwin
2. Plato, Judeo-Christian, Descartes
If you subscribe to the latter, specieist ideaologies, the science you're cheering for doesn't mix well with those principles. Medical science compliments Darwin.

If you state, "a pig's life is worth less than a human's", but then turn around and declare it 'worthy' of research for human benefit, then you are ultimately stating that a pig's life has a direct connection to human lives, which means pig and human are partners in the whole process, equal or not. Thus, the pig's life is not only valuable, but can be directly responsible for saving human life. The initial judgement on the pig's worth status is an ultimate defeat of any purpose.

Nevermind the fact that millions and millions of people live beneath the respect and freedom which most other species enjoy in abundance.

And what's this 'primitive superstitious mind' rhetoric all about?
Primitive minds live deep in the rain forest alongside potential cures/treatments for a great number of ailments.
That is where advanced biomedical sciences should be focused.
First, helping native peoples preserve thier homeland, then research their vast knowledge of herbal homeopathics.
Lastly, develop medicine from this research for human, HUMAN, test subjects.
The difficult part would be finding people to willingly participate. Millions are wishing for cures, but few step forward to undergo the testing.

Animals, animals they cry, use animals.
Nevermind the raw data is consistently inconsistent.

by stupid ecoterrorists
Thursday Sep 4th, 2003 3:01 PM
Statement of James F. Jarboe
Domestic Terrorism Section Chief
Counterterrorism Division
Federal Bureau of Investigation on
The Threat of Eco-Terrorism

Before the House Resources Committee
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health

Good morning Chairman McInnis, Vice-Chairman Peterson, Congressman Inslee and Members of the Subcommittee. I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear beforeyou and discuss the threat posed by eco-terrorism, as well as the measures being taken by the FBI and our law enforcement partners to address this threat.

The FBI divides the terrorist threat facing the United States into two broad categories, international and domestic. International terrorism involves violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any state, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any state. Acts of international terrorism are intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a government, or affect the conduct of a government. These acts transcend national boundaries in terms of the means bywhich they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate, or the locale in which perpetrators operate.

Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States (or its territories) without foreign direction, committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

During the past decade we have witnessed dramatic changes in the nature of the terrorist threat. In the 1990s, right-wing extremism overtook left-wing terrorism as the most dangerous domestic terrorist threat to the country. During the past several years special interest extremism, as characterized by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), has emerged as a serious terrorist threat. Generally, extremist groups engage in much activity that is protected by constitutional guarantees of free speech and assembly. Law enforcement becomes involved when the volatile talk of these groups transgresses into unlawful action. The FBI estimates that the ALF/ELF have committed more than 600 criminal acts in the United States since 1996, resulting in damages in excess of 43 million dollars.

Special interest terrorism differs from traditional right-wing and left-wing terrorism in that extremist special interest groups seek to resolve specific issues, rather than effect widespread political change. Special interest extremists continue to conduct acts of politically motivated violence to force segments of society, including the general public, to change attitudes about issues considered important to their causes. These groups occupy the extreme fringes of animal rights, pro-life, environmental, anti-nuclear, and other movements. Some special interest extremists -- most notably within the animal rights and environmental movements -- have turned increasingly toward vandalism and terrorist activity in attempts to further their causes.

Since 1977, when disaffected members of the ecological preservation group Greenpeace formed the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and attacked commercial fishing operations by cutting drift nets, acts of "eco-terrorism" have occurred around the globe. The FBI defines eco-terrorism as the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally-oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature.

In recent years, the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) has become one of the most active extremist elements in the United States. Despite the destructive aspects of ALF's operations, its operational philosophy discourages acts that harm "any animal, human and nonhuman." Animal rights groups in the United States, including the ALF, have generally adhered to this mandate. The ALF, established in Great Britain in the mid-1970s, is a loosely organized movement committed to ending the abuse and exploitation of animals. The American branch of the ALF began its operations in the late 1970s. Individuals become members of the ALF not by filing paperwork or paying dues, but simply by engaging in "direct action" against companies or individuals who utilize animals for research or economic gain. "Direct action" generally occurs in the form of criminal activity to cause economic loss or to destroy the victims' company operations. The ALF activists have engaged in a steadily growing campaign of illegal activity against fur companies, mink farms, restaurants, and animal research laboratories.

Estimates of damage and destruction in the United States claimed by the ALF during the past ten years, as compiled by national organizations such as the Fur Commission and the National Association for Biomedical Research (NABR), put the fur industry and medical research losses at more than 45 million dollars. The ALF is considered a terrorist group, whose purpose is to bring about social and political change through the use of force and violence.

Disaffected environmentalists, in 1980, formed a radical group called "Earth First!" and engaged in a series of protests and civil disobedience events. In 1984, however, members introduced "tree spiking" (insertion of metal or ceramic spikes in trees in an effort to damage saws) as a tactic to thwart logging. In 1992, the ELF was founded in Brighton, England, by Earth First! members who refused to abandon criminal acts as a tactic when others wished to mainstream Earth First!. In 1993, the ELF was listed for the first time along with the ALF in a communique declaring solidarity in actions between the two groups. This unity continues today with a crossover of leadership and membership. It is not uncommon for the ALF and the ELF to post joint declarations of responsibility for criminal actions on their web-sites. In 1994, founders of the San Francisco branch of Earth First! published in The Earth First! Journal a recommendation that Earth First! mainstream itself in the United States, leaving criminal acts other than unlawful protests to the ELF.

The ELF advocates "monkeywrenching," a euphemism for acts of sabotage and property destruction against industries and other entities perceived to be damaging to the natural environment. "Monkeywrenching" includes tree spiking, arson, sabotage of logging or construction equipment, and other types of property destruction. Speeches given by Jonathan Paul and Craig Rosebraugh at the 1998 National Animal Rights Conference held at the University of Oregon, promoted the unity of both the ELF and the ALF movements. The ELF posted information on the ALF website until it began its own website in January 2001, and is listed in the same underground activist publications as the ALF.

The most destructive practice of the ALF/ELF is arson. The ALF/ELF members consistently use improvised incendiary devices equipped with crude but effective timing mechanisms. These incendiary devices are often constructed based upon instructions found on the ALF/ELF websites. The ALF/ELF criminal incidents often involve pre-activity surveillance and well-planned operations. Members are believed to engage in significant intelligence gathering against potential targets, including the review of industry/trade publications, photographic/video surveillance of potential targets, and posting details about potential targets on the internet.

The ALF and the ELF have jointly claimed credit for several raids including a November 1997 attack of the Bureau of Land Management wild horse corrals near Burns, Oregon, where arson destroyed the entire complex resulting in damages in excess of four hundred and fifty thousand dollars and the June 1998 arson attack of a U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal Damage Control Building near Olympia, Washington, in which damages exceeded two million dollars. The ELF claimed sole credit for the October 1998, arson of a Vail, Colorado, ski facility in which four ski lifts, a restaurant, a picnic facility and a utility building were destroyed. Damage exceeded $12 million. On 12/27/1998, the ELF claimed responsibility for the arson at the U.S. Forest Industries Office in Medford, Oregon, where damages exceeded five hundred thousand dollars.

Other arsons in Oregon, New York, Washington, Michigan, and Indiana have been claimed by the ELF. Recently, the ELF has also claimed attacks on genetically engineered crops and trees. The ELF claims these attacks have totaled close to $40 million in damages.

The name of a group called the Coalition to Save the Preserves (CSP), surfaced in relation to a series of arsons that occurred in the Phoenix, Arizona, area. These arsons targeted several new homes under construction near the North Phoenix Mountain Preserves. No direct connection was established between the CSP and ALF/ELF. However, the stated goal of CSP to stop development of previously undeveloped lands, is similar to that of the ELF. The property damage associated with the arsons has been
estimated to be in excess of $5 million.

The FBI has developed a strong response to the threats posed by domestic and international terrorism. Between fiscal years 1993 and 2003, the number of Special Agents dedicated to the FBI's counterterrorism programs grew by approximately 224 percent to 1,669 -- nearly 16 percent of all FBI Special Agents. In recent years, the FBI has strengthened its counterterrorism program to enhance its abilities to carry out these objectives.

Cooperation among law enforcement agencies at all levels represents an important component of a comprehensive response to terrorism. This cooperation assumes its most tangible operational form in the Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs) that are established in 44 cities across the nation. These task forces are particularly well-suited to responding to terrorism because they combine the national and international investigative resources of the FBI with the street-level expertise of local law enforcement agencies. Given the success of the JTTF concept, the FBI has established 15 new JTTFs since the end of 1999. By the end of 2003 the FBI plans to have established JTTFs in each of its 56 field offices. By integrating the investigative abilities of the FBI and local law enforcement agencies, these task forces represent an effective response to the threats posed to U.S. communities by domestic and international terrorists.

The FBI and our law enforcement partners have made a number of arrests of individuals alleged to have perpetrated acts of eco-terrorism. Several of these individuals have been successfully prosecuted. Following the investigation of the Phoenix, Arizona, arsons noted earlier, Mark Warren Sands was indicted and arrested on 6/14/2001. On 11/07/2001, Sands pleaded guilty to ten counts of extortion and using fire in the
commission of a federal felony.

In February 2001, teenagers Jared McIntyre, Matthew Rammelkamp, and George Mashkow all pleaded guilty, as adults, to title 18 U.S.C. 844(i), Arson, and 844(n), Arson Conspiracy. These charges pertain to a series of arsons and attempted arsons of new home construction sites in Long Island, New York. An adult, Connor Cash, was also arrested on February 15, 2001, and charged under the same federal statutes. Jared McIntrye stated that these acts were committed in sympathy of the ELF movement. The New York Joint Terrorism Task Force played a significant role in the arrest and prosecution of these individuals.

On 1/23/2001, Frank Ambrose was arrested by officers of the Department of Natural Resources with assistance from the Indianapolis JTTF, on a local warrant out of Monroe County Circuit Court, Bloomington, Indiana, charging Ambrose with timber spiking. Ambrose is suspected of involvement in the spiking of approximately 150 trees in Indiana state forests. The ELF claimed responsibility for these incidents.

On September 16, 1998, a federal grand jury in the Western District of Wisconsin indicted Peter Young and Justin Samuel for Hobbs Act violations as well as for animal enterprise terrorism. Samuel was apprehended in Belgium, and was subsequently extradited to the United States. On August 30, 2000, Samuel pleaded guilty to two counts of animal enterprise terrorism and was sentenced on November 3, 2000, to two years in prison, two years probation, and ordered to pay $364,106 in restitution.

Samuel's prosecution arose out of his involvement in mink releases in Wisconsin in 1997. This incident was claimed by the ALF. The investigation and arrest of Justin Samuel were the result of a joint effort by federal, state, and local agencies.

On April 20, 1997, Douglas Joshua Ellerman turned himself in and admitted on videotape to purchasing, constructing, and transporting five pipe bombs to the scene of the March 11, 1997, arson at the Fur Breeders Agricultural co-op in Sandy, Utah. Ellerman also admitted setting fire to the facility. Ellerman was indicted on June 19, 1997 on 16 counts, and eventually pleaded guilty to three. He was sentenced to seven years in prison and restitution of approximately $750,000. Though this incident was not officially claimed by ALF, Ellerman indicated during an interview subsequent to his arrest that he was a member of ALF. This incident was investigated jointly by the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF).

Rodney Adam Coronado was convicted for his role in the February 2, 1992, arson at an animal research laboratory on the campus of Michigan State University. Damage estimates, according to public sources, approached $200,000 and included the destruction of research records. On July 3, 1995, Coronado pled guilty for his role in the arson and was sentenced to 57 months in federal prison, three years probation, and restitution of more than $2 million. This incident was claimed by ALF. The FBI, ATF, and the Michigan State University police played a significant role in the investigation, arrest, and prosecution.

Marc Leslie Davis, Margaret Katherine Millet, Marc Andre Baker, and Ilse Washington Asplund were all members of the self-proclaimed "Evan Mecham Eco-Terrorist International Conspiracy" (EMETIC). EMETIC was formed to engage in eco-terrorism against nuclear power plants and ski resorts in the southwestern United States. In November 1987, the group claimed responsibility for damage to a chairlift at the Fairfield Snow Bowl Ski Resort near Flagstaff, Arizona. Davis, Millet, and Baker were arrested in May 1989 on charges relating to the Fairfield Snow Bowl incident and planned incidents at the Central Arizona Project and Palo Verde nuclear generating stations in Arizona; the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Facility in California; and the Rocky Flats Nuclear Facility in Colorado. All pleaded guilty and were sentenced in September 1991. Davis was sentenced to six years in federal prison, and restitution to the Fairfield Snow Bowl Ski Resort in the amount of $19,821. Millet was sentenced to three years in federal prison, and restitution to Fairfield in the amount of $19,821. Baker was sentenced to one year in federal prison, five months probation, a $5,000 fine, and 100 hours of community service. Asplund was also charged and was sentenced to one year in federal prison, five years probation, a $2,000 fine, and 100 hours of community service.

Currently, more than 26 FBI field offices have pending investigations associated with ALF/ELF activities. Despite all of our efforts (increased resources allocated, JTTFs, successful arrests and prosecutions), law enforcement has a long way to go to adequately address the problem of eco-terrorism. Groups such as the ALF and the ELF present unique challenges. There is little if any hierarchal structure to such entities. Eco-terrorists are unlike traditional criminal enterprises which are often structured and

The difficulty investigating such groups is demonstrated by the fact that law enforcement has thus far been unable to effect the arrests of anyone for some recent criminal activity directed at federal land managers or their offices. However, there are several ongoing investigations regarding such acts. Current investigations include the 10/14/2001 arson at the Bureau of Land Management Wild Horse and Burro Corral in Litchfield, California, the 7/20/2000 destruction of trees and damage to vehicles at the U.S. Forestry Science Laboratory in Rhinelander, Wisconsin, and the 11/29/1997 arson at the Bureau of Land Management Corral in Burns, Oregon.

Before closing, I would like to acknowledge the cooperation and assistance rendered by the U.S. Forest Service in investigating incidents of eco-terrorism. Specifically, I would like to recognize the assistance that the Forest Service is providing with regard to the ongoing investigation of the 7/20/2000 incident of vandalism and destruction that occurred at the U.S. Forestry Science Laboratory in Rhinelander, Wisconsin.

The FBI and all of our federal, state, and local law enforcement partners will continue to strive to address the difficult and unique challenges posed by eco-terrorists. Despite the recent focus on international terrorism, we remain fully cognizant of the full range of threats that confront the United States.

Chairman McInnis and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would like to express appreciation for your concentration on the issue of eco-terrorism and I look forward to responding to any questions.
by ?
Thursday Sep 4th, 2003 11:48 PM
Ok, Im confused. Nessie is trying to compare a woman's right to choose to the right for a corporation to torture animals. Is there a relationship? Maybe if the animal was a tape worm or other parasite that argument would make some sense...

Everyone would agree that people have the right to kill tape worms (or scabies) to get them out of their system. Everyone (except maybe Nessie?) would probably say that nobody has the right to tortue to death a dog or cat for fun (there are even laws against this and I havnt heard anyone propose getting rid of them). Animal testing falls somewhere between those two extremes.

What are the pros of animal testing?
That depends on the science and might be something that needs to be determined on a case by case basis. Humans are different enough from most other animals so questions surrounding medical research are pretty complicated. If a company is only testing on animals to prevent lawsuits when they proceed to human tests (and they know the animal tests have little benefit) opposing that research seems like something everyone could agree on. Many situations may fall in a grey area but its not a simple case of it always a net medical gain.

What are the problems with animal testing?
Most people see different animals as having different rights and moralities can be all over the place. Almost everyone would see some issue with studies causing pain to higher primates and dolphins. Almost everyone might have little problem with studies on sponges or clams. Animals testing also is a result of the current medical-industrial complex. Animal testing may take money and time away from more useful research and more direct treatment. If society isnt regulating something leading to liver damage and then investing in some expensive procedure so rich people can buy organs, the politics and economics of the situation would need to be examined. Perhaps there is a better method that could save lives but corporations are investing in animal research since those other methods are hard to make money off of (trade in human organs is illegal and increasing the supply is merely a matter of public service ads, a modified pig liver can be SOLD for huge profits; if that was the only reason for the technology those suporting the technology could be accused of being murderers for that reason alone).

I guess ALF people cant debate this since they have to stay in hiding and many animal rights people may also only want to talk about the morality of the animals being hurt. On the other hand nessie (and the freepers posting in agreement with him) are not dealing with any real issues and are just attacking property damage and trying to avoid dealing with the actual context in which animal testing takes place. The article claiming that animal testing results in bad healthcare is a good place for a debate to start (it claims a few things that I dont think are true) unless the issue really is one of violent vs nonviolent protest tactics...

It seems like there could be a real discussion of this issue but its not taking place. While militant animal rights activists may be a small minority, many people who do animal rights activism are active on many other issues. Since we all at times have to work together, its not a nice situation when people are talking about punching and "going after" fellow activists and comparing them to Nazis.
by (the other) ?
Friday Sep 5th, 2003 12:40 AM
While I take no position on the writing of the above "?", please note that the above "?" is not the morally and strongly anti-Zionist, ?, that appears in threads involving the Palestinian-Israeli issue. (Unless "?" also holds my respect for Palestinian life too.)

Thank you.


(Without having read through the above thread, for what it is worth. I have seen animal labs, from rabbits to primates, and the one *definite* problem I have with them is that - *chronically* - those labs permit animals (mammals) to linger and suffer long after the experiments are over. Why? Sheer laziness. Lack of staff, interest, whatever, to either medically relieve the animals of their suffering or to euthanize them.

It's very sad to pass back and forth by labs [corporate or university labs] and see the animals suffering so badly, clearly, afterwards, for no reason at all. Also, I do believe that there are a lot of pro-animal testing myths and propaganda. At the very least there should be strict rules of animal-testing ethics (especially mammals and other higher forms) the way there are usually strict rules for human medical testing. And we certainly don't need to be doing painful animal testing for something as superficial to life, so that women can wear the latest price-inflated cosmetics. It's all about a high respect for ALL life; not arrogance about human life. This is what morally guides those like me in politics or nature.)
by BURN HLS!!!!!!!!!!
Friday Sep 5th, 2003 3:20 AM

get out and get some exercise, your over consumptive arrogant lifestyle is killing the young ones, got nothing to do with your predisposition as a puppy killer and animal torturer.

