tagged w/ vivisection
-
Los Angeles Times...
Poll: Scientists say animal research ethically complicated, but necessary
Scientists polled by the journal Nature reported mixed feelings about animal research. In April 2009, animal rights activist Graciela Iparraguirre, center, talked with UCLA student Martin Ducker,23, left, as pro-animal research supporters walked behind her on UCLA campus. (Spencer Weiner/Los Angeles Times)
By Eryn Brown, Los Angeles Times
February 23, 2011, 10:30 a.m.
Animal research has helped scientists understand human disease, and in some cases, develop cures. But it has also exposed them to an onslaught of attacks -- some violent -- from animal rights activists who question the ethics and necessity of animal experiments.
This week, the journal Nature takes a look at the complicated case of animal activism and its effects on scientific research, publishing the results of a poll of 980 biomedical scientists from around the world.
The vast majority -- 91.7% -- said they agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that "Animal research is essential to the advancement of biomedical science." About 70% of those polled said they conduct experiments on animals.
At the same time, almost 16% said they had experienced misgivings about the role of animals in their research -- and half of those said that the misgivings had led them to change the direction of their research. Thirty-three percent said they had ethical concerns about the role of animals in their current work.
Many said that discussing the issue of animal testing with the public was very difficult, but there were signs that communication efforts might be improving. More than half said that the institutions they work for encourage them to speak with the public about their work (less than a third reported this to be the case in a 2006 Nature poll.)Los Angeles Times...
Poll: Scientists say animal research ethically complicated,... more
-
-
Monday, September 6, 2010
Vegans, medication, and vivisection.
Q: What’s your opinion of vegans taking advantage of medications or procedures which have been developed through vivisection, or the use of animals as commodities? Is this not inconsistent with living a vegan lifestyle and taking an animal rights position?
Jeff Perz:
Thanks for this question, Jason. I believe someone from PeTA (which I oppose) effectively answered this question decades ago. Gary Francione gives a variation of this answer in the appendix to Introduction to Animal Rights. I am opposed to (human) slavery and the use of prisoner labor. Yet, many of the roads in the Southern U.S. were originally built by slaves and continue to be maintained by prisoner labor. If we live in the U.S. South, should we avoid driving on these roads?
I believe the answer is “no, but we should become strong advocates against the use of prison labor.” Similarly, if I had to choose between a medication with no animal ingredients but it was tested on animals, vs. dying, I would choose to take the medication and live. Then I could do more vegan education, which includes anti-vivisection education. Thus, I don’t think there is any inconsistency. That said, I strive to avoid all animal-tested products, including medication. When I can, for example, I will take feverfew herb instead of aspirin or whatever.
VIEW FULL JEFF PERZ TRANSCRIPT BY CLICKING ON LINK ABOVE.Monday, September 6, 2010
Vegans, medication, and vivisection.
Q: What’s... more
-
-
Revision of Directive 86/609
More than 115 million animals a year are used in laboratories around the world[1], with around 12 million animals used annually in the European Union alone[2].
Council Directive 86/609/EEC on the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes, is the European legislation that regulates animal experiments. It is more than 20 years old and urgently in need of updating in order to better protect animals in laboratories and to achieve the ultimate replacement of animals with more advanced, humane alternatives. A revised law has now been proposed.
Surveys and opinion polls clearly show that the public demands better protection for animals, with 79% of EU citizens believing there is insufficient public funding at European level for the development and validation of alternative methods to replace animal experiments[3]. The new EU law must reflect this high level of public concern and apply the requirement of the Amsterdam Protocol which obliges the EU to pay full regard to the welfare of animals in its research policy.
To benefit people and animals, replacing unsatisfactory animal experiments with more relevant and reliable non-animal methods must be the ultimate goal. Revision of Directive 86/609 provides Europe with an opportunity to lead the world in the development of non-animal methods. To achieve that the EU needs a targeted and properly funded strategy that places replacement at the heart of the new legislation.
1. Taylor K., Gordon N., Langley G., Higgins W. (2008) Estimates for Worldwide Laboratory Animal Use in 2005. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals (ATLA), 36(3):327-342 .
2. Fifth Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the Statistics on the number of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes in the member states of the European Union COM/2007/675 final.
3. European Commission 2006 survey
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/lab_animals/pdf/results_citizens.pdf
- Jane Goodall
http://www.makeanimaltestinghistory.org/resources/gallery/Dr%20Jane%20Goodall_Medium1.mp4
http://www.makeanimaltestinghistory.org/resources/campaign/vmarch2_gb.gifRevision of Directive 86/609
More than 115 million animals a year are used in... more
-
-
The University of Konstanz and the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health have jointly established the Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing—Europe (CAAT-EU) in an effort to promote better coordination in toxicity testing. The new Center, modeled after the Bloomberg School‘s Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT), will conduct scientific research to find new methods to replace the use of laboratory animals in studies, reduce the number of animals needed for research, and to refine necessary tests to eliminate the pain and distress of animals in research. CAAT-EU will hold an inauguration ceremony in Konstanz, Germany, on March 30.
