Account of Eastbay car caravan to homes of Huntingdon customer employees

Bout time. Some of the more unhinged violent "direct action" types need to learn that when they cross certain lines they get slapped down - hard.

Do you even really know what you are talking about EB or do you just pay attention to the corporate media and trust everything they say. There is a difference between people in the animal liberation/direct action movement and these folks are not violent, unless you want to try to say that disrespecting private property is somehow violent. If so maybe you should try rereading what the big theorists of nonviolence have had to say about private property.

Regardless, of what you think many of us are awake to the fact that these corporations that are engaging in animal testing are the real culprits of violence in the equation and that's what these direct action folks are speaking to. There comes a time when the operation of the pharmaceutical machince becomes so odious that you can't take part, you can't even passively take part, and you have to throw yourselves on the gears and levers and make sure that the machine is not able to continue it's disgusting acts of violence on our animal breathren in the name of our so called health. Remember many of these pharmaceutical corporations are the ones who started this whole game of chemical warfare that has led us to where we are today, whether you acknowledge that or not. These very same corporations that are seeking to find the cure for cancer and many other diseases that we humans are getting these days are the very same folks who created the biological weapons, pesticides, and drugs that have contributed to the our slow deaths by cancer and other strange diseases that are killing so many of our friends and family.

Violence against peoples' homes solves nothing in this issue. Scaring wives and children, terrorizing neighbors, solves nothing in this issue. Think about how YOU would feel if people opposed to your politics invaded your property, your home, your business, your children's school, etc. IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO DO THIS.

Last weekend at a home demo in Pacific Heights several neighbors, including a seven year old girl and two beagles, came out to join us. Others expressed their support. I guess they didn't feel "terrorized".

Invade my home, and I'll shoot you. And that's if you're lucky. If you're not lucky, the dogs will get you first.

yeah - my impression is that the group didn't fully decide if they were going with an illegal direct action approach, or a traditional informational petition to the public, and moral appeal to reason, and so they adopted a dangerous mixed strategy.
It would be safe to stand outside the company or even the CEO's house with signs, and this can be openly advertised and lots of people will hear. Chris Thompson did this well in his column here where he approached the CEO of a company poisoning its immigrant workers, and no police made a file on him: http://www.fsa.ulaval.ca/personnel/vernag/EH/F/ethique/lectures/AXT.htm

But if someone is going to do something illegal, isn't it sort of obvious that you don't want to advertise you who are so widely? It's as though even though they say they consider the cause serious, they aren't really taking themselves and what they're doing seriously, and they have not considered the fact that they could actually get under the nerves of the Chiron employees. If they did realize this, they would realize that the employees could be totally forming a militia and getting firearms after hearing about the rocks through the window and perceived threats to their children. If you get into that territory, you really should study the approach of political cells of people who carry out illegal actions

Who is the Legally Defined Terrorist: HLS or SHAC?

Tim Phillips


Introduction

The Western scientific world view holds that animal testing is necessary and praiseworthy work that will improve human quality of life, while any activism against animal testing is misguided, anti-human, and sometimes “terroristic.”[1] However, an investigation into the campaign against Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS) yields the opposite conclusion. Huntingdon Life Sciences,[2] an animal testing company, is guilty of international terrorism, and Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC),[3] the campaign to close HLS, is effectively responding with counterterrorism. In this paper, these terms will be defined according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI),[4] and a short history of HLS and SHAC will be given to defend these claims. I will show that despite the dominant view of animal testing, it may be the activists who are praiseworthy individuals and the companies that are the real “terrorists.”

Violence and Non-human Animals

The following argument is based on the view that maltreatment of non-human animals can legitimately be seen as violence. While animals are legally defined as property, they share morally relevant characteristics with human beings, and as a result they can also be victims of violence. Many people intuitively believe that there is a drastic difference between maltreatment of humans and maltreatment of non-humans, and yet this intuition does not rest on any morally relevant difference. Certainly there are differences in intelligence, but as philosopher Peter Singer asks, “If possessing a higher degree of intelligence does not entitle one human to use another for his or her own ends, how can it entitle humans to exploit nonhumans for the same purpose?”[5] In order to avoid this ethical bind and similar ones, there has been an appeal to the only characteristic that cannot vary between human beings, namely species. Although this may seem to be the obvious morally relevant difference, in the realm of ethics it is arbitrary at best. Furthermore, differential treatment based on a social construction such as species can be no more defensible than discrimination based on similar constructions such as race.[6] Therefore, there is no reason to believe that animals cannot be victims of violence.

Defining Terrorism

Actions taken by HLS meet all the requirements of international terrorism. According to James F. Jarboe, Domestic Terrorism Section Chief of the Counterterrorism Division of the FBI,


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 by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate, or the locale in which perpetrators operate.[7]


A strict interpretation of this definition produces some unexpected results, such as the possibility that a corporation (or even the United States government itself) is guilty of terrorism. In addition, HLS meets these FBI requirements by violating animal welfare and laboratory practice laws in order to influence government drug policy. These actions are violent toward animals and put human lives in danger. Also, HLS operates in both England and the United States, and so the company falls under the rubric of international as opposed to domestic terrorism.

Terrorist Tactics by HLS

The first requirement given by Jarboe is that acts of international terrorism are either violent or dangerous to human life. HLS commits both violent acts and acts that are dangerous to human life. While HLS does not commit violence against human life, the company does inflict violence on non-human animals. Animals are forced to inhale, ingest, and/or be exposed to high amounts of various products that are being tested, such as pesticides, detergents, weed killer, diet pills, or Viagra. Lab reports at HLS provide grisly details about how the products affect the animals. For example, in one experiment some animals were documented as “rotting, but still alive.”[8] Specific violent acts of HLS employees include punching four-month-old beagle puppies in the face and throwing them against walls, dissecting a conscious monkey, and transplanting a frozen pig’s heart into a baboon.[9] Some HLS employees have been fired for these acts, but they were only sentenced to 50 hours of community service after being convicted of animal cruelty. A light sentence of this kind has no impact upon the institutionalized cruelty to animals in HLS laboratories.