Yale expert warns children may lead shorter lives than their parents because of obesity

New Haven, Conn. -- "Food Fight, " a new book by a Yale expert on nutrition and obesity, warns that today's children might be the first generation in modern history to live shorter lives than their parents because of poor diet. see url

As to your relatives or friend dying, modern medicine provides adequate remedies for relieving pain and symptoms. But that's just it. Because you choose to eat in excess or live a unhealthy lifestyle, I should somehow cower to you. Fuck off. Leave the animals alone. Suppose you think slaughtering the Buffaloes was a good thing or the death's to the passenger pigeon was a good thing. Hey, just another forward progression of domination by man isn't it? Just like HLS's unneccessary animal testing. Another inalienable right your defending. Nessie, your up their with the Gestapo and Bush. BURN HLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by dont bother
Friday Sep 5th, 2003 7:58 AM
Yeah it probably is Nessie. He said something about a friend of his dying from liver disease and how he feels that animal rights activists were to blame for their death. Its a rather strange jump in logic but he feels strongly about it. Since the connection between someone dying from liver disease and protesters opposing pig to human transplants is pretty tenuous (the technology isnt here yet, might never work and there are far better ways to save someone dying from liver disease), Im guessing some random animal rights activiist said something rude to Nessie right after his friends death

Just as a warning. He wont actually debate you. He gets really mad and will post a response about "how dare you deny my friend the right to live". His real hatred is directed at animal rights activists for something that an individual activists did or said years ago so the debate can go nowhere. Nessie's anger is getting in the way of his willingness to think and debate.

I can see how this thread can almost be seen as COINTELPRO finding an issue to divide people with. The FBI needs to find a bomber in the Bay Area in the activist community. Long time actvists probably have a clue into who is involved with ELF/ALF. Nessie has already said that he sees ALF as a terrorist organization no different from Al Qaida and has even said he hopes people go after them. All nessie would have to do to catch the bomber is pick up a phone and name a few names of former Earth First activists and the ALF bomber would probably be caught. BUt I'm guessing/hoping that nessie hates the FBI more than he hates ELF/ALF and Nessies opinions on this issue are pretty issolated among activists.The reason no ELF activists have never been caught is partly their security but also a certain unity across issues among the radical left.

The main thing that makes this seem like its not COINTELPRO is that Nessie is an editor of this site and probably would have hidden his own posts if they were fake. Its also not too surprising that someone can have extremely weird view on a single issue. There are probably Israeli labor actvists who call themselves anarchists and while opposing Israel in theory support the occupation and IDF due to anger about friends dying in suicide bombings. Misdirected anger over friends and relatives deaths often make people hold extreme and illogical views.
by uh oh
Friday Sep 5th, 2003 10:40 AM
There is an episode of Buffy where the vampire slayer is replaced by an ineffective robot.

I think the same thing has happened to corporate slayer Nessie and we now have a Nessiebot.
by sooo
Friday Sep 5th, 2003 2:41 PM

why is it you who dictates what this thread is about. people are entitled to post comments on what ever topic they choose to. you dictating what the thread is about is contradictory to your argument that ALF is inhibiting your friends from finding a cure to their hep c troubles and having choice. isn't discussing tactics or the health care in threads about choice to discuss what is on people's minds. remember your so holy about choice, why can't people choose to discuss what they please here?

stop dictating people's thoughts on a public website. or is this independant, but only when the editors choose to have it open?

if people want to discuss direct action tactics or the flaws in health care, let em. you shouldn't be dictating what is discussed here. i see off-topics in a lot of threads, doesn't mean it's wrong. no one is forcing you to read those postings. no one is forcing anyone here, oh but you are narrowly focusinng the debate. and your response, i can already see the snipits and the it's a straw man argument followed with a link, blah blah blah....

answer this question, why is it YOU who gets to dictate what this thread is about? i personally like to read the different opinions and divergents that happen in a heated thread. that's a good thing. narrowing it to your friends ailments is censorship/dictatorship.

suppicious it is cause your PERSONALLY invested with a friend who has hep-c? see your too emotionally involved on this topic. just like the folks who take up the torch to these labs. emotionally invested in the critters being used in the experiments. makes you and them both irrational and look like Quacks. and i know your going to overanalyse this, but step away. look at the waste generated in the animal testing labs or supposed science at the university levels.

since we've made wonderful computer technology, why is it that in vertibrate zoology classes across the country, students are dissecting farm raised cats, pigs, eels, sharks, frogs, etc... unneccesaary loss and creation of animal life. computers can show and illustrate the inside of animals a lot better. did you ask the cat when it got it's drivers license if it wanted to be donated to a science class for some undergrad to dissect it.

organ donors are asked those questions. enough said, your mind is made up. will not debate you on this anymore, cause your going to say it's about your questions. well i think your questions are stupid. i choose not to be dictated by you. this is a discussion forum, not a deposition or court proceeding.

do you think ELF burned down Vail in 97'? not that the two underground movements(ELF & ALF) are the same, but it's posed to find out how much you really know and interact with those out doing front line direct action. and whether you agree with the tactic or not, it is a heavier risk being on the frontlines than you face being a arm chair anarchist.

by sooo
Friday Sep 5th, 2003 2:50 PM

why is it you who dictates what this thread is about. people are entitled to post comments on what ever topic they choose to. you dictating what the thread is about is contradictory to your argument that ALF is inhibiting your friends from finding a cure to their hep c troubles and having choice. isn't discussing tactics or the health care in threads about choice to discuss what is on people's minds. remember your so holy about choice, why can't people choose to discuss what they please here?

stop dictating people's thoughts on a public website. or is this independant, but only when the editors choose to have it open?

if people want to discuss direct action tactics or the flaws in health care, let em. you shouldn't be dictating what is discussed here. i see off-topics in a lot of threads, doesn't mean it's wrong. no one is forcing you to read those postings. no one is forcing anyone here, oh but you are narrowly focusinng the debate. and your response, i can already see the snipits and the it's a straw man argument followed with a link, blah blah blah....

answer this question, why is it YOU who gets to dictate what this thread is about? i personally like to read the different opinions and divergents that happen in a heated thread. that's a good thing. narrowing it to your friends ailments is censorship/dictatorship.

suppicious it is cause your PERSONALLY invested with a friend who has hep-c? see your too emotionally involved on this topic. just like the folks who take up the torch to these labs. emotionally invested in the critters being used in the experiments. makes you and them both irrational and look like Quacks. and i know your going to overanalyse this, but step away. look at the waste generated in the animal testing labs or supposed science at the university levels.

since we've made wonderful computer technology, why is it that in vertibrate zoology classes across the country, students are dissecting farm raised cats, pigs, eels, sharks, frogs, etc... unneccesaary loss and creation of animal life. computers can show and illustrate the inside of animals a lot better. did you ask the cat when it got it's drivers license if it wanted to be donated to a science class for some undergrad to dissect it.

organ donors are asked those questions. enough said, your mind is made up. will not debate you on this anymore, cause your going to say it's about your questions. well i think your questions are stupid. i choose not to be dictated by you. this is a discussion forum, not a deposition or court proceeding.

do you think ELF burned down Vail in 97'? not that the two underground movements(ELF & ALF) are the same, but it's posed to find out how much you really know and interact with those out doing front line direct action. and whether you agree with the tactic or not, it is a heavier risk being on the frontlines than you face being a arm chair anarchist.

by hmmm
Friday Sep 5th, 2003 2:50 PM

why is it you who dictates what this thread is about. people are entitled to post comments on what ever topic they choose to. you dictating what the thread is about is contradictory to your argument that ALF is inhibiting your friends from finding a cure to their hep c troubles and having choice. isn't discussing tactics or the health care in threads about choice to discuss what is on people's minds. remember your so holy about choice, why can't people choose to discuss what they please here?

stop dictating people's thoughts on a public website. or is this independant, but only when the editors choose to have it open?

if people want to discuss direct action tactics or the flaws in health care, let em. you shouldn't be dictating what is discussed here. i see off-topics in a lot of threads, doesn't mean it's wrong. no one is forcing you to read those postings. no one is forcing anyone here, oh but you are narrowly focusinng the debate. and your response, i can already see the snipits and the it's a straw man argument followed with a link, blah blah blah....

answer this question, why is it YOU who gets to dictate what this thread is about? i personally like to read the different opinions and divergents that happen in a heated thread. that's a good thing. narrowing it to your friends ailments is censorship/dictatorship.

suppicious it is cause your PERSONALLY invested with a friend who has hep-c? see your too emotionally involved on this topic. just like the folks who take up the torch to these labs. emotionally invested in the critters being used in the experiments. makes you and them both irrational and look like Quacks. and i know your going to overanalyse this, but step away. look at the waste generated in the animal testing labs or supposed science at the university levels.

since we've made wonderful computer technology, why is it that in vertibrate zoology classes across the country, students are dissecting farm raised cats, pigs, eels, sharks, frogs, etc... unneccesaary loss and creation of animal life. computers can show and illustrate the inside of animals a lot better. did you ask the cat when it got it's drivers license if it wanted to be donated to a science class for some undergrad to dissect it.

organ donors are asked those questions. enough said, your mind is made up. will not debate you on this anymore, cause your going to say it's about your questions. well i think your questions are stupid. i choose not to be dictated by you. this is a discussion forum, not a deposition or court proceeding.

do you think ELF burned down Vail in 97'? not that the two underground movements(ELF & ALF) are the same, but it's posed to find out how much you really know and interact with those out doing front line direct action. and whether you agree with the tactic or not, it is a heavier risk being on the frontlines than you face being a arm chair anarchist.

by anarchist
Friday Sep 5th, 2003 6:44 PM
"I know from direct, personal observation that waste is kept to a minimum."
So you think that Capitalism can exist without extreme waste. Somehow all business except animal testing is based of the profit motive and ripping off the general public?

"But that?s irrelevant, Waste is not the issue."
Why not? Imagine we were discussing nuclear power and you accused people of being murderers for opposing it since a friend of yours is in a hospital and being kept alive by equipment run off electricity. If a bunch of people tried to argue that there are other ways to generate electricity, would you call that a nonissue? If they argued that the economic and political systems required to support a nuclear power plant are destructive would that be a nonissue? Would the only directly related issue be the tactics of the antinuclear activists and the poor atoms being split. Would you make statements about antinuclear activists being rapists since they dont believe in "freedom of choice to split atoms" and call antinuclear activists Nazis since there may have been some Germans in the 30s who opposed nuclear power. Would you avoid any discussion of other technologies that could generate power? Would you avoid questions about how power companies might choose nuclear technology for profits rather than to save people's lives?

Ah, but the topic of this thread is bombings? So you think that ALF should be arrested by teh FBI since any group that would dare cause damage to property (thats all they did) should be arrested? Or not arrested since you oppose that, but at least hunted down and beat up by someone?

ALF really is a harmless little group that hasnt done that much. ELF has caused slightly more damage but to private businesses that were not guarded. The Weather Underground managed to target the Pentagon and major political targets but didnt kill anyone. The Red Army Fraction killed a few major leaders and hijacked planes. I personally have no probelms with any of those groups. I wouldnt call any of the actions terrorism since I think that word is a loaded and only suited for people like Ashcroft and the FBI.

But the issue isnt tactics is it? You think ALF/ELF is a terrorist group because you support a business that an ALF group may have targeted. So we really need to hear your defense of that business and an explanation about how it is a net benefit to the world dont we? Saying humans are worth more than pigs doesnt cut it since thats almost like someone for nuclear power saying that antinuclear hroups are worng because humans are more important than atoms.

I personally see some value in the life of a pig. I probably wouldnt see its life as being more important than most humans if that really was a choice (which I dont think it is) but that also depends on the human (I would probably pick the pig over Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld etc...)
by choice
Friday Sep 5th, 2003 7:16 PM
>why is it you who dictates what this thread is about.
It isn’t. The first post in the thread dictates the topic.

--The topic in this thread is bombs

OK, so ol Ness stated it, the topic of this thread is about bombs. Are we talking c-4 or Dynamite, how about the use of a timer in the bomb device? Are we discussing bunker busting bombs or those yellow bombs that looked like food rations in afghanistan that blew up those humans? are we talking about food not bombs(; cause if that's the topic, well let's just say they do good things.

other types of bombs, .....---..... breadcrust bombs, ribbon bombs, spindle bombs, spheroidal bombs, and "cow-dung" bombs.

Bombs don't always have to blow things up to smithereens. You could easily make a smoke grenades, passion bombs, or sleep mines.

Making bombs

Putting together a bomb isn't too tough- it just requires some minor math. It also requires the explosives skill- this new skill allows players to make their own bombs and little more than that. Then you need to calculate the difficulty number for the explosives roll. Multiply the power times 2.5 plus one and add 5 for each point of range over 1. As an example, a power 4 & Range 2 bomb would have a difficulty of 14 to make the bomb. You'll want to roll d10 + Intelligence + explosives for the roll. If the result comes up as a 1, BOOM! You've blown up the bomb just as you finished building it. GMs are encouraged to tease the player as much as possible. Rolling a 10 increases the power by 1 point and the roll is automatically successful.

still hasn't answered ol ness es question i suppose, but that'd be off topic. at this point, forgot what ness question was.

cluster bombs, see also:
by heck
Friday Sep 5th, 2003 8:11 PM
when did Nessie get clubbed unconscious? Who did that?
by so
Friday Sep 5th, 2003 8:11 PM
"What gives these people the right to use force, in this case bombs, to deny innocent human beings the right to choose not to die slow, painful, hideous deaths?

Why does no one answer this question?"

You really are stupid arent you. I mean its one thing to disagree but you dont even seem to read what people are posting. People have answered your question about 200 times.

"the right" to use force"
Protests that are not 100% nonviolent has a long tradition. Its hard to call it a right but its a sacrifice that many people take to promote their causes. Be that cause something small like a local development project. Or large like trying to stop a war or fight fascists in the Spanish Civil War. Of course a ballance must be weighed between the effects of the damage and the goal. But property damage to a MNC seems smaller than a lot of things other groups have done. Before arguing with you I wasnt sure of my opinions about ALF and nonviolence but your little right wing tired now makes me realize how we must all stand together or the state will pick us off one by one.

"in this case bombs"
It was still property damage. Blocking a road at rush hour probably risks more lives when ambulances cant get through.

"to deny innocent human beings"
Corporations are not human beings they are corpoartions.

"the right to choose not to die slow, painful, hideous deaths?"
Well a company that is trying to make money by torturing animals isnt exactly a person choosing about a slow death. Of all your repeated arguments this is really the most tenuous. Even the people at the animal testing companies probably wouldnt argue this. When Blair and Jack Straw made an appearance at HLS in the UK to show their support they mainly talked about jobs being lost if HLS moved abroad.

Does that start to answer your question? I can go back into why supporting a corporation isnt the same thing as saving lives but you wont read that argument since you have such strong faith in the motives of corporate CEOs.
by warning
Friday Sep 5th, 2003 8:40 PM
People who support ALF or ELF REALLY SHOULD NOT BE POSTING TO THIS SITE. Nessie is drawing you in and trying to trick you into saying something that reveals you knew about the bombing. The FBI can easilly figure out where you are posting from.
by Fred
Saturday Sep 6th, 2003 8:18 AM
Aren't they busy protecting corporations from the terrorist peace activists doing civil disobedience at places like docks and federal corporate headquarters?

How hard would it really be for the FBI to find ALF / ELF people? The gps units are already planted on their cars.

But aren't they busy figuring out their own terror plans to keep Bush in office anyway? I mean, the next staged event is in order, soon after the release of this dog -
and in a matter of months, they'll have their hands full staging the fake outcome of that event, or else responding to whatever the cabal tries to blame them for.

TACOMA -- A federal judge has tossed out a lawsuit against the U.S. Coast Guard filed by an anti-whaling activist over injuries she suffered while protesting a Native American whale hunt on April 20, 2000.

The protester, Erin Abbott, was "wholly at fault" in operating a personal watercraft negligently inside an exclusionary zone against a Makah Nation whaling canoe, Judge Franklin Burgess ruled on Aug. 25.

"Ms. Abbott thus not only intentionally violated the MEZ (exclusionary zone), which she knew was in effect, and pled guilty to negligent endangerment of life at sea, and violated the rules of the road," Burgess said, "but she violated safe operating practices, good seamanship, federal regulation and common sense in making high-speed passes with a personal watercraft in the vicinity of a canoe, a vessel engaged in a completely lawful activity in the open ocean with little freeboard."

Abbott was one of several waterborne protesters who darted in and out of a 500-yard "no entry" zone established by the Coast Guard around the canoe, Burgess noted.

Despite a warning from the Coast Guard, Abbott entered the zone and collided with a Coast Guard boat trying to put itself between her fast watercraft and the wooden whaling canoe. The Coast Guard rescued Abbott from the water.

by who is to blame?
Saturday Sep 6th, 2003 11:39 PM
Britain shamed by NHS death rates

Waiting lists and shortage of doctors blamed for grim mortality figures

Jo Revill, health editor
Sunday September 7, 2003
The Observer

Patients who have major surgery in Britain are four times more likely to die than those in America, according to a major new study.

The comparison of care, which reveals a sevenfold difference in mortality rates in one set of patients, concludes that hospital waiting lists, a shortage of specialists and competition for intensive care beds are to blame.

Fresh evidence of a stark contrast between the fate of patients on either side of the Atlantic will re-open the debate over whether NHS reforms are having any impact on survival rates.

Mounting evidence suggests that patients who are most at risk of complications after an operation are not being seen by specialists, and are not reaching intensive care units in time to save them.,1480,1036970,00.html

Should the UK spend millions helping HLS stay alive or focus on these problems? A cost benefit study easilly shows that the problem with healthcare is mostly on the distribution side and anyone blaming the animals rights crowd is trying to pass off the blame. Perhaps its not an either/or choice but money is limited and there are very direct things that are noncontroversial that can be done to save lives.

If Britain cut all animal testing would there be a long term change in mortality rates? If they focused on what the real weaknesses in the health system there would be a huge decrease in mortality rates. In that light people who are going around encouraging more money to go into wasteful animal testing should be seen as the real murderers of the general public. Its not a question of a pigs live vs a human life its a question of the lives of the wealthy few vs the lives of the general public.
by band-aid
Sunday Sep 7th, 2003 12:05 AM
this is one of the problems with communist health care
the rich get special treatment while the poor bleed to death with minor problems
by get your facts straight
Sunday Sep 7th, 2003 12:23 AM
>he rich get special treatment while the poor bleed to death with minor problems

This is one of the problems with *capitalist* health care.
by hmm
Sunday Sep 7th, 2003 10:25 AM
"(1.) Against animal testing, this is a totally bogus argument. There is not enough money for proper health care, not because money is being wisely spent on animal based research, but because money is being foolishly wasted on war. "

A lot of money goes to war, but that doesnt excuse the allocation of the existing resources. The connection between animal testing and deaths (which makes you call ALF murderers and rapists) is if anything more tenuous than one between medical spending and deaths. Why? Animal testing is a method that might lead after many years towards treatments whereas allocation of fund towards real health reform could save lives much more quickly.