Marcel Leist, professor at the University or Konstanz, will lead CAAT-EU, along with Thomas Hartung, the Doerenkamp-Zbinden Professor and Chair for Evidence-based Toxicology, and director of CAAT at the Bloomberg School. Hartung also holds an appointment as professor at the University of Konstanz.
“As a transatlantic cooperation center, CAAT-EU will unite its activities in the field of alternatives and toxicology at the University of Konstanz and combine them strategically with the activities of the Bloomberg School’s CAAT in the U.S.,” said Leist.
“Sound science is the bridge, not only across the Atlantic, but also for a future with safer products using fewer animals,” added Hartung.
The CAAT-EU board of directors includes EuroGroup for Animals, an umbrella organization of more than 30 animal protection organizations, and ECOPA—the European consensus platform for alternative methods made up of representatives of universities, industry, animal protection organizations and governments.
CAAT was founded at the Bloomberg School of Public Health in 1981 as an academic, science-based center to provide a better, safer, more humane future for people and animals. The University of Konstanz has more than 20 years of experience in studying alternatives to animal research. CAAT-EU will collaborate with CAAT to develop a worldwide standard for chemical testing.
“Konstanz is the ideal location for this enterprise,” said Ulrich Ruediger, rector of the University of Konstanz. “Here we have a tradition of intensive support for alternative methods.”
“The mission of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health is to protect health and save lives through research and education,” said Michael J. Klag, dean of the Bloomberg School of Public Health. “We work with partners around the world and look forward to our collaboration with the University of Konstanz.”
###
Press contacts:
Dr. Mardas Daneshian
University Konstanz
Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing-Europe
Universitaetsstraße 10, 78464 Konstanz
Tel.: +49 (0)7531-884685
Email
Tim Parsons
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
615 N. Wolfe Street/E2132
Baltimore, MD 21205-2179
Tel.: +1 410-955-7619
EmailThe University of Konstanz and the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health... more
-
-
Can you spare one week to be a voice for the millions of animals who suffer in laboratories?
World Week for Animals in Labs is rapidly approaching, and PETA is calling on kindhearted and energetic people to get involved and speak up for animals who are used in experiments.
This April 17–24, tell everyone you know that "Animal Testing Breaks Hearts!" Despite the availability of superior and humane non-animal methods, everyday household products and cosmetics are still pumped into animals' stomachs, rubbed on their skin and in their eyes, and forced into their lungs with aerosol sprays.
Reject this cruel and archaic practice by purchasing products that are not tested on animals. You can do even more for animals who are used for experiments by getting active during World Week for Animals in Labs!
Fill out the form below, and we'll mail you a free booklet filled with 10 "Animal Testing Breaks Hearts" leaflets and a pack of stickers to pass out to your family, friends, classmates, and coworkers.
Sharing this information will show others how easy it is to be cruelty-free and is a great way for you to help countless animals who undergo excruciating experiments each and every week at the hands of vivisectors.
http://www.peta.org/actioncenter/AnimalsLabsWeek.aspCan you spare one week to be a voice for the millions of animals who suffer in... more
-
-
Help Get IDA's Undercover TV On The Air In Your Town!
Undercover TV is an innovative television series that exposes the extreme animal cruelty deliberately hidden from the American public.
This revolutionary new half-hour television program produced by IDA takes viewers where other shows won't - inside of factory farms, vivisection laboratories, fur operations, puppy mills, and other exploitive industries to show people the truth about the suffering of animals behind the scenes.
Most Americans have never seen how animals used for food, clothing or scientific experiements are treated because those who profit from their suffering keep them hidden behind locked and guarded doors. By showing happy animated animals on TV commercials, they depict the treatment of these animal inaccurately.
If your city doesn't yet air Undercover TV, take action by volunteering for our nationwide video distribution network. As a resident of any city, you can submit episodes of Undercover TV to your community public access station.
This simple form of activism is extremely powerful because each episode of Undercover TV that is aired can potentially wake thousands of people up to the reality of animal exploitation - something most television viewers would otherwise never see.
If you would like to bring Undercover TV to your area, contact info@undercovertv.org and we'll show you how.Help Get IDA's Undercover TV On The Air In Your Town!
Undercover TV is an... more
-
-
Many cosmetics companies misleadingly claim their products are ‘not tested on animals’ but are not so keen to admit that they still use animal-tested ingredients. In these crude poisoning tests, chemicals are force-fed to animals, injected into them, dripped into their eyes and rubbed into their raw skin. Here is an overview that explains how to recognise the companies that try to give the impression they are cruelty-free, when they're not!
Cosmetics companies can, broadly speaking, be divided into three categories with regard to their animal testing policies.
1.
Chemical-producing companies that test on animals themselves or pay researchers to carry out animal tests on their behalf e.g.
Beiersdorf
Colgate
Johnson & Johnson
L'Oreal
PZ Cussons
Procter & Gamble
Reckitt Benckiser
Unilever
They tend to be larger companies and often have a raft of different cosmetic brands, for example 'Dove' and 'Organics' are Unilever brands. 'Herbal Essences' and 'Max Factor' are P&G brands. 'Garnier' and 'Lancome' are L'Oreal brands, the Body Shop are now owned by L'Oreal too. So rule number one is always look to see who the parent company is.