HLS also threatens human life by using unscientific tests to legalize products that are potentially unsafe for human purposes. No less than five undercover investigations of HLS document cruelty to animals and confirm suspicions that tests at HLS are unscientific. One HLS worker was caught on videotape saying, “You can wipe your ass on that data.”[10] When asked whether or not an experimental procedure was done correctly, another worker replied, “Nope. Not supposed to, never saw it, never did it, can’t prove it.”[11] Yet another employee explained that animal experimentation is used by HLS because the results are easily manipulated in order to successfully move products onto the market and satisfy HLS customers. According to SHAC USA, “By misleading scientists, the use of non-human animals as research models for human-based disease harms human patients indirectly, by delaying and directing research monies away from life-saving discoveries, and directly by endangering human lives.”[12] This claim is supported by the fact that legal drugs, the overwhelming majority of which have been tested safe on animals, kill more people (roughly 100,000 annually) than all illegal drugs combined. Also, approximately fifteen percent of all hospital admissions are due to adverse medical reactions.[13]

The second requirement given by Jarboe is that acts of international terrorism are against the law in the United States or any state. Besides the animal cruelty convictions mentioned above, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) fined HLS $50,000 for 23 violations of the Animal Welfare Act in 1998. Despite the USDA fine, SHAC research indicates that these violations continued at least until March of 2000.[14] In the United Kingdom, both the Daily Express and the Observer have reported illegal activity inside HLS.[15] “Breaches of law even went unpunished in some cases,” according the Observer in April 2003.[16] Although HLS supposedly safety tests human medicine, the company has violated Good Laboratory Practice laws over 600 times.[17]

The third requirement given by Jarboe is that acts of international terrorism are either meant to: (1) intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (2) change the policy of a government, or (3) affect the conduct of a government. Many actions taken by HLS do intimidate a civilian population, specifically the animal rights activists who have been sued for exercising their First Amendment rights. In April of 2001, for example, HLS and ex-business partner Stephens Inc. sued SHAC USA (as well as three other animal rights organizations and “affiliated individuals”[18]) for seven million dollars,[19] only to withdraw the lawsuit a little more a year later.[20] (Although SHAC has been sued many times, it has never been held liable[21]). Despite this and similar incidents, intimidation of animal activists is not the ultimate intent of HLS. Its real purpose is to influence the policy of governments, and this alone meets the international terrorism requirement. HLS does this by treating animals with indifference and cruelty, and then tailoring the test results in order to convince a government to legalize a product.

The fourth and final requirement given by Jarboe is that acts of international terrorism are either performed in more than one country or they are intended to influence the people of more than one country. HLS meets this requirement with its three laboratory sites. The main site is in Huntingdon, England, and the other sites are in Suffolk, England, and New Jersey, United States. It is indubitable that HLS is committing international terrorism, as they meet all of the FBI requirements. This is a striking counterexample to the view that animal testing is always praiseworthy work focused on reliable science and human health.

Counterterrorist Tactics by SHAC

The FBI is not so clear on their definition of counterterrorism, but they do give clues as to what makes up a counterterrorist effort. The main elements that define counterterrorism are using surveillance and analysis to learn about terrorist activity, acting to prevent the realization of terrorist threats, and neutralizing terrorist operatives, cells, and networks, with the ultimate goal of ending terrorism worldwide. Other aspects include using an understanding of the situation in moving quickly to prevent terrorist attacks, and working with regard for the United States Constitution in order to protect civil liberties.[22] According to this description by the FBI, the volunteer-run SHAC campaign fits into the category of counterterrorism, not terrorism.

With the ultimate goal of closing HLS, which was shown above to be an international terrorist organization, SHAC works to make life at HLS both unpleasant and unprofitable. HLS is a Contract Research Organization (CRO), which, as defined by the Food and Drug Administration,[23] means that it assumes one or more of the obligations of sponsoring companies. In this case, HLS stays in business as a result of the companies that contract with it to test products. SHAC carefully identifies these companies and convinces them that contracting cruel and unscientific animal research will not be profitable for them.[24] By convincing companies that HLS is unprofitable, HLS loses business and moves closer to bankruptcy.

SHAC also pressures HLS directly. SHAC demonstrates outside HLS laboratories, the buildings of companies that contract HLS, and the homes of executives from any of those companies (including HLS). For example, there were more than a dozen demonstrations at HLS CEO Andrew Baker’s condo in December 2003 and January 2004 alone.[25] SHAC also creates bad publicity for those companies, and asks SHAC supporters to call and send e-mails to company executives in order to jam the companies’ abilities to communicate and do business as they usually do. This type of activity by SHAC and their supporters has consistently convinced companies that contracting HLS is not worth the protest activity and bad publicity. Citibank, Merrill Lynch,[26] and over a hundred other companies have decided to stop contracting HLS for these reasons.[27] Also, the SHAC campaign against HLS has played a major role in HLS being forced off both the London and the New York Stock Exchange.[28]