Lets say the government could spend all money from wars on healthcare. I bet you that the money still wouldnt cover the extension of the best existing treatments to the whole population. Free weekly MRIs might prevent 99% of existing cancer deaths but it would cost billions. Spending more on animal testing probably wouldnt save any more lives (and the effect of all the animal protests put together havnt caused a noticable dent in the healthcare system).

Encouraging people to live healthier is probably the best way to save lives. If you smoke cigaretes you are not only causing damage to others via second hand smoke but you will eventually tie up a huge amount of money through treatment for lung cancer or other smoking related illnesses. Eating less red meat is one factor that leads to heart problems which also cost a huge amount.

The resources of any society (Capitalist or otherwise) are limited. There are only so many people who will want to become heart surgeons. Expensive equipment (that contains parts produced all over the world and is a result of thousands of hours of manual labor) is necessary for most advanced medical procedures. Capitalist societies prioritize where money goes based on demand so the rich play a large factor in determining where resources are allocated. In a Socialist or Anarchist society one would hope that societies resources would be based more off of actual needs. In the US the rich can go to the doctor at the sign of a slight cold or pain, wheras the poor might be forced to go to emergency rooms (that are now no longer obligated to provide treatment) when things are dire. The priority is placed on enpensive basic care for the rich only and expensive procedures for the rich and those with insurance. In a more Socialist or Anarchist society one would hope that most of societies healthcare resources would go into basic care for everyone and focus on prevention more than expensive operations that tie up societies resources.

None of this is that controversial. Even in the capitalist press debates on what can be done to improve healthcare never include people like Nessie going off on how more animal testing would save lives. If you go up to any doctor or medical reseracher and ask them the biggest factors holding back medical advances you are very unlikely to hear them mention animal rights groups. You are much more likely to hear the doctors complain about insurance plans, staffing at hospitals and other things related to expenses.

Really it is a choice between spending money for testing on a pig or spending money saving a human life. So the choice is between a pig and a human but people like Nessie are the ones who value the pig more than human life.
by some thoughts
Sunday Sep 7th, 2003 11:30 AM
Do animals have rights? Just posing the question is likely to draw reactions ranging from outright scorn for the idea to very passionate appeals in defense of non-human living species. It seems to me that this is a crucial question because of what it says about how we intend to treat the environment in which we live. Yet, it is a question that opens up endless avenues of discussion that may not necessarily lead one towards a simple answer.
To begin with, as I have argued in this column before, “rights” are not a feature of the natural world, but rather an entirely human construct. That, of course, doesn’t mean they are not interesting or important. Democracy is also a human construct, but its existence or lack thereof affects the lives of billions on the planet. The fact that rights are a human construct, however, means that we cannot appeal to the laws of nature to defend any particular viewpoint about them.

One could then construe the idea of animal rights as reflecting our acknowledgment that we live in a complex world that we share we other creatures, and that these other creatures should not be considered as pure means for our ends (in perfectly Kantian fashion, for the philosophically inclined). I am going to assume that all but the most callous individuals will agree to this rather mild statement. But we are just beginning to unravel the complexity: what should the extent of these “rights” be, to what range of other species should we extend them, and using what criteria?

Clearly, here opinions soon diverge radically. Consider individuals who choose a vegetarian life style in order not to harm other living creatures. There are several styles of vegetarianism, from people who don’t want anything to do with any animal product whatsoever (including eggs, cheese, etc.), to people who are comfortable eating some animals, for example invertebrates (shrimp, clams), or even some vertebrates (fish). Furthermore, the motivations for being a vegetarian may also range enormously. Some feel this is a matter of not using other living creatures for our ends (however biologically justified this may appear to be), while others object to human practices of animal husbandry and are content when eating free-range or otherwise “humanely” raised animals, even chickens.

None of these positions is intrinsically irrational (though some may lead to a few internal contradictions when pushed to the limit), and there doesn’t seem to be a way to decide among them according to purely logical criteria. For example, one common thread emerging from the consideration of the range of vegetarianism is that people seem to apply a rough biological criterion to their choices: the spectrum from vegans to people that eat free-ranging chickens could be interpreted as a continuum along evolutionary time (species that diverged early on from us, like plants, are OK to eat, those more closely related to humans, like most vertebrates, are not allowed). Or it could represent an assessment based on the degree of complexity of each species’ nervous systems (most invertebrates, except squids and octopuses, are really dumb and it is difficult to think of them as having feelings, but dogs and even cats clearly seem to have them).

I am not saying that people consciously think in terms of evolution (heck, remember that about half of Americans don’t actually believe in it!) or neurobiology, but they seem to feel that those are reasonable criteria. The difference between different kinds of vegetarianism, and indeed even the one between vegetarians and meat-eaters (actually, omnivores, since nobody eats only meat) then becomes a question of where one chooses to draw the line in the sand of biological complexity. Few seem to want to draw the line at the boundary between the organic and inorganic worlds (i.e., refusing to eat even plants), but anything beyond that is rather arbitrary.

Arbitrary lines in the sand, of course, are not irrational to draw. We do it all the times in our lives, simply because the world is too complex to attempt to live without holding any belief or engaging in any behavior that is contradictory with others we also espouse. The real questions seem to be: first, what criteria should we agree upon to sensibly talk about animal (or human, or plant) rights? Second, and once we have answered the previous question, how do we negotiate as a society where that line in the sand is best drawn?

The problem that many people are likely to find with this approach is that it doesn’t fit simplistic positions: vegetarians, for example, can’t simply claim that eating animal flesh is immoral without being willing to do the additional work of answering the two questions posed above. They don’t get to hold the high moral ground by default (I am aware, of course, that the question of animal rights is much broader than just vegetarians vs. meat-eaters, but this particular debate well illustrates the broader issues). Omnivores, on the other hand, can’t just reject the other side’s position as silly, or they will logically be faced with uncomfortable questions of their own (so, if it is OK to eat animals, what about your dog? Chimps?)

I don’t pretend to have an answer, but I think it is important to pose the questions more broadly and invite a less emotional discussion to take place. For the record, I do eat meat, but I object to the treatment of animals by the large meat-producing companies that run most of the business in modern Western societies.
by so
Sunday Sep 7th, 2003 8:05 PM
Why is property damage against a Mc Donalds to protest globalization justified while property damage against a biotech company is not justified? You can take a stance that property damage during protests is evil but you should be consistent. Otherwise the issue isnt the tactic its the cause.

In both cases the result is mainly media attention and since the companies are insured, the end result is slighly higher insurance rates and potentially a few pissed off employees.

I personally dont think property damage at demonstrations has been very productive. The antiwar protests in SF gained attention by stopping the city but the only effect of the property damage was bad press. At the same time Im not going to go around denouncing people who broke windows as terrorists. The same goes for the recent ALF attack. I dont think it helped their cause much (aside from raising attention to their issue) but I dont think it was a horrible action that one could describe as terrorism either. It probably gave the FBI an excuse to spy on people and raid homes but the same can be said of the window breaking at federally owned buildings in SF.

I havnt heard anyone yet claim that they value animal lives more than human lives in a serious argument (some people have posted that here out of spite "I think your life is worth less than a pig" and some have said it abstractly "I tend to like cats better than people"). If it came down to a real choice most people would value a human over an animal of a different species (although that might not be true if scientists were trying to capture a rare animal...). The argument about animal testing is one of costs and benefits and simply saying "animal testing saves lives" is one that requires looking at the entire healthcare system not just making some statement as if it were true.

So far there hasnt been much debate on here over the science of animal testing (an article detailing problems with why animal testing is really done by many companies is posted a ways back with no attempt yet at a reponse). Creating a straw man out of ones opponent and then yelling at them for differing with what you assume to be their position is hardly a way to argue. Nobody is saying that they are glad Nessie's friend is dead because a pig is alive. Unless an animal rights activist destroyed a container containing a liver that was about to save Nessie's friend, I cant really see how he makes the jump from his friends death to his blaming of animal rights activists. The technology wasnt there at the time and wasnt being held back by attacks that have had little effect on the industry.
by yech
Monday Sep 8th, 2003 10:15 AM
Their food is really unhealthy. Eating it will shorten your life. Also entire rain forests are being cut down to make room for cattle grazing to supply McD's with meat.
by Ronald McDonald
Monday Sep 8th, 2003 10:59 AM
McDonalds food is not 'really unhealthy' - it is relatively unhealthy to other foods. Hamburgers and fries are better than not eating at all.

Poor people deserve a chance to go out to eat too you know.

Look where we have come as a society. We used to decry the fact that the poor were starving. But now that capitalism has come up with a solution to that problem(McD's), we hear that poor kids are not eating as nutritiously as others. Let's get some perspective people.
by wrong
Monday Sep 8th, 2003 12:44 PM
Medical science deems it to be unhealthy, not Nessie.
by Restated
Monday Sep 8th, 2003 1:13 PM
Please strike: So you, Nessie, would deprive impoverished people the opportunity to eat a cheap meal at McDonalds which they obviously value, because YOU deem it to be unhealthy? That sounds oppressive to me. I thought you were an anarchist?

and replace with:

So you, Nessie, would deprive impoverished people the opportunity to eat a cheap meal at McDonalds which they obviously value, because YOU deem it to be TOO UNHEALTHY FOR THEM? That sounds oppressive to me. I thought you were an anarchist?





You are depriving them of a joyful moment. How dare you impose your standards of health upon them?
by Y E S-
Monday Sep 8th, 2003 3:38 PM
if you think that the government should not ban poison in the guise of food, why do you not support legalizing pot, and other healthy drugs?

why does the government maintain the right to arrest you for consuming what ever it is you feel like, but encourages fast foods empires to kill the citizens in slow motion?
by just wondering
Monday Sep 8th, 2003 9:03 PM
>So you, Nessie, would deprive impoverished people the opportunity to eat a cheap meal at McDonalds

Where, exactly, did nessie say that? Be specific.
by People Lover
Tuesday Sep 9th, 2003 9:56 AM
I, a supporter of President Bush, Israel, and a true compassionate conservative, agree entirely with Nessie's position regarding the use of animals in order to save lives.

I'm not for kicking puppies or anything, but come on.
by bombs
Tuesday Sep 9th, 2003 1:29 PM
this thread is NOT about what Nessie asks, it's about bombs plain and simple. nessie, quit diverging the topic. start your own thread on the loss of your friends life. get you Antidotal logic out of this thread. it's about bombs. remember, you said it and actually after thinking about it i can actually agree with you on that. this is about bombs. what sort of bombs were used? Did the bombs effectively pursue their goals? Can we bomb the world into submission? Are they still using those yellow bomblets in afghanistan that look like food rations?

if you want to discuss what it is like to die a slow painful death, than start that thread. this thread is discussing bombs.

Nessie, please explore some resources. You have pent up frustration.

Campaign to improve care of the dying by coalition of healthcare professional and consumer organizations. News and discussion on death and dying, reports on palliative care, resource directory, free publications, and e-mail newsletter provided.

Deals with end-of-life issues and problems from a variety of legal, medical, political, and philosophical perspectives. Includes searchable news archive and student research center.
by bombs
Tuesday Sep 9th, 2003 1:47 PM
nessie in a recent comment, you try to make the jump that those who are supportive of the ALF actions are also supportive of human suffering and loss of life. that's hogwash. people who try to end the suffering of innocent animals and the end to torturing of innocent animals for a profit, are more than likely more supportive of life than you can even imagine.

your question isn't being answered, because the logic of the question posed isn't the issue. the answer is no, i highly doubt people want your friends, relatives or anyone for that matter to die a slow painful death. but you also haven't provided any significant ounce of evidence that these vivisection companies and animal testing facilities are really providing a service to humanity at this day and age. read some of the earlier threads, you make no amends to the fact that waste occurs in just about every aspect of life. challenging or becoming disgusted with wasteful animal testing should be done. maybe this tactic of bombing a research facility is viewed as scary, but so is suicide bombing in israel. are you admantly opposed to the palestinian suicide bombers. are you actively working to bring this sort of human suffering to an end. are you actively working on land mine campaigns to stop the needless suffering of soldiers who become amputiees in wars? what is it that you think makes someone strap a bomb to themselves and drive into an open market and blow those innocent lives up around them.

just buy raising these concerns or airing the questions as to whether science can be flawed and that wasteful experiments are being conducted is a good thing. debating and challenging the status quo's ideas that animal experimentation is a god given right to exploit the animal world makes you seem as unreasonable as the ALF. honestly, both extremist points of view on this issue makes you both seem like wack jobs.

associating that someone who defends the defenseless is somehow supportive of human suffering and loss of human life is Ludicrous.
by debate is healthy
Tuesday Sep 9th, 2003 2:15 PM
Drug companies profit at the expense of animals and humans
(6/23/03) There's an old saying, he who pays the piper calls the tune. The May 30 issue of the British Medical Journal was entirely devoted to the problem of pharmaceutical industry's powerful influence over the positive outcome of research projects. The authors of an article in 2000 in the New England Journal of Medicine (see vol 342 p1516-1518) provide a striking example of the problem. The authors' ties with companies that make antidepressant drugs were so extensive that it would have used too much space to disclose them fully in the Journal. The Journal had a difficult time even finding an editor to write about the article. As a result of this and other such problems the New England Journal of Medicine relaxed its longstanding rules on conflict of interest so that it could publish evaluations of new drugs by researchers with financial ties to the manufacturers because it cannot find enough experts without financial ties to drug companies. (see N Engl J Med 2000 vol 346 p 1901-02 and BMJ 2002;324:1474)
A 1998 study in the New England Journal of Medicine, (vol 338 p101-106) compared the authors' financial relationships with industry together with their published positions about the safety of calcium channel blockers. Authors who had financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies were significantly more likely to reach supportive conclusions than authors without such industry affiliations. One study (see Scope and Impact of Financial Conflicts of Interest in Biomedical Research: A Systematic Review by Justin E. Bekelman, AB; Yan Li, MPhil; Cary P. Gross, MD JAMA. 2003;289:454-465) reported that lead authors in 1 of every 3 articles published hold relevant financial interests, while another (Ibid.) reported that approximately two thirds of academic institutions hold equity in "start-up" businesses that sponsor research performed by their faculty.

Science. 1986;231:242-246 and N Engl J Med. 1996;334:368-373.) found that 92% of firms supported academic research and that approximately one fourth of investigators have industry affiliations. Other recent studies have revealed a statistically significant association between industry financial sponsorship and pro-industry conclusions. In other words, money talks.

Madison Avenue is also actively engaged in helping create the next generation of blockbuster drugs. Ad agencies are buying or investing in companies engaged in the actual science of drug development, including organizing clinical trials. Some ad agencies also own companies that ghostwrite scientific journals and develop medical education courses - all designed to promote the perceived need for "new and better" drugs to fight human disease.

According to NOW with Bill Moyers (Science for Sale? 11-15-02 Joe Torre, chief executive of the ad agency, Torre Lazur-McCann Healthcare Worldwide, stated: "We've launched over 65 new pharmaceutical products." And to help launch even more products, Torre Lazur early this year bought its own clinical research firm, Target Research Associates so the agency no longer merely markets new drugs, it now studies the benefits and dangers of experimental drugs. Torre continued: "We provide services that go from the beginning of drug development all the way to the launch of your products." This means an ad agency can submit data to the FDA that will determine if the drug is approved. A case in point was the new pain reliever Bextra. The Food and Drug Administration approved Bextra for mild pain like arthritis, but not for acute pain. Six months later a private research company - Scirex - partly owned by The Omnicom Group, released a new study showing that Bextra did relieve acute pain from dental surgery. While Bextra cannot be advertised for acute pain, doctors are now freely prescribing it for that purpose.
So, what does all of this have to do with animal testing? Pharmaceutical companies are in the business of making and marketing drugs. The easiest way to make sure you obtain the results you want is to use animal models. Experiment on enough species and you will find the result you want: that your drug is safe or that your competitor's is not. It is also the cheapest. Drug discovery and development costs approximately $800 million. Only about 1-2% of that is due to experiments on animals.

The true effects and side effects of drugs are not revealed until human clinical trials are performed. But since clinical trials cost about two-thirds of that $800 million, drug companies (and, now, their marketers) are reluctant to do what physicians have wanted for decades-extend and broaden clinical trials. That would lessen profits.

While being relatively inexpensive, animal tests also give drug companies liability protection. When a pharmaceutical company is sued, they demonstrate to the jury that the drug was tested in animals where it performed well and was shown to be safe. Most juries do not understand the intricacies of drug development and, thus, believe the animal data to be irrefutable. Consequently, monetary settlements are often low in proportion to the injury caused by the drug. Animal testing of drugs has, therefore, proven to be a wise investment for the drug company.

While we applaud drug companies for developing new treatments for human illnesses, it's extremely important to watch with scrutiny the money trail. Animal models do not work as predictors of human response. In the end, we are all paying a very high price for animal testing - a price that may cost of our health.

see also:
How Genetics and Evolution Reveal Why Medical Research on Animals Harms Humans
by C. Ray Greek, M.D. and Jean Swingle Greek, D.M.V.

Those with a vested interest frequently claim that biomedical research using animals is a necessary evil. Specious Science demonstrates that those who make such claims have wandered from the fact-based rationality that drives real science.

The Greeks use current knowledge of genetics and evolution to explain why animal-modeled science should be viewed with the same skepticism that most educated people view crystal therapy, pyramid power, and faith healing.

Once they have presented a theory for why members of other animal species are not productive models of human disease, the Greeks go on to examine the evidence and demonstrate that their theory is sound. Using the history of medical advancement as their test bed, the authors look at the record and debunk the claims we have all heard about animal research being the source of all cures - claims made by the vested interests that turn out to be spin-doctoring and myth.

With much scholarship and research, the Greeks have uncovered the roots and behind-the-scenes stories of the discoveries that have changed medicine through time into a science. They explain the lost chances and delays that a faith in the animal model has repeatedly caused. They expose the fatal catastrophes that have resulted when scientists have chosen to value animal data over human, and they have explained the surprising histories of the medical miracles that have arisen from doctors trying to help human patients.

