Sat. June 14 - Home demonstrations for UC Berkeley vivisectors

It would be useful to clarify some of the principles involved in the demonstrations; feel free to offer an opinion even if you don't speak for the group here.
It is clear that mainstream american society values some animals over others, such as pets and large mammals and birds classified as rare wildlife, while agricultural meat animals, lab rats, mosquitoes etc. are currently considered disposable by many.
Does the home visit group consider fruitfly research which involves sacrifice of the fly to be of equivalent concern to the primate and cat research emphasized in the list on the website? In other words, does this animal rights movement invoke any hierarchy of perceived value or emphasis of concern among categories of animals, even if the ranking method is not the same as that of the rest of Californian society? If so, can you summarize the factors influencing this hierarchy. Are mammals ranked above insects, and within mammals, would a large or intelligent mammal receive higher ranking than small mammal like a mouse. Would a rare giant palouse earthworm be valued above a rapidly breeding, short generation fruitfly? Instead, are practical tactical concerns guiding the list?

Another question is why the overt focus on animal rights and ethics of animal testing without as much focus on the actual accuracy and results of the animal testing as it applies to humans? After all, this is the base claim of the animal researchers, that they are "helping humans", and this remain their defense when critiqued by animal rghts activists for cruelty in their experiments. The justification for the cruelty in animal research always remains "helping humans", though this premise could be disproven easier than the abstract arguement of animal cruelty in itself..

Morality and ethics of animal rights remains an open ended debate, though the veracity of the testing results are open to real physical scrutiny when the frequent errors of animal research occur..

This may appear the most selfish motive (focus on humans), yet by challenging the "science" of animal research on conditions of accuracy, people can show direct results on the invalidity of the animal research that claims to "help" the human species..

Nobody wants to sound like Grandpa Munster, though it would be good for the "youts" of modern animal rights activism to remind themselves of the historical Thalidomide cases of birth deformities (flippers instead of limbs) in the 70's after the pharma drug was tested on almost every species of animal available to testing with NO adverse results UNTIL the tragedies of human birth defects began..

"During the lengthy trial of the manufacturers in 1970, numerous court witnesses, all animal experimenters, stated under oath that the results of animal experiments are never valid for human beings.

One of these experts was the Nobel Prize winner Sir Ernst Boris Chain who co-discovered the anti-bacterial effects of penicillin. According to the court records on 2 February 1970 he stated:

'No animal experiment with a medicament, even if it is tested on several animal species, including primates, under all conceivable conditions, can give any guarantee that the medicament tested in this way will behave the same in humans: because in many respects the human is not the same as the animal.'

Because they had performed the required animal safety-tests, and because these did not show evidence of any danger, the manufacturers of Thalidomide were found not guilty by the court of consciously marketing a harmful drug.

This of course is the real danger of animal experiments. Firstly, they can be manipulated, whether consciously or unconsciously, to produce results favourable to a financial backer. Secondly, they serve as a legal alibi for corporations when their products kill and injure people. It is worthy of note that Professor S. T. Aygun, a virologist at the University of Ankara, who used the so-called 'alternative' (non-animal) methods, discovered the danger of Thalidomide to humans and Turkey was spared the tragedy.

It was also disclosed at the trial by Dr Muckter, the director of the scientific laboratory of Chemie Grünenthal, that all the company's records were destroyed - or had 'disappeared' during 1959....

After decades passing, the nightmare drug responsible for over so many human birth deformities continues to rear its ugly head with the appearance of its dreadful effects being passed on to the children of the victims. This latest threat of the possibility of further litigation against the makers of thalidomide has once again rallied industry-beholden animal researchers to the drug's defence with laboratory data 'disproving' the clinical findings."

article found @;
http://www.vaccinetruth.org/thalidomide.htm

This isn't the only case of animal tests showing far different results when the product is applied to human tests (ie., the consumer market)..

Here's a few more "oopsies" of the animal research hall of fame (out of list of 50);

"19. Nomifensine, another antidepressant, was linked to kidney and liver failure, anemia, and death in humans. And yet animal testing had indicated that it could be used without side-effects occurring.

20. Amrinone, a medication used for heart failure, was tested on numerous animals and was released without any trepidation. But 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] And yet it had worked well in woodchucks.[18][19]

22. Clioquinol, an antidiarrheal, passed tests in rats, cats, dogs and rabbits. But it had to be withdrawn 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 deaths and blindness in humans 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. 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, was responsible for the death of 14 people and causing suffering to many more.

26. The dose of isoproterenol, a medication used to treat asthma, was calculated 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]"

Complete list of 50 animal research "oopsies" found @;
http://freetheanimals.homestead.com/disasters.html

Hey, if we want to prevent human illnesses, why not take all those known carcinogens, endocrine disrupters and other unhealthy products off the market once and for all, so that people can live, drink, eat and breathe healthy without the pharma testing on animals or humans??