SHAC does all of its work within the boundaries of the United States Constitution. All of the demonstrations, calls, and e-mails explained above are legal, and protected by the First Amendment. In one case, 39 charges against SHAC demonstrators (including extortion, threatening, stalking, and conspiracy) were dropped after a judge decided that the demonstration was protected by the Constitution as free speech.[29] In another, SHAC USA, Voices for Animals, and website administrator Kevin Mudrick were sued by HLS and Stevens, Inc. for using a company logo on a campaign Web site, but the judge ruled that the Web site was protected by the First Amendment, since it was not for commercial use.[30] SHAC activists have been arrested in connection with the campaign against HLS (e.g. Dave Blenkinsop, for assaulting HLS managing director Brian Cass,[31] Paul Holiday and Paul Leboutillier, for making phone calls to HLS share holders[32]), but their illegal activities were independent of their involvement in SHAC. In sharp contrast, the illegal actions of HLS employees are directly related to their employment by HLS. If HLS took the time and energy necessary to properly care for the animals used in its experiments, it would be far less profitable, and the results of the experiments would be harder to tailor for the purposes of moving products onto the market. On the other hand, if SHAC activists participated in only legal measures in order to close HLS, the organization would still be relatively effective. In a word, the illegal activity of HLS, unlike that of SHAC, is essential to the organization’s success.

Because SHAC does extensive research in order to prevent HLS from committing terrorist acts, and because SHAC does not disobey the law, it follows that SHAC is a counterterrorist group (as defined by the FBI) working against the criminal actions of HLS.

Objections

There are two predictable objections to this argument. First, one might claim that actions that are violent toward non-human animals cannot be categorized as terrorism per se. Second, one might insist that SHAC is the actual terrorist organization of the two.

While HLS could still be considered an international terrorist organization without the implementation of violence toward animals (because the process of testing drugs on animals endangers human life), there are persuasive rationales for the view that non-human animals can be victims of terrorism. Even though many people regard equality as a matter of fact among human beings, the belief that people of different genders and ethnicities generally have relatively equal intelligence, strength, and other qualities, could be completely false. Still, we would not want to abandon the idea of equality, and that is because it is a moral principle, not a matter of fact. “The principle of the equality of human beings is not a description of an alleged actual equality among humans: it is a prescription of how we should treat human beings,” writes Singer.[33] We treat people as equals because they have similar interests, not because they are equal in all respects.

In order to have such interests, all a being must possess is sentience. Sentience is not unique to human beings, and so it follows that the interests of (sentient) non-human animals must also be considered equally. Therefore, to say that terrorism can be committed against one being (a mentally retarded child) but not another (a cat) is a prejudice based on characteristics that are morally irrelevant and is no less excusable than racism or sexism. This is illustrated in a quote from Dr. Michael Podell, a vivisector who was convinced to resign by an animal rights campaign against his experiments involving cats and addictive drugs. In defense of animal testing, he stated: “It’s a small number of animals to get information to potentially help millions of people.”[34] Obviously, if the cats in Podell’s study were replaced by severely mentally retarded human beings who would never develop any sentience, abstract reasoning, or other characteristics beyond those of a cat, the research would be cancelled and Podell arrested.

Although by definition HLS is guilty of international terrorism and SHAC is using counterterrorism, some have claimed that SHAC is the actual terrorist organization of the two. They point to spirited demonstrations, publicity campaigns, phone and e-mail blockades, smashed windows, anti-HLS graffiti, slashed tires, and arson. Such tactics have elicited negative reactions from groups such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, which described “SHAC’s campaign to harass employees of Huntingdon - and even distantly related business associates like Marsh - with frankly terroristic tactics similar to those of anti-abortion extremists. Employees have had their homes vandalized with spray-painted ‘Puppy killer’ and ‘We’ll be back’ notices. They have faced a mounting number of death threats, fire bombings and violent assaults. They’ve also had their names, addresses, and personal information posted on Web sites and posters, declaring them ‘wanted for collaboration with animal torture.’”[35]

It is true that according to the FBI definition, these illegal actions would change the status of SHAC from counterterrorism to domestic terrorism. However, this position assumes that the responsibility for any politically motivated illegal action taken against a company can be traced back to a legal campaign against the same company. Richard Berman, Executive Director of the Center for Consumer Freedom, seems to hold just this stance. As he wrote in his testimony at a U.S. House of Representatives Oversight Hearing on eco-terrorism, “While [the Animal Liberation Front] took credit for these crimes [stated above], SHAC publicized them, suggesting that the two are connected if not identical.”[36] What Berman and others fail to appreciate are the ample counterexamples to this argument. When a labor union publicizes the smashing of a Starbucks shop at a globalization protest they attended, this does not imply that the union had any control over the sequence of events leading up to the crime. And without any control over the crime, an organization certainly cannot have any responsibility.

Even though “anonymous activists have made unsolicited contributions to the efforts to close HLS in the form of liberating animals, breaking windows, burning out cars, and other forms”[37] of politically motivated property destruction[38], SHAC is an aboveground campaign. SHAC ideologically supports actions that meet the Animal Liberation Front (ALF)[39] requirements, publicizes these actions, and “will lend tangible support to those tried and/or convicted of” such crimes, but this is entirely legal activity.[40] Although Berman recognizes that “at the end of the exercise, it’s all about the same effort,”[41] this in no way closes his case against SHAC. The ALF and SHAC are two separate organizations, the former using an illegal underground approach and the latter adopting a legal and aboveground presence. Whether or not sabotage is an ethically defensible tactic, the SHAC campaign evades this philosophical question by acting according to the laws and Constitution of the United States. Their work to end dangerous research and terrorism against non-human animals is both legal and ethical. Because SHAC does not advocate or provoke violence, the campaign cannot legally be held responsible for the actions of anonymous members of the ALF or related organizations.