The book also points out recent breakthroughs and advances in medicine that are stemming from human biology, genetics, epidemiology, chemistry, physics, and mathematics. We learn that computers are screening chemicals at astonishing rates and predicting their efficacy and toxicity as drugs at a rate and degree of accuracy that will embarrass everyone with a stake in the archaic practice of animal experimentation.

Together, Specious Science and Sacred Cows and Golden Geese, present a cogent and compelling argument that explains why animal experiments continue and why they continue to retard real medicine progress and result in continued human suffering.

Anyone wishing to understand the science of medicine and the debate surrounding the theory of animal models will find this book essential reading. Rick Bogle, Founder, Primate Freedom Project

Mention "anti-vivisection" and in the minds of many you'll call up visions of long-haired idealistic radicals of the ilk who torch research institutes or organize subversive rescues on mink ranches in between meals of tofu and soy milk -- a subcategory of hippie liberals driven by a misguided ethical code that inexplicably places the worth of the lives and well-being of "lower" animals above that of humans. Be the stereotype as it may (or not), those who've been fighting an impassioned but mainly losing battle against the deep-seated animal model in research just got themselves a doozy of a new weapon to aid them in their quest, and it's a weapon based not on the pining of bleeding hearts, but on logic, scientific methodology, and copious research findings: animal-model research for human medicine doesn't work.

That according to C. Ray Greek, MD, and Jean Swingle Greek, DVM, in their latest assay against animal model research, Specious Science. Co-founders of Americans for Medical Advancement and Europeans for Medical Advancement, the Greeks have already published an exposé of the way in which those who profit from an untenable animal research model -- drug manufacturers, researchers dependent on government grants, animal suppliers and cage manufacturers, to name some -- keep an entrenched but wasteful, even harmful, system of medical research in place, in their groundbreaking Sacred Cows and Golden Geese. The Greeks (Ray, a board-certified anesthesiologist, also acts as scientific adviser to the National Anti-Vivisection Society USA) here uncover the pseudo-science status of animal-model research, tearing away bit by logical, scientific bit the veil of general but uninformed acceptance that keeps the animal research industry so lucrative, despite its ultimate uselessness in human application.

Carefully and thoroughly elucidating the scientific underpinnings of their argument, the authors spell out why the animal research paradigm is just plain, unadulterated bad scientific theory. A quote from philosophy professor Michael Allen Fox at Queen's University, Kingston, in Canada perhaps most succinctly sums up the Greeks' own view:

Today's [anti-vivisectionist] movement rejects vivisectionist research on these grounds: (a) inapplicability or limited applicability of data to humans owing to cross-species differences; (b) methodological unsoundness (being scientific); (c) dangerous, misleading and harmfulness of results; (d) wastefulness, inefficiency and expense; (e) triviality; (f) redundancy; (g) motivation by mere curiosity; (h) cruelty; (i) availability of alternatives; (j) desensitization of researchers and their coworkers. (AV Magazine Fall 2000)

That may seem a little dry to the average reader, but the Greeks ceaselessly drive home the too-prevalent spuriousness of animal study results across the medical spectrum.

For several instances:

· Of twenty-two drugs developed on animals as therapeutic in animals with imposed (researcher-caused) spinal cord injuries, none worked on humans (p. 209)

· The first radial keratotomies (surgeries performed to improve vision) were animal experiment-induced catastrophes -- surgeons had "perfected" the procedure on rabbits, but the first humans operated on were blinded because of essential differences in the corneas of rabbits and humans(p. 166)

· Only White New Zealand rabbits -- at doses of thalidomide at 25 to 300 times the human dosage -- gave birth to malformed offspring; all other species (except, eventually, some monkeys at 10 times the human equivalent dose) tested after the thalidomide crisis showed no ill effects (p. 108)

Animal-model research has undeniably led to harm when extrapolated to humans. But the cross-species barrier can also have the effect of "proving" a treatment unsafe for humans, when in fact it is unsafe for some animals but of enormous palliative effect for people (in research patois, that's called a false negative). Ketamine, an effective human sedative and anesthetic, does next to nothing in rats and guinea pigs, and causes tremors and rigidity in sheep and goats (p. 145). Alexander Fleming abandoned penicillin as an antimicrobial when it proved ineffective on rabbits, only to try it serendipitously -- and successfully -- in desperation on a critical human patient a decade later (p. 107). Aspirin causes birth defects in rabbits but not humans.

By inducing symptoms of a human disease, like Alzheimer's, that does not naturally occur in another species and then studying that animal in hopes of somehow finding an answer useful to humanity, animal-model researchers engage in what the Greeks rightly call "specious science." So how does such a flawed system keep turning its tired old cogs?

One congressman stated the way grant applications are funded is "an old boy's system where program managers rely on trusted friends in the academic community to review their proposals. These friends recommend their friends as reviewers... It is an incestuous 'buddy system'"... The cynic who quipped "the rat is an animal which when injected produces a paper" was right. Less than 15 percent of NIH grant applications are funded each year, and most of those are experiments involving animals. So, if you are a researcher at an academic institution that lives by the "publish or perish" maxim, then that is what you do. And for the purposes of getting a paper published, animal-model research is fast, neat, and tidy... Human clinical research, though infinitely more valuable in terms of its ability to deliver applicable results, is much slower and more difficult. (p. 259)

So what's the medical research community of the richest, most developed nation in the world to do? The answer is right in front of us, and it's a mix of the old and the cutting edge. Autopsies, clinical research, epidemiology (the study of disease distribution in populations as well as the factors influencing occurrence of the disease), in vitro research (using cultured human cells and tissues for study), genetics and genomics, and technological contributions from other scientific fields already yield proven quality results.

Like any good debaters -- or like determined crusaders who've been derided time and again for anti-establishment views -- the Greeks wrap up Specious Science with refutations of just about every possible pro-animal model counterargument. This book ought to scare the bejeezus out of every American -- this is much bigger than mere hyperinflated drug costs, although causally related. Pharmaceuticals and institutions of medical research have forgotten who they serve. It's literally life or death that they reevaluate and revise the present system of animal-model research. Resources wasted on specious science will go a long way toward improving the human condition if the "old boys" are forced to reallocate to research that works.

© 2002 by Sharon Schulz-Elsing for Curled Up With a Good Book

Specious Science can be ordered from the publisher: Continuum Publishing, 370 Lexington Ave., New York, NY 10017-6503, 212-953-5858 or Internet and local bookstores.


The Human Cost of Experiments on Animals
by C. Ray Greek, M.D. and Jean Swingle Greek, D.M.V.
Foreword by Jane Goodall

From Publisher's Weekly-Publishers Weekly
"In this compelling report, anesthesiologist Ray Greek and veterinarian Jean Swingle Greek argue against the use of animals in medical experiments. Although the Greeks believe that animal experiments are immoral and wasteful, they avoid the philosophical arguments used by most animal rights activists to generate sympathy for animals. Instead, they marshal a devastating amount of scientific evidence about the human consequences of animal-based medical research. Because of important differences in animal and human physiology, they contend, animals often have a wildly different response to diseases and medications than do humans--according to the authors, every year roughly 100,000 Americans die of adverse reactions to drugs that proved, in animals, to be perfectly safe. Why then do we continue to support widespread animal testing? They pack their well-written, shocking expos with horror stories--about the unnecessary expense of animal experiments; about medications that, though animal tests suggested they were safe, caused liver and heart failure, hemorrhages and death in humans; and about the potentially life-saving drugs that have been kept off the market for humans because they cause harmful side effects in animals.

Throughout, the authors make a strong case for the adoption of nonanimal research alternatives such as clinical observation, in vitro and epidemiological studies, diagnostic imaging of patients, mandatory postmarketing drug surveillance, autopsies, computer modeling and larger, longer clinical trials. Their powerful, courageous appeal is essential reading for concerned citizens and open-minded physicians, veterinarians and scientists."
-(May) Copyright 2000 Cahners Business Information.
by Marburg monkey
Tuesday Sep 9th, 2003 7:44 PM
Western medicine is mainly devoted to fixing symptoms with little energy focused on prevention. By living and eating healthy we can keep our immune system up and avoid illness. Poverty and oppression makes living healthy difficult for many, though corporations exploit poor people by offering fast food cheap. Greasymeat industries like McDonalds are selling 99 cent heart attacks with a side order of diabetes in a ghetto near you..

So now corporate scientists need to test on primates like themselves to solve the problems created by industrial pollution. Instead of helping people stay healthy by advocating nutrition, they remain silent about McDonalds and heart attacks and test new pharma drugs on animals. So they come into my home of the African savannah/rainforest and kidnapp my friends and relatives, locking them in cages. Here we spend a lifetime in a small cell waiting for our next injection of whatever chemical is supposed to heal mankind's latest ills..

Sometimes we bring our own viruses and bacteria with us. We have gotten used to it, but apparently humans have not. Remember Marburg Germany? An outbreak of a new strain of Ebola virus later named Marburg occurred there and killed researchers. This risk continues and other new viruses appear with each shipment of primates..

"The first outbreaks of Marburg occurred (simultaneously) in 1967 in Marburg and Frankfurt, Germany and in Belgrade, Yugoslavia. This outbreak occurred among laboratory workers who processed kidneys from a shipment of vervet monkeys (also known as African Green monkeys) from Uganda for cell culture production. This virus was morphologically unique and antigenically unrelated to any known human pathogen. The wife of one of the 25 infected laboratory workers (who had had sexual contact with her husband) and 5 medical personnel (who presumably had contact with the body fluids of the infected workers) were secondarily infected with the disease. While none of the secondary cases were fatal, 7 of the 25 primarily infected died. Many of the monkeys from the original shipment from Uganda died as well, as did those experimentally inoculated with the disease. In addition, monkeys subsequently captured in Uganda (in the area of the original shipment) had no specific antibodies in their sera. This eliminated the Green Monkey as the reservoir host of the virus. (Peters et. al, 1996:1161)"

taken from;

So if the monkeys are not the reservoir hosts, then where did the virus come form?


We don't want to see human primates suffer, it would be great if we could all live under the sun eating, drinking and frolicking with our loved ones. The industrialized system humans are living under is causing them many problems, from cancer to diabetes to heart problems. We would like to see humans live healthy by eating organic fruits and vegetables as they have for thousands of years before industrialization..

Locking any primate/mammal in a cage is wrong, whether the human prison system for victims of poverty/class apartheid, or animal testing facilities for victims of the pharmaceutical research industry..

by Quote of the Day
Tuesday Sep 9th, 2003 9:51 PM
"That the automobile has practically reached the limit of its development is suggested by the fact that during the past year no improvements of a radical nature have been introduced."

-- Scientific American, Jan. 2, 1909

by more effective than animal testing
Wednesday Sep 10th, 2003 8:54 PM
"You’re begging the question here. You assume that there is a god to give or not give rights, and that rights are god given or not. You also assume that there is some difference between humanity and the rest of the animal world. The animal world is not something outside of humanity. We *are* animals. Animals exploit each other. That’s natures way. Foxes exploit chickens. Chickens exploit grasshoppers. That’s how life works. "

Foxes do not lock chickens in cages for their entire lives. Human beings are not foxes. The security provided the chickens/monkeys by protection from predation is less than equal to the loss of freedom for the chicken/monkey/etc..

Yes, we are all animals. As animals we are also evolving. Part of this evolution involves a change in out consciousness and outlook on the world. When we truly free ourselves from oppressive behavior towards one another and all other animal life forms, we will have crossed the divide and entered the next stage of evolution..

Ask another human who was incarcerated if they would be willing to personally kidnap a primate from their rainforest habitat and keep them in a small cage for the rest of their natural lives. They would provide food and look into the primate's eyes every day. Perhaps some people would still do this, though looking into the eyes of another, you would understand the suffering and depression caused by indefinite incarceration..

Sickness and health, that's a tough one. No, not all human illnesses are self-inflicted, but having a healthy lifestyle is needed to fight off most infections. Malnutrition is probably the greatest reason for human suseptibility to illness. This is a large factor in third world illness, also stress and violence. Malaria is nothing new, for thousands of years people have survived and evolved with this disease. Maybe before colonialism people were living healthier, and therefore it wasn't as much of a threat. Here in the USA, refined sugar intake weakens the immune system and causes greater risk of infections. Since most products contain refined sugars, this is a prevalent factor in american health problems..

To sum up, health problems can be greatly reduced by helping people get good nutrition and avoid substances that weaken their immune system. This is far more effective and reliable than the mystery world of animal research. Maybe a pharmaceutical corporation will develop a drug that works, maybe not. Either way far more money is wasted on animal testing than produce positive results. If you really want to help people like u claim, support third world people's independence from WTO corporations (like Chevron/Shell) that exploit their resources and here in USA get Coca-Cola out of public schools. By pulling Coca-cola out of schools, you'll save ALOT more children from getting diabetes in the first place than waiting for the 100th injection in the baboon that might become a drug that maybe cures 1 in 1000 people..

We are evolving away from oppressive behavior..

..please join us..
by Just another example
Wednesday Sep 10th, 2003 9:20 PM
Savings lives often doesnt require huge costs, years of research, or harm to other animals. There are many cheap simple and moral ways that lives can be saved that dont require huge multinationals.

A simple inflatable sheet could save some of the

thousands who die every year from heart attacks, says its inventor.

Many people who suffer cardiac arrest outside hospital die before they get there.

Dr Mark Wilson believes that his "Shocksheet", wrapped around the lower body, could help some of them.

It works by raising blood pressure in the top half of the body, reducing tissue damage in the brain and heart.


People who are "gung ho" for animal testing are placing value in Capitalism over common sense. Does animal testing save human lives, or is it just a symptom of a medical system gone haywire? Focusing on magical fixes when lives could be saved through real advances put us all at risk!

The discussion in the posts above leaves a lot of questions unanswered. The people opposed to animal testing have posted links about science and economics and Nessie has responded only by trying to claim his opponents value a pigs life over a human life and calling them terrorists for supporting property damage again corporations. Perhaps there is SOME argument that animal testing can in SOME cases be a good use of healhcare money, but Nessie is unwilling (or unable) to find one. Its quite possible that if the medical establishment hadnt been focusing so much attention on making huge profits through animal testing they could have actually saved Nessie's friend's life. So why does he have so much hatred towards fellow activists rather than using that anger productively against corporations and the American healthcare system?
by well
Thursday Sep 11th, 2003 7:16 AM
"They are not “fellow” activists"
Im guessing unlike David Duke you work with many animal rights activists when you do any other sort of activism (antiwar, pro-environment, anti-police etc..)

You can call people nazis and claim they value pigs over human lives as much as you want. But in the morning you will actually be working with hundreds of people who devote some of their time to animal rights activism.
by Re:
Thursday Sep 11th, 2003 7:41 AM

In medical school people use cadavers which really make a lot more sense than frogs if you are not planning on being a veternarian who specializes in amphibians. In elementary school I dissected a worm, and while I dont feel sympathy for worms I cant say I really got anything of of dissecting one. As with a lot of animal testing the issue is half moral and half economic. Does animal testing provide a cost effective way to research problems with humans? Name one new medical advance that required animal testing? Why are proanimal testing types so willing to call names and so unwilling to actually think and provide real arguments? Its kinda the opposite of the stereotype; the supposedly impartial people for animal testing are being shrill and emotional and unwilling to talk about the issue directly, while those opposed to animal testing have provided real economic and scientific arguments. Just scroll back through the past several hundred posts and I you wont find a single sane one from a person supporting animal testing (that could say more about this site than the issue though...).
by ?
Thursday Sep 11th, 2003 2:28 PM
"It's not a claim. It's the fact of the matter. Either the pigs die or my loved ones die. "

Instead of arguing your point you are stating your opinion as fact. You have to back up your beliefs by actual arguments or you just come across as shrill. What is the connection between pigs and your loved ones? Is it an either/or choice? You culd have a reasoned argument on this topic so its surprising you are not providing one. Perhaps I can help you:

Here is a vague argument (but a little better than ones you have made:

:"Animals play an amazing role in our lives. Whether they’re assisting in search and rescue operations, working with police and fire investigators to solve a crime, or living in a setting that teaches us respect and appreciation for all species, animals make our world healthier, happier and safer.

Animals also play a heroic and vitally important role in medical research. Medical progress, for both human health and animal health, requires animal research because there is no complete replacement for a living system on which to conduct basic research. In recent years, a number of non-animal procedures have been developed and that number continues to grow. Indeed, whether they are working on human health or animal health studies, scientists place a high priority on "The Three Rs" – reduction, replacement and refinement. Here in the United States, our scientific and medical research communities are committed to supporting the development of techniques that promote humane animal research by:

Reducing the number of animals used
Replacing animals with other models whenever possible
Refining procedures to ensure the most humane treatment possible
Still, it isn't always easy to reconcile our love and appreciation for animals and the essential need for animal research. Knowing that research animals are treated respectfully, responsibly and as humanely as strengthens our understanding – as does separating the facts from the myths.
Manufacturers of food, drugs, household goods, cosmetic products, pesticides and other chemicals have an ethical and legal obligation to protect consumers from hazardous consumer products. They are able to meet that obligation through animal testing, for which there is no completely valid alternative.

Some companies promote their products by claiming they do not test on animals. This can mislead consumers into believing that animal testing is not necessary when in fact, such products – or their ingredients – were previously tested on animals, probably by another company and found to be safe. Once an ingredient or formula has been tested and proven safe, it rarely has to be tested a second time.

Household product testing not only determines a product's safety; it also evaluates the consequences of its misuse. These important data are invaluable to the poison control centers that dispense advice in emergency situations such as when a small child or family pet swallows a pharmaceutical or cleaning product.

"Animal research has played a vital role in virtually every major medical advance of the last century – for both human and animal health. A study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services concluded that animal research has helped increase our life expectancy by 20.8 years."

The problem with the last argument is that most of the technologies that have increased average lifespan (antibiotics, sterilization of equipment during operations, and vacines against major killers didnt involve animal research. Certain surgical techniques (which overall have only had a marginal impact on average lifespan) perhaps involved animal testing during their development but doctors really need to test on humans so I would guess cadavers were a larger part of where practice took place and that the real need for animal testing in those cases was actually minimal. Of course there are some quotes that argue otherwise But the quotes are short so they could easilly be out of context in a few of the cases. The website does have some real sounding claims about research that could save lives ( ) but again to say that one scientist has found a primate useful for AIDS reasearch doesnt mean that is the way most scentists have gone about looking for a cure (it might not even be the most accepted way in a few of the cases listed). The site is too one sided to take seriously but its a start at real discussion. In the case of AIDS research I know a few people involved in studies (mainly involving looking for things that bind to certain DNA sequences) and none used animals in the research. That doesnt mean animals are not needed but it does mean the cost benefit isnt one of having either AIDS research or animal testing.