Conclusion

It is an Orwellian irony that violence and dangerous science are commonly considered beneficial while the resistance to this activity is considered terrorism. Delving beyond these considerations and focusing on the current government definitions unexpectedly shows that HLS is an international terrorist organization, and that SHAC is using counterterrorism in its attempt to save countless animals and protect human lives. The dominant view of animal testing fails to accommodate cases of this kind, in which animal rights activists are praiseworthy individuals an animal research is terrorism. Because animals are capable of becoming victims of terrorism and SHAC is not responsible for any illegal actions against HLS, there is no excuse for the current private and state protection of HLS. The cruel and dangerous practices HLS employs for profit warrant not only our attention, but our action as well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notes

[1] “From Push to Shove.” Intelligence Report Fall 2002: 20-29.
[2] Welcome to Huntingdon Life Sciences. 13 March 2004 http://www.huntingdon.com/hls/home/index.html.
[3] Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty/USA. 13 March 2004 http://www.shacamerica.net.
[4] Federal Bureau of Investigation. 13 March 2004 http://www.fbi.gov.
[5] Singer, Peter. Writings on an Ethical Life. New York: The Ecco Press, 2000: 31-33.
[6] Elstein, Daniel. “Species as a Social Construction: Is Species Morally Relevant?” Animal Liberation Philosophy and Policy Journal. 2003. 13 March 2004 http://www.cala-online.org/Journal/Issue_1/Species%20as%20a%20Social%20Construction.htm.
[7] U.S. Government. Eco-terrorism and Lawlessness on the National Forests. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2002.
[8] Huntingdon Life Sciences Exposed by Sarah Kite. 13 March 2004 http://www.shac.net/HLS/exposed/kite.html.
[9] Lynn, Gina and Darius Fullmer. “Born to Die at Huntingdon Life Sciences.” Earth First! Journal 21 June 2001: 24-26.
[10] Huntingdon Life Sciences Exposed by Michelle Rokke. 13 March 2004 http://www.shac.net/HLS/exposed/rokke.html.
[11] Huntingdon Life Sciences Exposed by Michelle Rokke.
[12] Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty Fact Sheets. SHAC USA
[13] Americans for Medical Advancement Frequently Asked Questions. 19 March 2004 http://www.curedisease.com/FAQ.html.
[14] Lynn
[15] Huntingdon Life Sciences Exposed. 5 April 2004 http://www.shac.net/HLS/exposed.html.
[16] “Exposed: secrets of the animal organ lab.” The Observer. 20 April 2003. 5 April 2004 http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,940033,00.html.
[17] Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty Fact Sheets.
[18] “Huntingdon Sues Animal Activists.” News from Huntingdon Life Sciences. 19 April 2001. 25 March 2004 http://www.huntingdon.com/hls/www/!show_press_release.jsp?id=631.
[19] “Huntingdon Life Sciences/Stephen's INC. Slaps Law Suit On Activists.” Green Anarchy. Summer 2002. 25 March 2004 http://greenanarchy.org/zine/GA09/staterepression.php.
[20] Carnell, Brian. “HLS Withdraws RICO Lawsuit Against SHAC.” AnimalRights.Net. 9 July 2002. 25 March 2004. http://www.animalrights.net/articles/2002/000240.html.
[21] Shabner, Dean. “Interactive Ecoterror?” ABCNEWS.com. 5 May 2003. 22 March 2004 http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/SciTech/ecoterror030505.html.
[22] War on Terrorism Home. 13 March 2004 <http://www.fbi.gov/> (click on “Counterterrorism”).
[23] United States. Food and Drug Administration, Office of the Commissioner, Office of Good Clinical Practice. Why a SMO is not a CRO, or is it? By Stan W. Woollen. Oct. 2001. 13 March 2004 http://www.fda.gov/oc/gcp/slideshows/smo2001/smotext.html.
[24] SHAC USA. “Holy Protests, No Comp Readers! Check Out the HLS Campaign!” No Compromise Fall 2003: 11.
[25] “Baker Bashing.” Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty/USA eNewsletter. 23 Jan. 2004. 13 March 2004 http://www.shacamerica.net/enews/jan23_04/.
[26] Lynn
[27] Shabner
[28] SHAC History. 13 March 2004 http://www.shac.net/SHAC/history.html.
[29] “Judge Dismisses 39 Charges Brought Against Animal Rights Activists.” The Associated Press. 22 Feb. 2004. 22 March 2004 http://www.shacamerica.net/2004/news_feb22b_04.htm.
[30] Lynn
[31] “From Push to Shove.”
[32] Prisoner Support. 13 March 2004 http://www.shac.net/ACTION/prisoners.html.
[33] Singer
[34] “From Push to Shove.”
[35] “From Push to Shove.”
[36] U.S. Government
[37] Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty Fact Sheets.
[38] Anthony J. Nocella, II, NCOR presentation 2004 Jan. 24-25
[39] Animal Liberation Front. 25 March 2004 http://www.animalliberationfront.com.
[40] “Why does SHAC support ‘violent’ tactics?” Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA. 22 March 2004 http://www.shacamerica.net/faq.htm#11a.
[41] U.S. Government

You're d*mn right it is. To deny sick people of life saving treatment is murder. To deny millions of sick people of life saving treatment is *mass* murder. These people are advocating, and in some cases attempting to physically enact, mass murder. They've gone beyond mere propagandizing. They are now employing sabotage and terrorism. This is not progressive or humane. This a crime against humanity.

It's not sound science, either. Get the facts. Start here:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/politics/animal-rights/myths/part2/

CTV.ca News Staff

Responding to a controversial ad campaign that appears to exploits the murder of women in B.C., Prime Minister Paul Martin called them unacceptable.

The billboards, paid for by the U.S.-based People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, went up in Toronto and Edmonton this week.

Designed to promote PETA's anti-meat campaign, the larger-than-life billboard shows the face of a haggard young woman on one side and a pig's face on the other. Between the two is the blunt slogan: "Neither Of Us Is Meat."

Interpreted as a reference to the case of Robert Pickton, the B.C. man charged in the deaths of 15 women on his farm, the campaign has sparked condemnation from victims' families.

Martin has joined the chorus of criticism. Describing his revulsion at the campaign, the PM said there may be ways to support a cause, but this isn't one of them.

"Those ads are simply unacceptable,'' Martin said in Quebec.

"When you think of the terrible, terrible trauma that affected all of those women in British Columbia, when you think of what those families are going through right now -- that kind of publicity is just not acceptable.''

In response, PETA said, "We can't imagine that Mr. Martin has seen the ad, since the ad clearly represents both humans and other animals as deserving of our respect and empathy.''

Marylynne Craft, whose daughter Cindy Felix is listed among the murders that Pickton is charged with, says she's furious.

"It makes me sick to my stomach," she told CTV News. "It doesn't exactly say 'Vancouver prostitute' and 'Pickton pig.' But is might as well."

The Advertising Council of Canada, which does not pre-screen print ads, says it takes formal complaints from the public to kickstart censure of controversial advertising.

PETA has made a name for itself since its founding in 1980 for its shock-value ad campaigns denouncing the eating of meat and other animal foods. The group enraged residents in Des Moines, Iowa a decade ago when it ran ads in local newspapers comparing meat eaters to convicted serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer.

Late last year, the animal rights activists tried to run an advertisement in a Vancouver newspaper linking the slaughter of animals and acts of violence against people.

Family of the victims expressed their disgust at the time, prompting two newspapers to refuse to run the ads.

Mass murder is the issue. Why do you address these distractions and not defend mass murder?

Can't you think of any defense for mass murder?

Not aphids on organic corn, certainly. You have to consider them lower in the hierarchy and less of a tragedy to kill, because you have to harm them too. Aphids rank lower than butterflies, butterflies under clownfish. Even if your code of ethics is that all animals are equal, you must kill some animals to stay alive. An agrarian diet takes up more habitat land than a low-density gathering one too.

Either you can complete the following sentence, or your entire premise in invalid:

Subjecting millions and millions of innocent human beings to agonizing, tortuous, unnecessary deaths is a moral act because _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Vivisectors continue to rely on animal experiments, even though they continually fail to provide useful information. Even data derived from human research is often applied to animals in the laboratory, with the supposed purpose of seeking results to apply to humans. This is unscientific, unprofessional lunacy, and our tax dollars are paying for most of it.

Essentially all animal-based safety and toxicity tests currently used have never been validated by the scientific community, and would most likely not pass current validation procedures. Why? Because humans and animals differ greatly from each other, anatomically, genetically, immunologically, physiologically and histologically, right down to the basic cellular structures. You cannot logically or scientifically make predictions for one species with data derived from another. Testing a cancer drug on a mouse or a surgical procedure on a dog gives results that can only be applied to mice or dogs.

Animals are routinely used as test subjects to study human diseases. Aside from the obvious differences between species, the fundamental problem with this approach is that human diseases occur naturally. Experiments that attempt to artificially recreate in an animal a spontaneously occurring human disease are doomed to failure. A disease’s symptoms can be given to an animal, but this synthetically produced “disease” does not duplicate the naturally-occurring human form. Observations and test results obtained from the animal are applicable to that situation only, and cannot be accurately generalized onto humans. Using non-humans to study human conditions is scientifically flawed and careless.

Pharmaceutical drugs are federally mandated to be tested on animals, yet animal-derived data has repeatedly failed to predict drugs’ effects in humans. In an FDA drug review, it states “Over half of all new medications the FDA approved in a decade were recalled or relabeled because of side effects not observed in animal experiments.” Drug experiments on animals frequently provide data that is subsequently not seen in humans. Conversely, humans frequently exhibit side effects unseen in animal tests, leading scientists back to the labs to imitate these reactions in animals. But they can’t, because we respond differently than other species. Using animals as test subjects is negligent, invalid and dangerous to humans.

Here are statements made by medical and scientific professionals:

* "Work on [the polio vaccine] was long delayed…based on misleading experimental models of the disease in monkeys.” – Albert Sabin, inventor of polio vaccine

* Regarding Fleming’s use of penicillin in a human patient, after finding it ineffective in rabbits, and not yet knowing it’s deadly effect on guinea pigs and hamsters: “How fortunate we didn’t have these animal tests …for penicillin would probably never have been granted a license, and possibly the whole field of antibiotics might never have been realized.” – Howard Florey, co-discoverer and manufacturer of penicillin

* Giving nitrosourethane to dogs will induce lung injury similar to some types of lung injury seen in humans. However, animal experimenters say that, “…because the mechanism of nitrosourethane-induced lung injury is unknown, the model has no known etiologic relevance to the human injury.” - Cantor, James O. (Ed.) CRC Handbook of Animal Models of Pulmonary Disease Vol. 1

* “The immunosuppressive effects of cyclosporin have… differed considerably between species, limiting any direct inference that may be made regarding use in human organ transplantation….”
Annals of Internal Medicine 1984, vol101

* “This deficiency [of experimentation on humans] has helped foster many misconceptions and myths about the way research is carried out and has led many people to the mistaken impression that all experiments can be - and are - done on animals. Ultimately, however, humans must become test subjects, and the leap from experimenting on animals to experimenting on humans is always a huge one.” - Who Goes First? The Story of Self-Experimentation in Medicine

* “To the 2.6 million people around the world afflicted with multiple sclerosis, medicine has offered more frustration than comfort. Time after time, researchers have discovered new ways to cure laboratory rats of experimental induced encephalomyelitis, the murine model of MS, only to face obstacles in bringing the treatment to humans.” - Scientific American

* "... 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." – Prof. Colin Dollery, Hammersmith Hospital, London, in the book Risk-Benefit Analysis in Drug Research, ed. Cavalla, p 87, 1981.