The claims about testing of cosmetics and household products is a little questionable since its not obvious that the introduction of new chemicals (that required testing) into most peoples lives have improved them. Asprin never needed to be tested on animals, neither did baking soda, vineger, most natural foods, most natural soaps, ... Even such chemicals as bleach and amonia have been around long enough that their safety (and dangers) were discovered before animal testing was used to determine such things. The only common household products I can think of that may have been found harmful or safe through animal testing would be chemicals used in water treatment, plastics, artificial preservatives, artificial flavoring, artifical scents, leaded paints, pesticides, and perhaps asbestos. It would be interesting to know how many of these products have been used long enough that there never was initial testing and if the safety studies on products found harmful were really animal studies (in the case of lead or asbestos I think they were studies on effected humans?) In the case of nonmedical products the introduction into humans' lives of a huge number of new chemicals seems dangerous (animal testing or not). if a chemical is dangerous enough that it deserves study on animals (none of which react the same way as humans do to all products) is it really worth the added benefit it might provide to a new shade of lipstick or eyeliner? That may sound like the thinking of someone opposed to progress, but really aside from flouride in toothpaste (and maybe trace amounts of dioxins in paper products) I cant think of any household products I use that required animal testing (and I dont actively look for products that say they dont test on animals when I buy them)

Anyway, just to create an an environment where educated debate can take place (rather than these weird Nazi/Capitalist accusations), here are some sites with scientific sounding articles supporting animal research (If you can find more post them):

Here are a few of the many anti-animal testing sites out there,3604,495634,00.html

And here is a site that has links to both sides and attempts to get students to recognize that both side have legitimate arguments:
by repost
Thursday Sep 11th, 2003 2:50 PM
Jerome Burne
Thursday May 24, 2001
The Guardian

What do you feel is more important - the life of your child or the life of a few rats? Such stark contrasts are common currency in the heavily polarised debate about experiments on animals. On the one side the misguided sentimentality of the animal rights campaigners, on the other side the tireless pursuit of human happiness and health by the researchers.
But since those wide-eyed activists have put animals' rights somewhere on the election agenda, you may be interested to know that there is a totally hard-headed and rational case to be made for saying that animal experimentation has been a scientific and medical disaster. That far from saving lives, it has caused injury and death to thousands and that time and again it has led both re searchers and legislators into a blind alley.

But surely, you cry, we need animal experiments to discover how safe new drugs are before we give them to humans? Well, the combination of fenfluramine and dexfenfluramine, touted as the answer to a dieter's prayer a few years ago, was extensively tested on animals and found to be very safe. Unfortunately it caused heart valve abnormalities in humans. Or how about the arthritis drug Opren? Tests on monkeys found no problems but it killed 61 people before it was withdrawn. And as for having to choose between rats and your child, Cylert, given to children with attention deficit hyperactive disorder, was fine for animals but caused liver failure in 13 children.

The problem is not a new one, in fact it is blindingly obvious - animals are not the same as humans, so drugs that affect them in one way may well affect us differently.

Now this is usually presented as a solvable problem by researchers. We can get an idea of the mechanism from animals and then fine-tune with humans, they say, but it doesn't work like that. Species, even those that seem closely related, may function quite differently at a molecular level, and there is no way of predicting what the differences will be.

Rats and mice, for instance, look pretty alike to us, but when it comes to something as basic as whether a chemical causes cancer or not, the results may be totally contradictory. Out of 392 chemicals tested for carcinogenic effects at the American National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 96 were positive in the rat and negative in the mouse or vice versa. So which of those are harmful to humans? The institute can't say.

For 30 years they fed high doses of a range of new chemicals to animals to discover if they caused cancer or other damage. The results are recorded in blue books that take up 10 feet of shelving in the institute. But ask how many of the substances might produce tumours in humans at normal levels and no one knows. So what about the ones that didn't harm rodents, how many of them might harm humans? They don't know that either.

The lack of predictable differences between animal and human reactions is something that has bedeviled Aids research. Aids is a high profile disease with a lot of research money available, so it surely makes sense to ignore ethical objections and use chimpanzees. It is surely precisely because their genome is identical to ours, give or take a few percentage points, that they should yield more accurate results than rodents.

Well, no, actually. Out of approximately 100 chimps infected with HIV over a 10-year period only two have become sick. Chimp vaccine trials have proved unreliable too because they don't show the antibody or cell-mediated response to HIV that humans do. Animal experimentation has played only a small role in developing drug treatments to the greatest plague of our time.

And the list could go on. There are drugs that have been held back because they caused dangerous reaction in animals, such as beta blockers and valium, but then turned out to be safe for humans. Legislation to halt the use of asbestos was held up for years because it didn't cause cancer in animals, while the carcinogen benzene continued to be used long after clinicians were worried because it didn't cause leukemia in mice.

All these examples, and many more, have been written up in the specialist journals but until last year they had been scattered. Then a man called Ray Greek, an American medical doctor who specialised in the highly technical field of anaesthesia collected them in a book called Sacred Cows and Golden Geese. He gave a talk in London about it last night.

So was this scientific, rational contribution to the debate about animal experiments warmly welcomed, so medical research could be improved? Supporters of animal experiments are always calling for more public discussion and education.

Of course not. It was ignored.

• Jerome Burne is editor of the monthly newsletter Medicine Today

by Jason Spaulding (kenny_lives_76 [at]
Thursday Sep 11th, 2003 4:30 PM
Watson's academic credentials are mostly imaginary. He is a junior high school dropout who claims to be a college graduate.

More info on <a href = ""> Watson the Greenwashed Con Man
by curious
Thursday Sep 11th, 2003 9:52 PM
"In HLS manages to perfect pig to human liver transplants before my friends need livers, all three will most probably live. If HLS does not perfect pig to human liver transplants before my friends need livers, at least two, perhaps all three, will die slow, painful hideous deaths."

Whats the problem with human to human transplants. Those already work. Is there a shortage of supply or is there some other problem that pig livers will resolve?
by its like crying wolf
Thursday Sep 11th, 2003 10:20 PM
Much is made of the fact that Hitler, at some stage in his life, probably adopted an almost vegetarian diet for health reasons. This, coupled with the fact that he appeared to be very fond of his pet Alsatian dog, is supposed to be evidence that Hitler was some sort of animal rights activist! Another story often quoted is Görings proclamation, in 1933, banning vivisection in Prussia. There was a newspaper cartoon at the time showing a host of laboratory animals saluting Görings. Now, whatever Görings proclamation meant for lab animals it was not an end to vivisection, as we know it now, in Germany. Animal experimentation and testing were carried out throughout the war years in Germany, and even took place alongside Human experimentation in concentration camps. It was a legal requirement, throughout the Nazi period, that drugs etc be tested on animals before being used on people.

On the basis of one Nazis dietary habits, and another Nazis stand against vivisection, we are supposed to draw the conclusion that there is a direct parallel between the modern anti-vivisectionist movement and the Nazi party, even though the evidence is that the vast majority of Nazis, or their leaders, were not opposed to vivisection.

No advocate for animal rights, that I have ever met, could be described as a Nazi. In fact, I have usually found that people who are concerned about the abuse of animals are equally concerned about the abuse of people, and are horrified by what went on in Nazi Germany.

There have been stories about Neo-Nazi groups becoming involved in animal rights protest. Where this happens in the animal rights movement it is just as regrettable as when it happens in other areas such as international football games or industrial disputes like the miners strike. I even remember when the Conservative candidate for Stockton South was forced to pull out of an election because it was discovered that he had links with the British National Party, however, I did not draw the conclusion that the Conservative Party is a Neo-Nazi movement.

The animal rights movement has much in common with struggles against sexism, racism etc., and it is laughable to compare it with a fascist movement.

I know a lot of people who have died in car crashs (some Jewish) but Im not going to go around calling all people who drive cars Nezis. The historical stuff is even weirder since it would be like calling all people who drive VWs Nazis since the cars were developed under Hitler's rule. Cars kill thousands a year and its not a matter of choice (if you want to ride a bike you still face the risk of cars). Does that make car drivers Nazis? No. It means there is an argument for using fewer cars and encouraging public transportation. Animal testing is for teh most part questionable. Perhaps Nessie has a case with animal to liver transplants since thats pretty atypical compared to the animal testing studies have shown to be almost worthless. Of course thats assuming a liver grown in a pig can ever be made to work in a human (sure they can filter blood but machines have done that for people with kidney problems for years and we are no closer to an artificial kidney). My guess is that pig to human transplants could be attempted in the next 10 years and the people who receive them will die (like with heart transplants from baboons). The technology will slowly improve and maybe in 50-100 years what Nessie mentions might work.... but is that amount of money and time worth it when there are alternatives?
by in more ways than one
Thursday Sep 11th, 2003 11:34 PM

11:00 - 10 September 2003

The Bionic Man, the half-human, half-machine hero of the eponymous TV series, will soon become a reality, scientists revealed last night. Recent advances in micro-engineering have enabled researchers to rebuild parts of the central nervous system - the network of electrical fibres which sends commands to different groups of muscles in the arms, legs and other parts of the body.

British scientists are already working on developing artificial limbs with synthetic, plastic nerves which are spliced into nerve endings on the stump of the old leg, using the same techniques as for developing computer chips.

In America a man has been fitted with a robotic arm and hand which is wired into his central nervous system. He can move his limb and fingers around and pick up objects.

Meanwhile, in Portugal, a totally blind man has been fitted with artificial eyes which send electrical impulses directly into his brain.

The latest research was reported yesterday at the annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. Dr Michael Pycraft Hughes, an expert in biomedical engineering at Surrey University, said: "You could say that we have the technology to rebuild people, but not quite like the Bionic Man because it's not better, stronger, faster.

"We're learning to use technology to make copies of nature, but the copies are not necessarily as good as the real thing yet."

Dr Pycraft Hughes has helped develop advanced prosthetic legs with titanium 'bones' which fuse to the bone in the wearer's stump.

Trials with more than 20 people without legs in Britain have shown they can move around much more naturally than users of conventional prosthetic limbs.

He is now experimenting with development of synthetic nerves which could be spliced into the nerves of a leg stump so that the wearer's new limb could be made touch sensitive.

And in the past five years hundreds of patients in Britain, Sweden and America have been fitted with advanced cochlear implants, or artificial ears, which have allowed totally deaf children and adults to hear for the first time.

Cochlear implants work by converting sound waves into electrical impulses and linking up with the nerves in the brain.

by Re:
Thursday Sep 11th, 2003 11:36 PM
The Nazi comments again are hardly worth commenting on (American environmentalism started long before the 1930s with people like John Muir etc..).

"That the automobile has practically reached the limit of its development is suggested by the fact that during the past year no improvements of a radical nature have been introduced."
-- Scientific American, Jan. 2, 1909

Thats an interesting quote that one sees all over the place (along with one about IBM not thinking people would need computers). In the 1950s people thought we would all be flying around in personal planes but that didnt happen. Films like 2001and 2010 predicted we would be much farther along in most ways than we actually are. In fact most science fiction and predictions about future technology written after spaceflight started have been way off in the direction of assuming technology advances faster than it really does (probably because the technology required for space flight wasnt as advanced as people were taught to believe). Just because some past advance took place doesnt mean that every science fiction idea some crazed lunatic has will come to pass. Growing an organ for a human in another animal is a long long way off. Freezing people before they die so they can be revived later is probably farther off (and anyone frozen in the next 50 years wont be able to be revived). Humans will probably die out before any alien life could ever reach earth. Most human life may never be able to be extended beyond 120. Never is a big word but technology does bring the bad with the good. Problems like drug resistent diseases (from over prescription) and use of botech advances for biowarfare are probably the more natural outgrowth of our corporate healthcare system.

You hear alot about modern medicine but aside from infant mortality and fewer epidemics, average lifespan today is about the same as it was for the wealthy in the time of the Romans and Ancient Greeks. Just look at the ages famous ancient Greek writers died and a good number lived beyond 70. Sure they were wealthy and already had to have lived beyond a certain age to have become famous but it doesnt fit with the myths about how great medical advances have been. Modern medicine hardly had an effect on life span until the last 100 or so years; before that, the early industrial revolution actually involved a decreased lifespan (due to all the coal in the air and the dangerous conditions in factories). There have been major changes in the last 100 years but it seems to me to be more of a spurt than something that will continue. We are at the point now where diet, suicide, violence and other such factors determine expected life span.

If a good friend of mine were dying would I want them to get a new treatment to save their lives? Sure, but the few people I know in situations like that have not even received basic medical care since the doctors dont like treating people who dont have insurance and cant pay (in one case they did receive care they were billed for and didnt pay, but it later turned out the doctors had given them a rather dangerous medicine for the wrong illness). In a perfect world, would society devote more effort looking into treatments for liver disease? of course. But today the healthcare system is in such a mess, that when a shooting occurs in my neighborhood its questionable if the doctors will even bother to really try to save the kids lives.
by Re: Nazis
Friday Sep 12th, 2003 7:21 AM
A study of the law the Nazis passed shows that this law had enough loopholes in it to assure the continuation of animal research; consequently, an enormous amount of animal experimentation continued to be carried out by Nazi doctors. The Lancet, the prestigious British medical journal, reviewed the Nazis law and warned anti-vivisectionists not to celebrate because the Nazis law was no different, in effect, from the British law that had been passed in 1875, which restricted some animal research, but hardly eliminated it.

Furthermore, a law passed by the Weimar government in 1931 required that all experiments on human beings be first conducted on animals. Such a requirement exists in the United States as in many countries that practice animal research. In other words, animal research is often a legal justification for experimentation on humans, as it functioned in Nazi Germany. The 1931 law in Germany was never abrogated. Nazis doctors dutifully submitted written statements when they requested "human material" for experiments which carried the legal notification that such experiments had been first conducted on animals. The first request for "test persons" was made by Dr. Sigmund Rascher to Himmler on May 15, 1941, "for two or three professional criminals" for "High-Altitude Research." It states that human beings were needed "because these experiments cannot be conducted with monkeys, as has been tried...."

Two books written about the experiments on human beings, The Death Doctors and Doctors of Infamy (Mitscherlich and Mielke) record many experiments on animals as part of the normal procedure of experiments on human beings. For example, Inspector of Air Force Medical Service, Hippke, wrote on March 6, 1943: "I instantly assented to these experiments because our own preliminary tests on large animals had been concluded and required supplementation (p. 33); and again, "Today I again face a problem calling for final solution, following numerous animal experiments and also tests on human volunteers." (p. 36)

The evidence of Nazis experiments on animals is overwhelming. John Vyvyan in The Dark Face of Science (Micah Publications), summed it up correctly: "The experiments made on prisoners were many and diverse, but they had one thing in common: all were in continuation of, or complementary to experiments on animals. In every instance, this antecedent scientific literature is mentioned in the evidence: at Buchenwald and Auschwitz concentration camps, human and animal experiments were carried out simultaneously as parts of a single programme." (p. 159). These were the typhus experiments.

Much of that "antecedent literature" is recorded in a book by Eugene Kogon, The Theory and Practice of Hell (1950), in the chapter, "Scientific Experiments." Kogon had been a political prisoner in Buchenwald where he served as a medical clerk in a laboratory where human experiments were conducted. His reports contain lists that include serum preparation made from rabbit lungs, mouse and rabbit livers, and typhus strains injected into guinea pigs. The notorious sterilization program carried out on concentration camp inmates was first developed on animals.

Robert Proctor's book, The Nazi War on Cancer (Princeton University Press, 1999), records Nazi animal experimentation, which should leave no one in doubt about where Nazi doctors and scientists stood on this issue. These animal experiments were often embedded in the continuum of animal research that had been ongoing for decades. By the 1920s the Germans had developed strains of mice that were "more or less receptive to the uptake of cancer tissue transplants....SS chief Heinrich Himmler was apparently intrigued by the prospect of breeding a race of cancer-prone rats; in a 1939 meeting with Sigmund Rascher, the notorious Dachau hypothermia experimenter, the SS Reichsführer proposed breeding such a race of rodents.... (p. 63) "by the end of the 1920s, there was a sizable scientific literature on radiation carcinogensis, including a large body of work based on animal experiments." (p. 83) By the mid 1930s the Nazis had formidable laboratory evidence of some the causes of cancer based on animal experiments: "Experiments were...performed that finally produced--for the first time anywhere--lung cancers in animals raised in the mines." By 1938, Nazi scientists could produce lung cancer in 25% of the mice raised in mine shafts. "This was the first conclusive animal experimental evidence that breathing air in the mines could cause lung cancer." (p.99). The Nazis conducted their "war on cancer" with animals as their weapon of choice. Indeed, in 1943, at the height of a world war, the Nazi government developed plans for a "'tumor farm' to raise animals for use in experiments." (p. 261).

As Proctor states, animal experiments were vital to the ideological stance of Nazisim: "Animal experimental evidence was extrapolatedto humans, bolstered by the ideological push to see all aspects of human behavior--including purported racial differences--as rooted in "blood," race, or genes." (p. 63)

Finally, animal experimentation in Nazi Germany led to and laid the legal foundation for human experimentation. Human experimentation is the reverse side of the coin of animal experimentation. They are part of the same historical process. This theme was developed by me in an article, "The Social and Medical Antecedents to the Nazis Experiments in the Concentration Camps," for a Holocaust Conference in 1988. The paper was subsequently included in an anthology of holocaust writings, Bearing Witness, and is included in Autobiography of a Revolutionary (Micah Publications).

Statements by journalists such as Charley Reese that "The 1930s version of animal-rights people gave the world the Holocaust," are outrageous. It confuses the experiments on human beings with the Holocaust per se, which was the hunting down of Jews with the purpose in mind of exterminating them. The medical experiments were tangential to Hitler's plans for genocide against the Jews, as Raul Hilberg, states in The Destruction of The European Jews. Japan conducted similar experiments on a similar number of people (about 3,000, many of them Chinese citizens and U.S. soldiers) where there was no Holocaust of Jews. The history of medical experiments in the United States, Germany, Japan, and elsewhere has nothing to do with antisemitism: it is the outcome of an independent history concerning the development of the experimental method in modern medicine, which formally began in the middle of the 19th century with the work of Claude Bernard.

The Nazis often did important scientific research, much of which has found its way into our own research. They developed the most extensive anti smoking legislation of any western countries; they did important research on the effects of industrial pollution on the environment, much of which found its way into Rachel Carson's book, Silent Spring--which is not an indictment of Rachel Carson. When World War 11 first ended and news of the horrendous research on human beings was made public, Western scientists wanted to denounce Nazi science as "pseudo science" for fear of being tarnished by the public's loathing of Nazi science, but Nazi science finds its way into our science all the time, including findings gained from their experiments on human beings.