* “Uncritical reliance on the results of animal tests can be dangerously misleading and has cost the health and lives of tens of thousands of humans.” – Handbook of Laboratory Animal Science (the leading manual on animal experimentation)

HARM TO HUMANS

Clearly, animal experimentation offers no safety assurances or relevant data. On the contrary, applying animal-based information to humans has harmed us and delayed scientific and medical progress. Here’s how…

* The antidiarrheal Clioquinol passed tests in rats, cats, dogs and rabbits. When released, it caused blindness and paralysis in humans.

* The popular diet drug Phen-fen caused heart disease in humans, after passing animal tests successfully.

* Surgeons accomplished corrective eye surgery in rabbits, but the operation blinded the first human patients. Whereas rabbits’ corneas can regenerate on the underside of the eye, human corneas regenerate on the surface.

* Smoking was deemed safe for decades, as laboratories found it difficult to imitate smoking-related cancer in animals. Believing cigarettes to be safe, people continued to light up and ultimately die from cancer.

* A chemical found to cause cancer in rats and mice was later found to reduce the size of some cancers in humans, years after it had been deemed useless.

* Arthritis medications Zomax, Flosint and Opren caused severe adverse reactions and deaths, none of which were seen in tests with dogs, monkeys and rats.

* A headache medication, Methysergide, caused scarring of patients’ hearts, kidneys, and abdominal blood vessels. These reactions were not observed in animal tests, even when doctors returned to the lab to reproduce these effects.

* Rezulin, a diabetes medication, caused liver damage in humans, an effect unseen in the animal tests. At least one patient died and another needed a new liver.

* A treatment for nausea and vomiting caused irregular heartbeats in humans. Scientists couldn’t reproduce this in dogs, even with 70 times the normal dose.

* Dogs also tolerated Mitoxantrone, a cancer treatment that caused heart failure in humans.

* Cylert, a drug to treat ADHD, caused liver failure in thirteen children, eleven of whom either died or needed liver transplants.

I was hoping "not nessie" was going to tell everyone why he supports bad science that has harmed and killed millions of humans while perpetrating an animal holocaust of colossal proportions, but I guess it's a pretty shitty thing to have to face up to.

Same tactics, same rhetoric.

Isn't it?

50 DEADLY CONSEQUENCES OF LAB ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS


1. Benzene was not withdrawn from use as an industrial chemical despite clinical and epidemological evidence that exposure caused leukemia in humans, because manufacturer-supported tests failed to reproduce leukemia in mice.[1]

2. Animal experiments on rats, hamsters, guinea pigs, mice, monkeys, and baboons revealed no link between glass fibers and cancer. Not until 1991, due to human studies, did OSHA label it carcinogenic.[3][4][5]

3. Though arsenic was a known human carcinogen for decades, scientists still found little evidence in animals to support the conclusion as late as 1977.[6] This was the accepted view until it was produced in lab animals.[7][8][9]

4. Smoking was thought non-carcinogenic because smoking-related cancer is difficult to reproduce in lab animals. Many continued to smoke and to die from cancer.[2]

5. Many continued to be exposed to asbestos and die because scientists could not reproduce the cancer in lab animals.

6. Pacemakers and heart valves were delayed in development because of physiological differences between animals they were designed on and humans.

7. Animal models of heart disease failed to show that a high cholesterol/high fat diet increases the risk of coronary artery disease. Instead of changing their eating habits to prevent the disease, people continued their lifestyles with a false sense of security.

8. Patients received medications that were harmful and/or ineffective due to animal models of stroke.

9. Animal studies predicted that beta-blockers would not lower blood pressure. This withheld their development.[10][11][12] Even animal experimenters admitted the failure of animal models of hypertension in this regard, but in the meantime, there were thousands more stroke victims.

10. Surgeons thought they had perfected radial keratotomy, surgery performed to enable better vision without glasses, on rabbits, but the procedure blinded the first human patients. The rabbit cornea is able to regenerate on the underside, whereas the human cornea can only regenerate on the surface. Surgery is now performed only on the surface.

11. Combined heart lung transplants were also “perfected” on animals, but the first 3 patients all died within 23 days.[13] Of 28 patients operated on between 1981 and 1985, 8 died peri-operatively, and 10 developed obliterative bronchiolitis, a lung complication that the experimental dogs did not get. Of those 10, 4 died and 3 never breathed again without the aid of a respirator. Obliterative bronchiolitis turned out to be the most important risk of the operation.[14]

12. Cyclosporin A inhibits organ rejection, and its development was watershed in the success of transplant operations. Had human evidence not overwhelmed unpromising evidence from animals, it would never have been released.[15]

13. Animal experiments failed to predict the kidney toxicity of the general anesthetic methoxyflurane. Many people lost all kidney function.

14. Animal experiments delayed the use of muscle relaxants during general anesthesia. 

15. Research on animals failed to reveal bacteria as a cause of ulcers and delayed treating ulcers with antibiotics.

16. More than half of the 198 new medications released between 1976 and 1985 were either withdrawn or relabeled secondary to severe unpredicted side effects.[16] These side effects included complications like lethal dysrhythmias, heart attacks, kidney failure, seizures, respiratory arrest, liver failure, and stroke, among others.

17. Flosint, an arthritis medication, was tested on rats, monkeys and dogs; all tolerated the medication well. In humans, however it caused deaths.

18. Zelmid, an antidepressant, was tested on rats and dogs without incident. It caused severe neurological problems in humans.

19. Nomifensine, another antidepressant, was linked to kidney and liver failure, anemia, and death in humans. Animal testing had given it a clean, side effect-free bill of health.

20. Amrinone, a medication used for heart failure, was tested on numerous animals and was released without trepidation. Humans developed thrombocytopenia, a lack of the type of blood cells that are needed for clotting.

21. Fialuridine, an antiviral medication, caused liver damage in 7 out of 15 people. 5 eventually died and 2 more needed liver transplants.[17] It worked well in woodchucks.[18][19]

22. Clioquinol, an antidiarrheal, passed tests in rats, cats, dogs and rabbits. It was pulled off the shelves all over the world in 1982 after it was found to cause blindness and paralysis in humans.

23. Eraldin, a medication for heart disease, caused 23 deaths despite the fact that no untoward effects could be shown in animals. When introduced, scientists said it noted for the thoroughness of the toxicity studies on animals. It caused blindness and deaths in humans. Afterwards, scientists were unable to reproduce these results in animals.[20]

24. Opren, an arthritis medication, killed 61 people. Over 3500 cases of severe reactions have been documented. Opren had been tested on monkeys and other animals without problems.

25. Zomax, another arthritis drug, killed 14 people and caused many more to suffer.

The dose of isoproterenol, a medication used to treat asthma, was worked out in animals. Unfortunately, it was much too toxic for humans. 3500 asthmatics died in Great Britain alone due to overdose. It is still difficult to reproduce these results in animals.[21][22][23][24][25][26]

27. Methysergide, a medication used to treat headaches, led to retroperitoneal fibrosis, or severe scarring of the heart, kidneys, and blood vessels in the abdomen.[27] Scientists have been unable to reproduce this in animals.[28]

28. Suprofen, an arthritis drug, was withdrawn from the market when patients suffered kidney toxicity. Prior to its release researchers had this to say about the animal tests:[29][30] “...excellent safety profile. No ...cardiac, renal, or CNS [central nervous system] effects in any species.”

29. Surgam, another arthritis drug, was designed to have a stomach protection factor that would prevent stomach ulcers, a common side effect of many arthritis drugs. Although promising in lab animal tests, ulcers occurred in human trials.[31][32]

30. Selacryn, a diuretic, was thoroughly tested on animals. It was withdrawn in 1979 after 24 people died from drug induced liver failure.[33][34]

31. Perhexiline, a heart medication, was withdrawn when it produced liver failure that had not been predicted by animal studies. Even when they knew they were looking for a particular type of liver failure, they could not induce it in animals.[35]

32. Domperidone, designed as a treatment for nausea and vomiting, made human hearts beat irregularly and had to be withdrawn. Scientists were unable to reproduce this in dogs even with 70 times the normal dose.[36][37]

33. Mitoxantrone, a treatment for cancer produced heart failure in humans. It was extensively tested on dogs, which did not manifest this effect.[38][39]

34. Carbenoxalone was supposed to prevent formation of gastric ulcers but caused people to retain water to the point of heart failure. After scientists knew what it did to humans they tested it on rats, mice, monkeys, rabbits, without reproducing this effect. [40][41]

35. Clindamycin, an antibiotic, causes a bowel condition called pseudomenbraneous colitis. It was tested in rats and dogs every day for one year. They tolerate doses 10 times greater than humans.[42][43][44]

36. Animal experiments did not support the efficacy of valium-type drugs during development or after.[45][46]

37. Pharmacia & Upjohn discontinued clinical tests of its Linomide (roquinimex) tablets for the treatment of multiple sclerosis after several patients suffered heart attacks. Of 1,200 patients, 8 suffered heart attacks as a result of taking the medication. Animal experiments had not predicted this.

38. Cylert (pemoline), a medication used to treat Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder, caused liver failure in 13 children. Eleven either died or needed a liver transplant.

39. Eldepryl (selegiline), a medication used to treat Parkinson’s disease, was found to induce very high blood pressure. This side effect has not been seen in animals, where it is used to treat senile dementia and endocrine disorders.

40. The diet drug combination of fenfluramine and dexfenfluramine was linked to heart valve abnormalities and taken off the market although animal studies had never revealed heart abnormalities."[47]

41. The diabetes medication troglitazone, better known as Rezulin, was tested on animals without significant problems, but caused liver damage in humans. The company admitted that at least one patient had died and another had to undergo a liver transplant as a result.[48]

42. The plant digitalis has been used for centuries to treat heart disorders. However, clinical trials of the digitalis-derived drug were delayed because it caused high blood pressure in animals. Human evidence overrode. As a result, digoxin, an analogue of digitalis, has saved countless lives. Many more could it have survived had digitalis been released sooner.[49][50][51][52]

43. FK 506, now called Tacrolimus, is an anti-rejection agent that was almost shelved before proceeding to clinical trials due to severe toxicity in animals.[53][54] Animal studies suggested that the combination of FK 506 with cyclosporin might prove more useful.[55] In fact, just the opposite proved true in humans.[56]

44. Animal experiments suggested that corticosteroids would help septic shock, a severe bacterial infection of the blood.[57][58] Unfortunately, humans reacted differently. This treatment increased the death rate in cases of septic shock.[59]

45. Despite the ineffectiveness of penicillin in his rabbits, Alexander Fleming used the antibiotic on a very sick patient since he had nothing else to try. Luckily, Fleming’s initial tests were not on guinea pigs or hamsters, it kills them. Howard Florey, the Nobel Prize winner credited with co-discovering and manufacturing penicillin, stated: “How fortunate we didn’t have these animal tests in the 1940s, for penicillin would probably never been granted a license, and possibly the whole field of antibiotics might never have been realized.”

47. The notoriously dangerous drugs thalidomide and DES were tested in animals and released. Tens of thousands suffered and died as a result.

48. Animal experiments misinformed researchers about how rapidly HIV replicates. Based on this false information, patients did not receive prompt therapies and their lives were shortened.