Many people think the Nuremburg laws put an end to the possibility of experimentation on human beings. This is not so. The Nuremburg laws constitute an ethical desideratum, not law, and do not have legal status in the United States. In 1987, the Supreme Court heard a case in which a U.S. soldier sued the government for having used him as a test case for LSD experiments, without his knowledge (Stanley vs. The United States). The court voted 5 to 4 against the victim. For a recent review of experiments conducted on human beings in the U.S., without their informed consent, see Clouds of Secrecy: The Army's Germ Warfare Tests over Populated Areas, by Leonard A. Cole, Subjected to Science, by Susan Lederer, Johns Hopkins Press (This books studies experimentation on human beings between the two world wars); and Stranger at The Bedside by David J. Rothman, which studies this problem in the period after the Second World War. There are many more books on this subject. Many of them can be found on the Internet, under "Human Experimentation," or at, under the same heading.

It is alleged that the Nazis revered or admired animals. Hitler's nickname, "Wolf" is adduced as evidence for this. The Nazi interest in animals was part of their adaptation of social Darwinism to racial policies: they were fond of powerful animals, not animals they perceived as weak. Hitler's nickname, "Wolf" is a good example. He didn't call himself "rabbit," or "deer." As Kenneth Clarke points out in The History of Animals in Art human behavior towards animals is extremely paradoxical. Human beings can be fond of animals and cruel towards them. Admiration for animals often accompanies cruelty towards them. A hunter loves his hunting dog. Lion hunters admire the lion. Some Medieval barons had bears inscribed on their escutcheons, yet hunted them and tortured them, sometimes blinding them for entertainment and bear fights.

The serious evaluation of Nazi science in the modern world is only beginning, half a century after the war. There is still much sorting to do, but we are not in doubt about the Nazis' experiments on animals and humans.
by well
Friday Sep 12th, 2003 8:17 AM
"We’re not talking about environmentalism. We’re talking about the use of force to stop animal testing. That’s not environmentalism. That’s not even close"

Well if the Nazi charge is about violence vs nonviolence, do you also see other groups that engage in property damage as being Nazis? If your trying to say ideas of animal wellfare are seperate from environmentalism and grew out of Nazi thought, thats just as ridiculous. Animal rights as a movement in the US started in the late 60s and grew out of both enviornmentalism and inetrest by people in eastern philosophies which have held animal life to be scared for thousands of years.

"The people who bombed HLS were trying to do something that, should it ever succeed, will kill millions and millions and millions of people, by denying them the right to choose not to die from the lack of a functional liver.

Mass murder! That’s what we’re talking about. "

Thats a very dangerous political charge. Any attack on a corporate medical establishment is in your view "mass murder". Im assuming your being hyperbolic as usual but imagine if the police were to take this view about attacks on military recruiting centers (because they wrongly see those as saving lives) or on corporations like Bechtel that also claim they save lives by building major infrastructure. To compare violence against property at a major corporation to mass murder is a scary moral statement but its also one that could risk the life of any political activist group that is not 100% nonviolent. Protest in front of a Bechtel corporate office and according to your logic, if that delayed the company on any project (like a water purification plant) that might save lives, you are then morally equivalent to a mass murderer.Is the difference that the animal rights people broke the law and damaged property? Even Global Exchange doesnt accuse people breaking windows of mass murderer.

As for your weird faith in everything being possible in science. The internet was kinda predicted in 1984 in a distorted form that was almost possible at the time it was written.The PC revolution the the 1980s and 90s was only half technological, the other half was when companies realized that there was a home market for PCs beyond hobyists since wordprocessing and spreadsheets had a wider application than previous uses for computers. Once PC's got into homes their use for other tasks became more cost effective and new uses were adopted. The use of quotes about people not believing in technologies that were discovered only proves that people can be wrong not that everything is possible (and in the case of cars and computers the issue wasnt technology, it was inability to imagine possible uses for an existing technology).

How can you say pig to human livers transplants are already possible when none have been carried out where a human has been able to walk around and live with the pig liver? Show me a link where HLS or anyone else says that it is proven possible. Is there some magical way the technology can be proven when the biggest obstacle still exists. Twenty years ago I could say that artifical hearts had been tested and its just a matter of doing safety tests before a human transplant is attempted.... when the transplants took place and didnt work it turned out there was twenty plus years of additional research needed. As for cryonics, I'll start believing its close when human organs can be kept for years in storage to be used for transplants (a much better solution than the cross species issues that will arrise with pigs). So far even a relatively simple organ like a liver cant be kept very long (let alone for years) without major damage. Perhaps nanomachines will be able to repair organs, but Im guessing that the limitations in what one can tell small machines to do will eventually result in the realization that the nanomachines in our bodies now (white blood cells etc..) are near the cutting edge in terms of what is possible (the size of atoms and interaction of mollecules are a real absolute technological limit). The belief that science will solve everything and the related desire for immortality is pretty sad. It seems like it just makes things harder when one eventually gets old and sees one's death approaching.

To save humans with liver problems the big areas that should be focued on are prevention, cure of the diseases that cause damage, and increasing the number of people who donate organs when they die.
by biophilic
Friday Sep 12th, 2003 2:05 PM
Testing occurs on human prison inmates and also non-human animal inmates in research facilites. This is Nazism in America. Oppression of life is being practiced to further the financial gains of the pharmaceutical industry. Western doctors wait for people to become sick so they can be pumped with new pharma products. The more logical alternative of prevention by living a healthy lifestyle is ignored..

Unfortunately Americans have been sleeping for too long in front of their CNN pacifier TV sets to be aware of any problems (nothing new). The same fascist ideology that was supported by Prescott Bush (he funded Hitler) have taken hold in America, under GW Bush's patriotic zeal for war on terrorism..

American patriarchy, religion, capitalism has always been oppressive since Columbus and his band of tyrants landed here and began raping the NativeTribes and killing their babies. Correct me if i'm wrong, but no indigenous person ever kept an animal caged up and forced injections into them. They treated the wildlife of this land with respect, something most European invaders have yet to learn..

Biophilia is love of life, human and animal, something unknown to pharmaceutical industry wardens who follow the money trail of capitalism. Oppresion against life is wrong and continues to be carried out by AMERICAN NAZIS here today..

The solution is the collapse of the AMERICAN GLOBAL EMPIRE and all wealthy European patriachs who profit from it..



by Forest Fan
Sunday Sep 14th, 2003 1:05 PM
I got to this thread through

which is the "forest news" section of the SF Indymedia site. But there is really nothing in this thread that relates to that topic. I'm sure that the ALF/ELF stories are well worth reporting (they ertainly have provoked lots of debate on both sides), but reporting it on the "forest news" page wrongfully gives the impression that nonviolent forest defense activists here on the North Coast of California are somehow responsible for, linked to, or in alliance with, the acts of sabotage attributed to ALF and/or ELF.

So to "repost," whoever that is, please don't put articles on ALF/ELF on the forest news page, this only plays into the hands of the feds who would like nothing better than to paint us all with a broad brush.

by more racist fetishization
Sunday Sep 14th, 2003 5:47 PM
> They treated the wildlife of this land with respect, something most European invaders have yet to learn

Tell that to the mammoth, the mastadon, the camel, the horse, the giant beaver, the giant ground sloth, the glyptodon, and all of the many, many other species they helped drive into the greatest mass extinction in human history.
by oman
Wednesday Sep 17th, 2003 4:56 PM
PARIS — Monkeys, like humans, are acutely aware of injustice, which suggests that a sense of equality is an ancestral trait among primates, a study says.

In an unusual two-year experiment, animal behaviourists Sarah Brosnan and Frans de Waal of Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, taught brown capuchin monkeys to receive tokens as a reward, and to barter them for food. The monkeys were usually quite content to swap the tokens for cucumber, but if the researchers gave one of the monkeys a grape, a more eagerly-sought food, the other animals would become jealous.

Some of them refused to hand over their tokens. Others would still exchange their token for the cucumber, but scornfully decline to eat it.

If the monkey, which got the grape had received the coveted fruit for not doing anything, its colleagues often became incensed. “People judge fairness based both on the distribution of gains and on the possible alternatives to a given outcome,” Brosnan and de Waal write in today’s issue of Nature, the British science weekly. “Capuchin monkeys, too, seem to measure reward in relative terms, comparing their own rewards with those available, and their own efforts with those of others. “They respond negatively to previously acceptable rewards if a partner gets a better deal.”

The pleasure of reward and anger at unfair treatment are known factors behind the human social hierarchy and cooperation. This evidence suggests the same may be true among non-human primates, they say. — AFP
by yep
Wednesday Sep 17th, 2003 5:04 PM
by yep
Wednesday Sep 17th, 2003 5:26 PM

We've all seen the lovable Babe, Gordy, Wilbur and Arnold in movies and on television, but did you know that our little pink pals are just as lovable on the dinner table? It's true! Take a look!

" 1.gif" pork2.gif"
Here's our friendly little fellow, who we'll call Mr. Oink. He sure looks happy on Farmer McDoodle's pasture, where he can eat grain, scraps and concentrated hormone pellets to his heart's content. He sure is a chubby little guy, that Mr. Oink! First, our little friend is stunned with the help of Mr. Mallet or Mr. Bolt Gun by Mr. Meat Packer. Pleasant dreams, Mr. Oink!

2.gif" pork3.gif" " 3.gif" pork4.gif"
"Sticking" Mr. Oink severs his cartoid artery while he's still dazed! A pan is used to gather the blood for some delicious blood sausages! Mmm! Ker-splash! Nothing like a good hot bath—especially when it loosens pesky and unwanted dirt, hair and skin. Hold your nose, Mr. Oink—you might be down there for a while!

4.gif" pork5.gif" " 5.gif" pork6.gif"
Snicker-snack, how swiftly Mr. Butcher slits open Mr. Oink's belly. Bet that tickles! Now it's time to remove Mr. Oink's viscera and separate his liver. But don't throw any of it away; it'll all make the yummiest hot dogs! Mr. Butcher then goes to work on Mr. Oink, slicing up choice parts like ribs (yummy!), chops (tasty!), loin (mmm, good!), and yes—everyone's favorite—bacon!

finish.gif" pork7.gif"
Mr. Oink sure likes his new home at the supermarket, but he won't be there for long! If you ask your mom nicely, maybe she'll "bring home the bacon!"
by Yep
Wednesday Sep 17th, 2003 7:04 PM
OK, Nessie its your blog so no more Onion posts. Although, the second post about how tasty pigs are really is educational. You may think its all about sick people and bombs but some of us would die for a plate of sizzling hot slices of bacon (maybe with some eggs and hashbrowns) or a nice porkchop covered with apple sauce with a side of mashed potatoes and gravy.

Fighting the Man and his evil sidekicks the CritterNazis through angry comments to an online discussion board may be a lot of work but its good to still have a sense of humor.... Im sure a nice plate of ribs dripping with extra hot BBQ sauce and maybe a little potato salad will put you in a better mood.

"Fuck the Pigs"? "Eat the RIch"? How about a slogan everyone can agree on, "Eat the Pigs". It has been said the man gets the ham while we get the bone, but it doesnt have to be that way. Though collective action and mutual aid we can all enjoy the basic pleasures of life, like slices of honey baked ham for dinner, pork sausages for breakfast and ham on rye sandwitches for lunch.
by whatever
Wednesday Sep 17th, 2003 8:16 PM
"No it's not. It's a collective effort."

Doesnt a collective require more than one person? Has anyone else around here ever seen another "member of the collective" telling people what they can and cant talk about? I guess the other members are doing work like mowing Nessie's lawn and washing his Hummer (or changing the blood on the dog) while he spouts his AM radio style schpeals on the web? Or maybe these friends of Nessie's are just voices in his own head? "If it were up to me Id attack you but the voices are saying otherwise"
by Pig Livers
Wednesday Sep 17th, 2003 8:22 PM
Pork Liver Pudding

Steaming hot ground pork and liver, baked with spices and sauce. The liver mixture can also be made into cakes or patties and fried in butter in a frying pan. The mixture is a little bit runny so don't shape patties, just drop it from a spoon like pancakes. "

Prep Time: 20 Minutes
Cook Time: 1 Hour 30 Minutes
Ready in: 1 Hour 50 Minutes


1/2 pound pork liver
1/2 pound ground pork
1 1/2 teaspoons salt
1 pinch ground black pepper
1 dash ground allspice
1 onion, chopped

1 tablespoon butter
1 tablespoon all-purpose flour
1 cup milk
1 egg
2 bay leaves

1 Preheat oven to 325 degrees F (165 degrees C).
2 Put the liver, ground pork, salt, pepper, allspice and onion in a food processor or meat grinder and let it run until mixture is still slightly coarse.
3 To make sauce: Melt butter over low heat. Stir in flour until smooth. Add milk, stirring until smooth.
4 Combine sauce, egg and meat mixture and stir. Put in mold with two bay leaves on top of mold and bake for an hour to an hour and a half.
by You have it all wrong
Wednesday Sep 17th, 2003 8:30 PM
Pigs livers are for eating not for putting in peoples chests:


Although the pig-to-baboon experiment is being hailed as a breakthrough, controlling the complement attack is only the first step in xenotransplantation, warns John Fabre of the University of London (see Nudging xenotransplantion towards humans. "What lies beyond this time is largely unknown, but there are at least two additional barriers to cross," Fabre wrote. "...Virtually every cell surface protein" on the surface of the pig blood vessels (and other cells) would be a "potential target for human antibodies."

Furthermore, there are questions about how effectively pig liver will perform the tasks of a human liver, Fabre wrote. And because the liver is so metabolically active, the foreign proteins it produces could set off further compatibility problems.





10 pounds ground pork
2 pounds ground pork liver
4 onions, minced
salt and pepper to taste
48 sausage casings

1 Mix together pork, liver, onions, salt and pepper. Put into casings and boil in water for one hour.


Terrorists are the people trying to control our lives by making us not able to enjoy basic pleasures, like the joy of a Liverwurst sandwitch. Crazy scientists who probably will kill more people than they save want to replace peoples hearts with Liverwurst.

Eat The Pigs
by Fred
Wednesday Sep 17th, 2003 9:44 PM
I once saw it on TV - they fed bacon to a pig and he loved it!
So if they put a pig liver in a human and the human died, would the liver still be edible? Or, imagine if it was jut a short term transplant until a human liver became available. Would you be able to use a liver and then eat it yourself. Imagine serving up a liverwurst for guests and then telling them that the meat on the table used to be part of you; that would be soooo sexy.

Science is so cool. Imagine being able to eat your own body parts and then get replacements at the store. Is there even a word for self-canibalism?
by show was cool
Wednesday Sep 17th, 2003 10:44 PM
ALF killed someone?

Im confused?

He seemed like such a nice guy.
by not funny
Wednesday Sep 17th, 2003 10:49 PM
if it was you who needed a transplant.

What are you going to do next, start telling AIDS jokes?
by well
Wednesday Sep 17th, 2003 11:06 PM
"the right to choose not to die slow, painful hideous deaths"

Life tends to end in death. Its unavoidable. If you dont want it to be long and hideous you can kill yourself but aside from that you never know how you will die.ALF has little to do with people dying. People have been dying for millions of years.

I cant quite get where you are comming from. If someone is shot, you can blame the person who shoots the gun and you can blame the person who makes the gun. But you are blaming the equivalent of progun activists for the victims of shootings. ALF doesnt cause anyone to get sick. ALF doesnt directly prevent people from getting treated at hospitals. ALF doesnt even have much impact on medical research (although Im sure they would like to think so). Blaming activists for 4th hand results is pretty weird. It would be like someone suing activists protesting at Bechtel for getting in the way of future projects that may or may not be good for the world.

If you thought through your attacks of ALF for a few seconds you would realize they make no sense. Sure medical research on animals might be a good thing, but calling animal rights murderers and rapists just makes you look crazy. People who oppose the teaching of evolution may be crazy and get in the way of science but I wouldnt call them murderers terrorists or rapists. They have more political power than ALF, so they get in the way of scientific advance more than ALF does. I guess the difference is that ALF set off a bomb that caused minor property damage but property damage against a major corporation and murder are not the same thing. I like a bigmac as much as the next guy but I still find the pictures of people trashing Mc Donalds during protests funny. Terrorism is a word used by the strong against the opressed and murderer, rapist and Nazi have actual meanings. Minor property damage against corporations is just a part of everyday life these days, if it bothers you THIS much something else must be wrong.
by dont make fun of people
Wednesday Sep 17th, 2003 11:23 PM
Cannibal's fairy tale obsession

December 18 2002

The probe into the cannibal murder case in Germany took a further bizarre turn today with reports that the suspect's next door neighbour was a self-professed witch who was once taken to court for casting death spells.

The reports coincided with a police statement saying they had confiscated an electric saw and a barbecue grill from the murder site - both allegedly used by the murder suspect for criminal purposes.

The suspect himself reportedly has told investigators he had a childhood obsession with the Grimm Brothers' fairy tale Hansel and Gretel, and was especially fascinated by the passage in which the storybook witch "fattened up little Hansel" in hopes of cooking and eating him.

This fixation may have been exacerbated when his family moved to the rambling, 30-room, half-timbered manor house in Rotenburg an der Fulda when he was 16, experts were quoted as saying today.

The family's next-door neighbour was a self-avowed Satanist called Ulla von Bernus who published occult tracts and gave interviews to German print and broadcast media about her prowess at "casting death spells with 90 per cent reliability", according to Der Tagesspiegel newspaper.

Von Bernus made headlines throughout Germany in the early 1980s when she was taken to court by a disgruntled woman who claimed she had paid von Bernus 30,000 marks ($A26,525) to put a death curse on her husband, who then did not die.

A court ruled that von Bernus was guilty of an "illusory crime exempt from punishment" and ordered her to repay the 30,000 marks.

The court in Kassel judged that the whole business "had been objectively impossible from the start".

Von Bernus was on close terms with the mother of the cannibal murder suspect, according to a reporter for Der Tagesspiegel who said he interviewed von Bernus in the 1980s and recalled meeting the suspect's mother, described as the witch's best friend.

The suspect himself has told investigators he was "in and out of Ulla's house all the time", according to a report in Bild newspaper today, which said von Bernus died in 1998 at age 86.

The cannibal suspect's family moved to Rotenburg in the mid-1970s, purchasing the derelict property as a holiday get-away. His parents divorced, and he rarely saw his policeman father or two step-brothers again.