49. Animal-based research delayed the development of the polio vaccine, according to Dr. Albert Sabin, its inventor. The first rabies and polio vaccines worked well on animals but crippled or killed the people who tried them.

50. Researchers who work with animals have succumbed to illness and death due to exposure to diseases that though harmless to the animal host (such as Hepatitis B) kill humans.


Time, money, and resources devoted to these experiments could have gone to human-based research. Clinical studies, in vitro research, autopsies, post-marketing drug surveillance, computer modeling, epidemiology, and genetic research pose no hazard to humans and provide accurate results.


Notes:

1. Sax, N. Cancer-causing Chemicals Van Nostrand 1981
2. Lancet, June 25, 1977 p1348-9
3. The Guardian, July 20, 1991
4. Occupational Lung Disorders, Butterworth 1982
5. Toxicology & Industrial Health, 1990, vol.6, p293-307
6. J Nat Cancer Inst 1969, vol.42, 1045-52
7. Br J Cancer, 1947, vol.1, p 192-251
8. Advances in Modern Toxicology, vol.2, Wiley, 1977
9. J Nat Cancer Inst, 1962, vol.5, p 459
10. Fitzgerald, D. The development of new cardiovascular drugs in Recent Developments in Cardiovascular Drugs eds. Coltart and Jewitt, Churchill Livingstone 1981
11. Perspectives in Biology & Medicine, 1980 Part 2, S9-S24
12. Pharmacy International Feb. 1986; p33-37
13. Lancet, i, p 130-2, 1983
14. Lancet, 1, no. 8480 p 517-9, March 8, 1996
15. Annals of Internal Medicine 1984, vol.101, 667-682
16. GAO/PEMD-90-15 FDA Drug Review: Postapproval Risks 1976-1985
17. NEJM 333;1099-1105, 1995
18. J NIH Res, 1993, 5, 33-35
19. Nature, 1993, July 22, p 275
20. Nature, 1982, April 1, p 387-90 and Br Med J, 1983, Jan 15, p 199-202 and Drug Monitoring, 1977 and Pharmacologist, 1964, vol. 6, p 12-26 and Pharmacology: Drug Actions and Reac and Advances in Pharm, 1963, vol. 2, 1-112 and Nature, 1982, April 1, p 387-390
21. Pharmacologist, 1971, vol.18, p 272
22. Br J of Pharm 1969Vol. 36; p35-45
23. Inman, W. H. Monitoring for Drug Safety, MTP Press, 1980
24. Am Rev Resp Diseases, 1972, vol.105, p883-890
25. Lancet, 1979, Oct.27, p 896
26. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 1965, vol. 7; p1-8
27. Animal Toxicity Studies: Their Relevance for Man, Quay Pub. 1990
28. Br Med J, 1974, May 18, p 365-366
29. Drug Withdrawl from Sale PJB Publications, 1988
30. Pharmacology, 1983, vol.27(suppl 1), 87-94 and FDA Drug Review: Postapproval Risks 1976-1985 (US GAO April 1990
31. Gut, 1987, vol.28, 515-518
32. Lancet, Jan 10, 1987, 113-114
33. Toxicolo Letters, 1991, vol.55, p 287-93
34. Drug Withdrawl from Sale, PJB1988
35. Reg Tox & Pharm,1990,vol.11,288-307 and Postgraduate Med J, 1973, vol.49, April Suppl., 125-129 and 130
36. Drugs, 1982, vol.24, p 360-400
37. Animal Toxicity Studies Quay, 1990
38. Lancet, 1984, July 28, p 219-220
39. Matindale: The Extra Pharmacopoeia, 29th edition, Pharmaceutical Press, 1989)
40. Br Nat Form, no.26, 1993
41. Reg Tox & Pharm, 1990, vol.11, p 288-307
42. Br Med J, 1983, Jan 15, p 199-202
43. Br Nat Form, no.26, 1993
44. Tox & Appl Pharm, 1972, vol. 21, p 516-531
45. The Benzodiazepines MTP Press1978
46. Drugs and Therapeutics Bulletin,1989, vol.27, p 28
47. as quoted in Activate For Animals Oct. 1997 The American Antivivisection Society
48. Parke-Davis letter dated Oct. 31, 1996
49. Sneader, W. Drug Discovery: The Evolution of Modern Medicine Wiley, 1985
50. Lewis, T. Clinical Science Shaw & Sons Ltd. 1934
51. Federation Proceedings 1967, vol.26, 1125-30
52. Toxicology In Vitro 1992, vol.6, 47-52
53. JAMA, 1990, April 4, p1766
54. Lancet,1989, July 22, p 227
55. Lancet, 1989, Oct 28, p1000-1004
56. Hepatology,1991, vol.13, 1259-1260
57. Drugs and Therapeutics Bulletin, 1990, vol.28, p 74-75
58. Anesthesiology: Proceedings of the VI World Congress of Anesthesiology, Mexico City 1977
59. NEJM, 1987, Sep. 10, p 653-658
60. The Causes of Cancer, 1981, Oxford Press
61. J NIH Res, 1991, vol.3, p46
62. Nature, 1991, Feb 28, p732

better yet, our rhetoric justifies our behavior...

certainly the bloody fetus pictures do!!

...is that the fundies pray before they break into clinics, firebomb places, target workers at home, and occasionally assasinate someone.

or do you folks pray first, too?

life first, it does have a ring to it...

maybe youse should take over the reform party or something, build bridges with the baptists. something more honest than this "freedom" charade.

though freedom for horsies and kittens does have a certain emotional appeal, for a certain age group anyways...

I heard that there is a lot of overlap between Act Up and the anti-SHAC p
people? Is there a lot in common between animal rights and gay liberation?

those gays are such party animals