He remained there with his mother. He stayed on in the old half- timbered house after her death in 1999.

"He was a mama's boy," a neighbour told reporters. "He was totally fixated on his mother, who he said never let him date girls. After she died, he began to thaw out."

Investigators are combing the house in search of clues to a grisly case in Germany.

More details of the case emerged today, indicating the victim willingly ate his own flesh and allowed himself to be killed.

The 41-year-old suspect, identified only as Armin M., reportedly told investigators he arranged via the Internet to met his victim at the Kassel train station on March 9, 2001, and that they discussed the impending "slaughter" in detail on arrival at his home in Rotenburg.

Both men were computer experts, both described as "Internet addicts". Authorities filed murder charges against the reclusive computer systems expert Armin M. last Thursday.

His 42-year-old victim, a computer chip developer at Siemens corporation in Berlin identified only as Bernd Juergen B., agreed to have sex with Armin M. but afterward had second thoughts about going through with the rest.

The suspect said he drove his guest back to the train station where he bought a ticket to Berlin. But, changing his mind again, the victim decided to remain, and they returned to the house in Rotenburg.

Investigators were told how the suspect severed the subject's penis and how the two men cooked and ate it. The victim then placed himself in a bathtub as he bled to death. His final request was for the Armin M. to wait until he lost consciousness from loss of blood before slashing his throat.

The suspect made a videotape record of the entire ordeal and transferred the images to a CD-ROM. Investigators who have seen the images are said to be undergoing psychological counselling.

Dismembering the body, the murderer packaged the flesh in freezer bags for later consumption and disposed of the bones on his property.

He said he defrosted and ate the contents over a period of months.

Asked why, he told investigators, "I got a kick out of the idea of having another person inside me."

There is nothing funny about any of this. Real people actually died. So anyone who thinks this is humorous is very sick and twisted. Note that both men "were computer experts, both described as 'Internet addicts'" so these very people could have posted to ths site.

Its just real proof the self-canibalism is a growing fetish and that medical advances will mean that this type of fetish will soon be possible with no long lasting harm to anyone. By growing pig organs in humans and then allowing people to eat them after the organs are rejected (and new transplants are attempted) someone with enough money could eat their own liver up to a dozen times. And isnt that what we all stand for; the right for the rich to be able to do whatever they want (for fun or pseudoscience) as long as they use their own money (and only a few poor people get hurt in the process).
by Arnold &quot;the wonder pig&quot;
Thursday Sep 18th, 2003 12:13 AM

not unlike the person who dedicates his life to sitting in a tree to keep it alive, only to climb down and eat
a diet composed of nothing but vegetables (((?)))
by Poll: People Opposed to Animal Studies
Thursday Sep 18th, 2003 7:13 AM
Associated Press Writer
Originally published September 18, 2003, 9:49 AM EDT

WASHINGTON -- Consumers generally support tinkering with plant genes so crops will produce inexpensive medicines, but they are less comfortable with the idea of modifying animals for the same purpose, a new survey says.

Eighty-one percent of 1,000 Americans interviewed for the poll by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology said designing biotech crops to make affordable drugs is a good idea, but just 49 percent of them believe genetically engineering animals for drugs is a good idea.

"As you go up the evolutionary ladder, people are less comfortable with genetic modification of any animals," said Michael Rodemeyer, executive director for the Pew Initiative, a research group.

So far, the government has allowed foods onto the market that come from crops genetically designed to resist pests or tolerate chemicals. But companies are beginning to experiment with animals. Some are trying to mix genes from different species to make medicine or clone livestock in the hope that their organs could be transplanted into sick patients.

Carol Tucker Foreman of the Consumer Federation of America, said when it comes to animals, "there are moral, ethical, social issues involved."

The National Academy of Sciences said in a report last year that the government should make a strict approval system for transgenic animals -- those made from genes of two or more species -- to protect the food supply. It said, though, that cloned animals are likely safe to eat.

The Food and Drug Administration has decided to treat transgenics as if they were a drug, requiring companies to prove through rigorous testing that the animals aren't harmful if used as food.

With plants, though, FDA asks companies to volunteer data showing the new food crop is basically the same as conventional. If that's the case, a company gets a letter saying FDA reviewed the information and has no questions -- a green light for putting the food on the market.

The survey, released Thursday, said 89 percent of consumers believe that companies should be required to submit safety information to the FDA for review, and the FDA shouldn't allow it on the market until it's proven safe.

The biotechnology industry and consumer groups have been calling for a mandatory process to replace the letters of certification to increase consumer trust in biotech foods.

But Jim Maryanski, the FDA biotechnology coordinator for foods, said the current process is working fine, noting that all companies come to the agency seeking the letter for their products -- an assurance for food companies.

It isn't the first time that FDA has come under scrutiny by the Pew Initiative. In January, the group questioned the adequacy of FDA regulations for reviewing the risks of transgenic fish.

The agency is assessing an application by Aqua Bounty Farms Inc., a biotech company in Waltham, Mass., to market genetically modified Atlantic salmon. The company is preparing tests to see if the fish -- designed to produce less waste but grow larger and faster than their wild counterparts -- would cause allergic reactions in people. That's a final stage in the approval process.

The survey was conducted by The Mellman Group and Public Opinion Strategies. Pew said it commissioned the survey to check on consumer opinion of genetic engineering.,0,6930949.story?coll=sns-health-headlines
by human rights
Thursday Sep 18th, 2003 7:54 AM
>Even in ancient Persia there were laws against "Cruelty to Animals"

Were these ancient Persians the same group of Aryans who Invaded india killing millions? Maybe the Nazis got these laws from the Aryans along with other of their failed ideologies.
by blech
Thursday Sep 18th, 2003 2:40 PM
>Nessie's Nazi tirades are getting old.
What’s the matter, truth hurt?

Calling everyone one disagrees with a Nazi waters down the term.

Part of the problem is that everyone has a different meaning for the name when they use it to criticize someone else. Nazi Germany allowed the wealthy to remain wealthy (if they were German Christians) but it wasnt exactly Capitalist either. It had a state run economy by most definitions (party memebrs were forced onto the boards of companies and large companies were both helped and used by the state for various purposes) The Nazi state also spent public funds on huge work projects like roads (perhaps an inspiration for the US's later construction of the interstate highway system). While fascism and Nazi are clearly seen as referring to a Capitalist system by the radical left, the terms can just as easilly be used by the radical right to refer to Socialists and Communists.

Of course the Nazis were always antiCommunist so the word is used slightly less by the radical right but its still used. The early Nazi party engaged in street fighting with communists so the term has been used by political moderates to mean anyone using violence for political ends (hence conservative papers describing the groups engaging in Black Bloc tactics as fascists or Nazis) Many on the left see antiAbortion groups tacticts as those of Nazis and many on the right see the actions of environmentalists as the actions of Nazis.

Nazi and fascist have also come to mean racist. So the words are used to attack countries like Israel. But where did the Nazis antiSemitism come from. The stereotype in Germany about Jews was always that of rich bankers (despite many Jews being poor and living in walled off ghettos) so it came more from the working class than from the wealthy. You can still find many workingclass people in the US who use the word "jew" as a verb meaning "ripped off". The Nazis used antiSemitism to scapegoat a certain group for the countries problems (like the US scapegoats immigrants today). In a sense the Nazis used racism to convert many Anarchists and Communists over to their cause (Mussolini wasnt converted by Hitler but was converted from Socialism to Fascism by nationalists in a similar fashion). By mixing economic proposals that were in some sense Socialist with a nationalist appeal to the working class and a guarantee to the rich that only Jews would be scapegoated, the Nazis were able to quickly rise to power.

In the years before the Nazis came to power Germany had been very progressive on many issues. Gay rights (including some of the first known domestic partner registration laws), animal rights, and the environment were growing issues in the days before the Nazis took over. Many on the far right therefore use this as an excuse to call people for gay rights, animal rights or the environment Nazis. In the case of gay rights you actually hear claims about homosexuality in the early Nazi party and that Hitlers targetting of homosexuals was really his attempt to cover up some of his early history. The Nazis stood for animals rights and the enviornment far less than they stood for jobs and public investment in infrastructure, but aside from a few Libertarians you rarely hear people calling the interstate highway system Nazi. You also rarely hear anyone claiming someone is a fascist because they make the trains run on time or because they wear black shirts and like to break things (like Mussolinis early cronies).

The word "Nazi" is a way overused word that really has come to be a sign of a weak argument. "Your for that issue, well that makes you a Nazi" It seems to be a unique form of criticism that may only be equalled by the use of the terms Socialist and Communist by the far right (and some anarchists). During the Inquisition the Spanish used language in a similar fashion to target those who disagreed with the Church.<--(example how a similar use of this form of argumentation really goes nowhere)
by Were the Nazis radical environmentalists?
Thursday Sep 18th, 2003 3:09 PM
1) "What we today call "environmentalism" is ... based on a fear of
change," says Frank Furedi. "It's based upon a fear of the outcome of human
action. And therefore it's not surprising that when you look at the more
xenophobic right-wing movements in Europe in the 19th century, including
German fascism, it quite often had a very strong environmentalist dynamic
to it." Fascism, animal rights and human rights The most notorious
environmentalists in history were the German Nazis. The Nazis ordered
soldiers to plant more trees. They were the first Europeans to establish
nature reserves and order the protection of hedgerows and other wildlife
habitats. And they were horrified at the idea of hydroelectric dams on the
Rhine. Adolf Hitler and other leading Nazis were vegetarian and they passed
numerous laws on animal rights.

(The above paragraph is from the transcript of the British channel 4
documentary "Against Nature," whose political direction came from Furedi's
Living Marxism magazine. I extracted this passage from Ron Arnold's
Committee in Defense of Free Enterprise web-page, where the transcript is
featured as a "guest editorial." Arnold is best known as the leader of the
"Wise Use" movement, a right-wing anti-environmentalist group. Arnold
recently contributed an article on the Unabomber to Living Marxism
magazine. The article claimed that the Unabomber was some kind of deep
ecologist rather than a crazed terrorist.)

2) If the forest is a symbol of German nation, then forest die-back is a
threat to national identity. This association played a key role in sparking
the contemporary German green movement but it also posed considerable
difficulty for that movement because it reveals how contemporary ecological
sensibilities have their roots in traditions that also prompted the Nazis
to be the "first radical environmentalists in charge of a state".

(David Harvey, "Justice, Nature & the Geography of Difference," p. 171)

The fundamental mistake that the "brown" Marxists Frank Furedi and David
Harvey make is in assuming that the Nazi party introduced nature worship
into German society. Harvey explicitly cites Alice Bramwell's "Ecology in
the 20th century: a history," but there is little doubt that she influenced
Furedi as well. Bramwell devotes considerable effort into making the case
that Hitler was a prototypical green because he cared about the forests.
The political implication is that Adolph Hitler is a forerunner to the late
Judy Bari of Earth First.

This is bonkers. Nature worship in Germany goes back to the origins of
modern romanticism. It was felt almost everywhere, from the writings of
Goethe to the symphonies of Mahler. Students at the University of
Heidelberg had hiking clubs through the entire 19th century. The Social
Democracy had such clubs as well and they were viewed as an integral part
of the character development of young Marxists. A recent biography of
Walter Benjamin points out how important such nature hikes were to him. It
was part of the general German culture, which influenced the both socialist
and ultraright parties, including Hitler's.

It is important to understand that the feeling of loss that the industrial
revolution brought on was very widespread throughout Europe and was not
peculiar to Germany. Thomas Carlyle articulated this feeling of loss and
the pre-Raphaelite school was a movement based on such a desire to return
to pre-industrial roots. Carlye influenced John Ruskin and William Morris,
two important anti-capitalist thinkers. He also strongly influenced
Frederic Engels' "Condition of the Working Class in England" and is cited

David Harvey alludes to the apparent ecological concerns of Nazi party
member Martin Heidegger, who did not want to see nature turned into a
"gigantic gasoline station." Harvey claims that the slogans of Earth First
parallel those of Heidegger. Heidegger says nature must be seen as "the
serving bearer, blossoming and fruiting, spreading out in rock and water,
rising up into plant and animal." Earth First says, "Set the Rivers Free!"
Ergo, the Nazi functionary and the people who were hounded by the FBI and
right-wing terrorists had common ideological roots.

The problem with taking a history of ideas approach to these fundamentally
political questions is that you end up in a pure Platonic world of
contending Ideas. This is not a sound approach for Marxists, especially
those with sterling reputations like David Harvey. The simple truth is that
nearly every philosophical tendency has something to say about the
environment and how to save it. John Bellamy Foster has pointed this out
and it is worth repeating. Disciples of Adam Smith are using his doctrines
as a way of solving the ecological crisis through free market pricing
mechanisms. They argue that if you adequately price water or soil, then it
will be conserved properly. The Old Testament becomes contested territory
as well. Green-minded Jews have defended their holy scripture from the
charge of being anthropocentric by citing passages which call for
stewardship of the earth, rather than naked exploitation. These
philosophical debates, as is their nature, are incapable of being resolved.
They do serve as grist for academic conferences and journals.

It is much more profitable for those of us in the Marxist tradition to
concentrate on historical and social phenomena. In that context, there are
some interesting developments that took place in the first year or so of
Nazi rule that might be interpreted as having a greenish tinge. I speak now
of their call for social transformation through a synthesis of urban and
rural life, which was called "rurban" values by Arthur Schweitzer in his
"Big Business and the Third Reich." The Nazis promoted the view that the
class-struggle in the city could be overcome by returning to the villages
and developing artisan and agricultural economies based on cooperation.
Ayrans needed to get back to the soil and simple life

The core of Nazi rural socialism was the idea that land-use must be
planned. Gottfried Feder was a leading Nazi charged with the duty of
formulating such policy. He made a speech in Berlin in 1934 in which he
stated that the right to build homes or factories or to use land according
to the personal interests of owners was to be abolished. The government
instead would dictate how land was to be used and what would be constructed
on it. Feder next began to build up elaborate administrative machinery to
carry out his plans.

Not surprisingly, Feder earned the wrath of the construction industry. This
segment of heavy industry had no tolerance for any kind of socialism, even
if it was of the fake, nutty Nazi variety. Hitler had promised the captains
of heavy industry that the "rabble-rousers" in his party would be curbed
and Feder certainly fell into that category.

Hjalmar Schacht was a more reliable Nazi functionary who agreed with the
need to curb Feder's excesses. After Hitler named Schacht Minister of
Economics on November 26, 1934, he gave Feder the boot assured the
construction magnates that business would be run as usual.

>From 1934 to 1936, every expression of Nazi radicalism was suppressed.
After the working-class was tamed in 1933, the petty-bourgeois supporters
of a "People's Revolution" were purged from the government one by one. The
real economic program of the big bourgeoisie was rearmament. Any pretense
at "rural socialism" was dispensed with and the Third Reich's real goal
became clear: preparation for a new European war. It needed coal, oil and
other resources from Eastern Europe. It also needed to channel all
investment into the armaments industry, which could act as a steam-engine
for general capitalist recovery. In brief, the economic policy of the Nazi
government started to look not that different from Franklin Roosevelt's. It
was World War Two, after all, that brought the United States out of the
Great Depression, not ineffectual public works programs.

So except for the fitful "rurban" experiments of the first 2 years of Nazi
rule, there was very few actual policies that could be called ecological.
Does this mean that it is legitimate to describe, as Harvey citing Bramwell
does, Nazis as being the "first radical environmentalists in charge of a
state"? This claim turns out to be completely false.

The first radical environmentalists in charge of a state were actually the
Soviet Communists. Douglas R. Weiner's "Models of Nature: Ecology,
Conservation, and Cultural Revolution in Soviet Union" (Indiana Univ.,
1988) is, as far as I know, the most detailed account of the efforts of the
Russian government to implement a "green" policy.

The Communist Party issued a decree "On Land" in 1918. It declared all
forests, waters, and minerals to be the property of the state, a
prerequisite to rational use. When the journal "Forests of the Republic"
complained that trees were being chopped down wantonly, the Soviet
government issued a stern decree "On Forests" at a meeting chaired by Lenin
in May of 1918. From then on, forests would be divided into an exploitable
sector and a protected one. The purpose of the protected zones would
specifically be to control erosion, protect water basins and the
"preservation of monuments of nature." This last stipulation is very
interesting when you compare it to the damage that is about to take place
in China as a result of the Yangtze dam. The beautiful landscapes which
inspired Chinese artists and poets for millennia is about to disappear, all
in the name of heightened "productiveness."

What's surprising is that the Soviet government was just as protective of
game animals as the forests, this despite the revenue-earning possibilities
of fur. The decree "On Hunting Seasons and the Right to Possess Hunting
Weapons" was approved by Lenin in May 1919. It banned the hunting of moose
and wild goats and brought the open seasons in spring and summer to an end.
These were some of the main demands of the conservationists prior to the
revolution and the Communists satisfied them completely. The rules over
hunting were considered so important to Lenin that he took time out from
deliberations over how to stop the White Armies in order to meet with the
agronomist Podiapolski.

Podialpolski urged the creation of "zapovedniki", roughly translatable as
"nature preserves." Russian conservationists had pressed this long before
the revolution. In such places, there would be no shooting, clearing,
harvesting, mowing, sowing or even the gathering of fruit. The argument was
that nature must be left alone. These were not even intended to be tourist
meccas. They were intended as ecological havens where all species, flora
and fauna would maintain the "natural equilibrium [that] is a crucial
factor in the life of nature."

Podiapolski recalls the outcome of the meeting with Lenin:

"Having asked me some questions about the military and political situation
in the Astrakhan' region, Vladimir Ilich expressed his approval for all of
our initiatives and in particular the one concerning the project for the
zapovednik. He stated that the cause of conservation was important not only
for the Astrakhan krai [does anybody know what this means?], but for the
whole republic as well."

Podiapolski sat down and drafted a resolution that eventually was approved
by the Soviet government in September 1921 with the title "On the
Protection of Nature, Gardens, and Parks." A commission was established to
oversee implementation of the new laws. It included a
geographer-anthropologist, a mineralogist, two zoologists, an ecologist.
Heading it was Vagran Ter-Oganesov, a Bolshevik astronomer who enjoyed
great prestige.

The commission first established a forest zapovednik in Astrakhan,
according to Podiapolski's desires Next it created the Ilmenski zapovednik,
a region which included precious minerals. Despite this, the Soviet
government thought that Miass deposits located there were much more
valuable for what they could teach scientists about geological processes.
Scientific understanding took priority over the accumulation of capital.
The proposal was endorsed by Lenin himself who thought that pure scientific
research had to be encouraged. And this was at a time when the Soviet Union
was desperate for foreign currency.

Under Lenin, the USSR stood for the most audacious approach to nature
conservancy in the 20th century. Soviet agencies set aside vast portions of
the country where commercial development, including tourism, would be
banned. These "zapovedniki", or natural preserves, were intended for
nothing but ecological study. Scientists sought to understand natural
biological processes better through these living laboratories. This would
serve pure science and it would also have some ultimate value for Soviet
society's ability to interact with nature in a rational manner. For
example, natural pest elimination processes could be adapted to agriculture.

After Lenin's death, there were all sorts of pressures on the Soviet Union
to adapt to the norms of the capitalist system that surrounded and hounded
it and produce for profit rather than human need. This would have included
measures to remove the protected status of the zapovedniki. Surprisingly,
the Soviet agencies responsible for them withstood such pressures and even
extended their acreage through the 1920s.

One of the crown jewels was the Askania-Nova zapovednik in the Ukranian
steppes. The scientists in charge successfully resisted repeated bids by
local commissars to extend agriculture into the area through the end of the
1920s. Scientists still enjoyed a lot of prestige in the Soviet republic,
despite a growing move to make science cost-justify itself. Although pure
science would eventually be considered "bourgeois", the way it was in the
Chinese Cultural Revolution, it could stand on its own for the time being.

The head administrator of Askania-Nova was Vladimir Stanchinksi, a
biologist who sought to make the study of ecology an exact science through
the use of quantitative methods, including mathematics and statistics. He
identified with scientists in the West who had been studying predator-prey
and parasite-host relationships with laws drawn from physics and chemistry.
(In this he was actually displaying an affinity with Karl Marx, who also
devoted a number of years to the study of agriculture using the latest
theoretical breakthroughs in the physical sciences and agronomy. Marx's
study led him to believe that capitalist agriculture is detrimental to
sound agricultural practices.)

Stanchinski adopted a novel approach to ecology. He thought that "the
quantity of living matter in the biosphere is directly dependent on the
amount of solar energy that is transformed by autotrophic plants." Such
plants were the "economic base of the living world." He invoked the Second
Law of Thermodynamics to explain the variations in mass between flora and
fauna at the top, middle and bottom of the biosphere. Energy was lost as
each rung in the ladder was scaled, since more and more work was necessary
to procure food.

This interesting slice of Soviet history is completely ignored in David
Harvey's book, as is history in general. This is unfortunate. The only way
to make sense of the environmental movements of the 20th century is within
the context of the class struggle and not within the history of ideas. I am
not sure why Harvey elected to take this approach, but it tends to
decontextualize everything.

There is a strong case for the intrinsic ties between Marxian socialism and
the ecology movement, but that is a subject for other articles and books.
Harvey's attempt to drive a wedge between the greens and Marxism is tied to
a workerish impulse that has marked the extreme left over the past 25
years. Whether it comes from Living Marxism or the Spartacist League, it is
grounded in a dogmatic understanding of Marxism. It is disconcerting to see
one of our premier Marxist thinkers echoing these sorts of "brownish"
sentiments, but we can understand their origin. We are living in a deeply
disorienting period as global capital seems unconquerable. Therefore, any
evidence of capitalist engagement with a democratic demand such as
affirmative action or clean air and water can tend to make us suspicious of
the demand itself. This is not Marxism. It is sectarianism and must be fought.

Louis Proyect
by cp
Thursday Sep 18th, 2003 3:38 PM
A lot of my german relatives for several generations were or are foresters, and it's very true - they are treated with a lot more reverence than forestry or range management in the united states. They're also some of the only people who have guns in society. central europe and england have a respect for 'wilderness' as the ultimate definition of 'nature' , or land without humans (which you don't find so often among low density areas of the earth, like groups in the amazon or arctic. With their long vacations (75% of the working hours of the average US citizen) Germans have become one of the most frequent groups of nature tourists around the world. But... the germans developed their respect for nature and environment long before the nazis, back in the monarchy era of the 1800s. It's not too difficult to figure out - the places on earth that developed agriculture first (europe and china, and Iraq) tended to have population booms and use up their wilderness area, so they appreciate it more. I don't think it's any more complex than this.
by ad hominem arguments
Thursday Sep 18th, 2003 4:40 PM
Animal Rights Commentary
Thursday, February 29, 1996: Nazis and Animal Rights
An ad hominem argument is one in which we attack someone in a personal or abusive way as a means of discrediting her substantive position. For example, former Beatle John Lennon was often criticized for endorsing utopian socialism at the same time that he had amassed great wealth. This is an ad hominem argument, and it is a logical fallacy. The amount of money that John Lennon had was absolutely irrelevant to the truth or falsity of what he had to say about world peace or socialism. The fact that Lennon had money is used to show that his position on socialism was wrong. But whether Lennon had a lot of money is absolutely irrelevant to the desirability of socialism as a social, political, and economic system. The worst that one could say about Lennon in this regard is that he may have been hypocritical in that he preached a doctrine that he may not have followed in his personal life. So what? Lennon's personal behavior is absolutely irrelevant to the merits or lack of merits of socialism.

There is another ad hominem argument that is often used in connection with those who subscribe to the view that nonhumans ought to be accorded certain fundamental rights. The argument goes as follows: during the 1930s, the Nazis passed a number of laws that restricted the use of live animals in biomedical experiments, or "vivisection" as the practice is known. It is also said that some Nazis, including Hitler, were vegetarians, but the historical evidence for this assertion, especially as it relates to Hitler, is questionable. But let us assume that it is not. Let us assume for a moment that Hitler was a vegetarian. The Nazi laws against vivisection, and Hitler's supposed vegetarianism, are offered to show that the animal rights position is wrong. This is a perfect example of the ad hominem fallacy. And it does not work. Let us consider the various contexts in which this argument has been raised.

The most common context involves the argument that since Hitler was supposedly a vegetarian, and since the Nazis restricted vivisection, this somehow shows that people who believe in animal rights are somehow like Nazis. The argument goes like this: the Nazis believed that animals had certain rights but maintained a policy of genocide against certain people. Therefore, those who subscribe to animal rights are similarly morally tainted. They are like Nazis.

This argument is obviously absurd. Consider the following argument. Stalin ate meat. Stalin killed over 6 million peasants in his effort to collective Russia in the 1930s. Therefore, those who eat meat are similarly morally tainted. But that argument simply does not work. Just because someone eats meat does not mean that they would endorse the killing of people. They might do so; they might not. But their eating meat is irrelevant to whether they would endorse the killing of people. Similarly, the fact that Nazis may have liked animals but hated humans does not mean that those who subscribe to animal rights also believe that the killing of Jews or gypsies, or non-Aryans generally, is OK.

The second context in which this argument is made involves a matter of historical interest. During the 1930s, the Nazis certainly did show some interest in protecting animals. It is, of course, rather difficult to argue that a military force that was destroying half of Europe, including its animal population, really cared about animals, but I do not dispute that Nazis did pass fairly progressive measures against vivisection. At the same time that they were legislating to help animals, however, the Nazis were engineering the killing of millions of humans. The argument goes: there is something pathological about a society that cares about animals but not about humans, and even seeks to impose enormous suffering on at least some humans. Therefore, concern about animals must be judged against the prevailing treatment of humans, and if the latter is lesser by comparison, any concern for animal suffering is pathological.

Again, this argument does not work. The fact that some people may favor nonhumans greater than they do some group of human beings is not peculiar to Nazi Germany. During the 18th century, many American states passed all sorts of anticruelty laws involving animals while at the same time human slavery was legal. It is simply too easy to regard the pathology of Nazi Germany as unique in this respect. Moreover, in 1996, some people think that even more tax breaks for the rich should get greater priority than providing the minimal requirements for a decent and dignified life to disempowered and dispossessed humans. The sad fact is that humans often favor some other group of humans or animals more than they do some other human beings. But that says absolutely nothing about whether animals should have rights; it does say a lot about some people, however.

The third form of this argument is that by regarding animals as having rights, we "blur" the line between human and non-human, and thus facilitate the exploitation of humans who become "devalued" in this process. The argument goes: the Nazis blurred the line between human and nonhuman, and then started exploiting humans as though they were animals. Again, this argument does not make sense. When we "blur" the line between human and nonhuman for the purpose of arguing that animals, like humans, should be regarded as rightholders, we are seeking to elevate the status of animals so that the mindless violence and death that we inflict on them will no longer be regarded as morally justified. We are not using this argument to justify the devaluation of humans, but rather to increase the moral status of animals. The Nazis may have "blurred" the human/non-human line for the purpose of promoting violence; Gandhi and others who advocate vegetarianism as a means of reducing overall violence "blurred" the human/non-human line as a means of promoting peace. The use that one makes out of "blurring" the human/non-human line depends on the political motivation and morality of the person doing the "blurring," but there is nothing inherent in this enterprise that would necessarily support a violent use over a peaceful use.

Ad hominem arguments abound in modern discourse. Whether Pat Buchanan owns a foreign car has nothing to do with the truth or falsity or other virtues of Buchanan's trade policies. If Buchanan's trade policies are sound, then his ownership of a foreign car might allow us to call him a hypocrite, but this personal observation about Buchanan is completely unrelated to the merits or lack of merits of his position on trade. Similarly, if Clarence Thomas opposes affirmative action, we might well call him a hypocrite as he is a beneficiary of that doctrine. But Thomas's views on affirmative action must stand or fall on their own merits, and are not determined by whether Clarence Thomas is consistent in his views. Whether animals have rights is a matter that must stand or fall on its own merits. The most that we can conclude from any observations about the Nazis is that people who seem to like animals somewhat can be really terrible to human beings. So what? Many of those who eat meat and do not like animals may also act horribly to human beings. But the merits of the arguments in favor of animal rights are unrelated to the personal habits of those who espouse--or dispute--that animals have rights.

by no more incarceration
Thursday Sep 18th, 2003 9:18 PM
We all love freedom. Blue sky, fresh air, singing birds in tall trees. Healthy organic food and crystal water streams. Non-human animals need this freedom also. Locking a living, breathing being in a cage is cruel and inhumane. This goes for nonhuman animals and human animals..

Testing on animals for the benefit of humans is a part of capitalist exploitation (pharma industry false promises) and anthropocentrism. In the future, we need to move away from exploitation and oppression. When we oppress another animal, we are oppressing a part of ourselves..

This spiritual concept is hard to explain, but if u lock up another animal and subject it to tests, u are doing this to the animal in u. If u allow it to happen and rationalize its existence for your own benefit, it makes u less of a human (more of an unfeeling machine). Prison wardens are not happy people..

The Earth is going through changes, though most people are too caught up in consumerism to see beyond next week. If we want to evolve as a species, we need to overcome racism, classism, anthropocentrism, and other forms of oppression that are making us a destructive force on the planet. If we don't overcome our oppresive behavior, in the end it will be self destruction..

Please take care of your health and don't depend on the false promises of Huntington Life Sciences and other pharma biotech lies for help.. your own doctor..

..freedom is almost here..
by humans and animals can live without suffering
Thursday Sep 25th, 2003 4:48 PM
There are other options beside the 2 choices you gave;


a) humans suffer


b) animals suffer

This simplistic theory leaves out the fact that humans can live healthy without suffering and torturing animals is NOT the ONLY
way we can prevent suffering in humans..

We have enough knowledge about the human body and physiology that we can live a healthy, well balanced diet and allow our bodies to heal ourselves naturally. We can do this by avoiding the poisonous products like Coca-cola/Pepsi that are known to cause diabetes. This is just one example, but by changing our lives and living healthy, we can avoid suffering for years until eventual old age/natural death..

Nothing justifies Homo sapiens locking other animals (including other Homo sapiens) in small cages and forcing drugs into their bodies to benefit some wealthy pharmacuetical company..

Time to expose the fraud of the pharma industry and their legacy of brutality against los animales..

The following is from British Anti-Vivisection Association;

"All over the world countless people have been restored to health using naturopathic and other therapies, yet they have been ruthlessly suppressed in order to protect the vested interests of the cancer industry. Dr Irwin D Bross PhD says:

"The use of animals in cancer research has been attacked as unnecessary cruelty to animals, and defended as absolutely essential for research progress....From a scientific standpoint, what is pertinent is that what are called 'animal model systems' in cancer research have been a total failure....The moral is that animal model systems not only kill animals, they also kill humans. There is no good factual evidence to show that the use of animals in cancer research has led to the prevention or cure of a single human cancer."

For over two hundred years the inmates of the vivisection laboratories have tormented to death hundreds of millions of animals. Over 800 ways of inducing tumours in animals have been found, not one of which is remotely related to a cancer which has developed spontaneously in a human.

Tumours are implanted under the skin, and then observed as the growth takes over the body, animals are radiated, limbs become gangrenous and fall off, force feeding large amounts of toxic substances causes vomiting and fits - until death intervenes. In Naked Express, Hans Ruesch says:

"The ably exploited fear of this dread disease, caused mainly by the products issuing from chemical and industrial laboratories, has become an inexhaustible source of income for the researchers, for the pharmaceutical industry, and the medical establishment. In the course of our century, so-called cancer research and cancer therapy have become a source of solid gold without precedent."

Animal-based "cancer research" fund-raisers include: Cancer Research UK (formerly The Imperial Cancer Research Fund and The Cancer Research Campaign), The Leukaemia Research Fund, Tenovus Cancer Research, The Yorkshire Cancer Research Campaign, Cancer and Leukaemia in Childhood Trust, Institute of Cancer Research, World Cancer Research Fund.

If you support animal-based "cancer research" you are supporting the biggest fraud, medical or otherwise, in history, and the cruel and senseless torture and killing of your fellow beings; both human and animal. "

Stop supporting fraud, boycott animal testing..

by Well...
Friday Sep 26th, 2003 9:42 AM
I think a lot of the 'shame' cells are atrophied these days.

Look at our politicians.

Look at the left.

Look at the right.

Look at the radicals.

Look at the conservatives.

Neo-cons. Neo-liberals. Earth First. ALF. Any group that believes it's okay to stomp on OTHER'S rights, liberties, livelihoods because their cause, desires, political agenda, or fuckin' dialectic demands it. Put YOUR desires above everyone else's - but justify it with high-minded rhetoric and pronouncements and all of a sudden you get 'environmentalists' torching car lots and houses.

Shame? Heh. No, take PRIDE in obtuseness, take PRIDE in wanting to deprive others of what you think they shouldn't have.

...of what YOU think they shouldn't have.

And take PRIDE in being destructive. Because it's for a like, um, higher good, ya know?

It's a pity you can't transplant 'shame'. Then again - most people wouldn't want it. It might force them to consider others as equal to themselves.
by insurance scam
Sunday Sep 28th, 2003 2:15 PM
One thing we need to be reminded of is how easy it would be for a corporation to vandalize itself and blame it on "ecoterrorists". Slow year at the SUV dealership? Why not torch a few of the ugly ones that nobody would buy anyway. Call the insurance company in the morning weeping about the "vandalism" by those no good "ecoterrorists". Consoling voice at the other end promises a hefty sum for the poor "victim". Head over to the library after a steak lunch and send an email from "ELF/ALF" claiming responsibility. Wait for money to show up and get some discounted repair contractor to fix up the paint jobs..

Same scenario applies to Huntington Life Sciences. Insurance scams from "ecoterrorism" are always a winner for the business. FBI looks for "ecoterrorists" and scares the shit out of well meaning vegan bike riders who are struggling to make this world safer and healthier for everyone..

Though i argue the position of veganism and animal rights/bike riding, i never really bought the line about the ecoterrorism. There may be some ELF/ALF hardliners who advocate this position, but mostly it's a well hidden insurance scam for failing businesses. Nice try corporate, but your tricks are getting old..

"EXTERNAL FRAUD - External fraud schemes are direct against an insurance company by individuals or entities as diverse as policyholders, medical providers, beneficiaries, vendors, chiropractors and career criminals. Examples include:

Arson-for-Profit -- An owner, or someone hired by an owner, deliberately burns a business, home, or vehicle to collect insurance money. "
by It's not about me.
Monday Sep 29th, 2003 9:49 AM
It's not a flame war, and I didn't start it. It's a propaganda campaign to promote the justification of crimes against humanity. And no, I will not sit idly by while crimes against humanity are promoted on this site.
by thank you &quot;Charlie Manson&quot;
Tuesday Sep 30th, 2003 12:51 AM
Biophilia is love of life, human and animal, something unknown to pharmaceutical industry wardens who follow the money trail of capitalism. Oppresion against life is wrong and continues to be carried out by AMERICAN NAZIS here today..

The solution is the collapse of the AMERICAN GLOBAL EMPIRE and all wealthy European patriachs who profit from it..



(you know, this does not make you sound like a raving
psychiatric,.........well not much like one any way)
by perma and waffles (rikki2004 [at]
Tuesday Nov 4th, 2003 5:56 AM
alf did not kill anybody!
by Joseph Ariel Gifford (poop [at]
Monday Nov 1st, 2004 9:23 AM
First, the mother and the father have to decide to have a baby. After that, they have sex. The father sticks his weeney inside the mother's hole, and the process begins. the sperm attaches to the egg and the baby begins to grow, making the mother's appearance fat. When the baby is ready to come out, the docter will reach into the mother's hole, ( just like the father earlier, except the docter does it with is hands) and help the baby out. Then they will see if it has a weeney. If so, than it is a boy, if not< than it is a girl
by Marcus Foster
Monday Nov 1st, 2004 10:33 AM
*alf did not kill anybody!* YET!

but like their forebearers the Symbionese Liberation Army and the Weather Underground and other violent vanguardist groups, it's only a matter of time.

conversely, social movements like the civil rights movement, the labor movement, the black panthers, AIM, etc. were all about ORGANIZING and building community with face-to-face interaction with other living beings.

alf is all about middle class kids donning the mask, hiding in the dark of night and playing friggin' James Bond. And worshipping misantropic pigs like the unabomber or Hamas or Hezbollah. It's sick and the sooner you eco-Leninists see that the vanguardism of your actions alienates people, you'll come out of the dark and see that ORGANIZING with OTHERS in the lights of day is the ONLY way to affect real, lasting change.


Marcus Foster, R.I.P.
by how typical
Tuesday Nov 2nd, 2004 10:48 AM
Another mental giant joins the chat.
by inside info
Wednesday Nov 3rd, 2004 1:20 AM
the investigation quietly is leaning twards the ALF org
who has carried out a string of bombings in California in recent years.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!


donate now

$ 240.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.


Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network