2.
The second category are cosmetics companies that tend not to test on animals themselves but continue to buy, use and benefit financially from chemical ingredients that have recently been tested on animals by their suppliers. Many cosmetic brands fall into this category e.g.
Avon
Boots brands
Chanel
Clarins
Clinique
Estee Lauder
Givenchy
Revlon
Tresemme
Supermarkets:
Asda
Lidl
Morrisons
Tesco
Most of them are very clever at deceiving the public with the claims they make about animal testing.
3.
The final category consists of companies that adhere to a Fixed Cut Off Date scheme. This means that the company will not buy or use ingredients that have been tested on animals by themselves or their suppliers after a set date (e.g. 1995). This is the only method by which manufacturers can send a clear message to their suppliers and the rest of the industry that the company is not prepared to profit from animal tested ingredients. Most animal testing for cosmetics takes place on "new to the world" chemicals. There are already thousands of chemicals with a proven safety record available.
You may be wondering why these companies are so keen to have access to new chemicals, especially when the majority of consumers are against animal testing for cosmetics? Well it's so they can market their products as ‘new’ and ‘improved’ - basically so they can make more money. For example P&G claim that their Olay Regenerist moisturizer beautifully regenerates skins’ appearance - thanks to their new Amino-Peptide Complex. And that their Total Effects moisturizer contains an exclusive VitaNiacin formula (the science part!). P&G and others are filling their products with all sorts of new chemical ingredients. It's to boost their marketing hype and P&G are recognised as world leaders. These companies are taking a gamble on the fact that most consumers assume that cosmetics are no longer tested on animals or are unable to see through their cleverly worded ‘animal testing policies’.
There's more, so click on the link.Many cosmetics companies misleadingly claim their products are ‘not tested on... more
-
-
We are different and equal..
International organization for the abolition of animal slavery
http://www.animalequality.net/
Animal Equality is an international organization dedicated to raising awareness of the suffering and deaths of nonhuman animals as victims of speciesism and working towards the abolition of animal use.
Nonhuman animals are regarded as property. They are victims of a mentality that considers them objects or tools that exist for human benefit. Whether for food, clothes, in laboratories or as entertainment, millions of nonhuman animals are confined, forced to suffer or killed due to species prejudice. Animal Equality exists solely to help challenge this prejudice and uses all its resources to combat it and promote an ethical lifestyle: veganism.
Animal Equality is an international non-profit organisation dedicated to achieving equal consideration and respect for animals. Founded in Madrid, Spain in January 2006 we are currently active in Spain, the United Kingdom, Peru, Venezuela and Colombia.
OUR MISSION - Working for nonhuman animals
Animal Equality is dedicated to raising awareness of the suffering and deaths of nonhuman animals as victims of speciesism and working towards the abolition of animal use through the promotion of veganism.
We work to obtain respect for animals by:
• Educating the public about speciesism and veganism.
• Investigating places of animal exploitation such as farms, slaughterhouses and circuses to expose the
reality to the public.
• Carrying out open rescues from places of animal exploitation and finding long-term safe homes and
sanctuaries for the rescued animals.
• Engaging in peaceful non-violent direct action to bring attention to the plight of animals.
OUR VALUES: ABOLITION
We are an abolitionist group. Our goal is the abolition of animal use, but we do not support welfare reforms, or changes in the way animals are exploited, to achieve this. Reforms in animal treatment have shown to benefit exploiters by increasing efficiency and profit, as well as encouraging the public to feel more comfortable about consuming animal products.
We do not promote the environmental or health benefits of veganism as we believe this weighs against our moral duties to nonhuman animals. Instead we keep the focus on animal rights.
Animal Equality will only work with other organisations with these same values.
Speciesism is a form of discrimination based on the species we belong to. Since all animals, human and nonhuman, are sentient with the capacity to feel emotions and sensations such as pleasure, pain, joy or fear, and as all possess the desire to continue living, this discrimination is both unscientific and unethical. Just like racism or sexism, speciesism discriminates for arbitrary and unfair reasons. Instead of gender or skin colour, speciesism discriminates against someone simply for not being human.
Veganism is the refusal to contribute to the exploitation of animals by choosing a varied plant-based diet free of animal products, using vegan cosmetics, household products, shoes and clothing, and entertaining ourselves without the use of animals.We are different and equal..
International organization for the abolition of animal... more
-
-
You're out for a walk with your dog when two men suddenly appear and grab him before you have a chance to react. In an instant, your canine companion is gone. Then—as if that weren't horrifying enough—you later learn that your beloved friend is caged in a medical school laboratory, slated to be cut open and killed in a training exercise.
It's every animal guardian's worst nightmare, and it allegedly happened recently to Carmen Valverde of Lima, Peru, and her dog, Tomas.
After Tomas was stolen, a neighbor of Carmen's who works at the teaching hospital in the University of San Marcos recognized him while looking in the surgery room in which the school routinely dissects dogs.
The neighbor alerted Carmen and, wearing a lab coat, Carmen was able to sneak into the facility at the university and rescue Tomas, who was already sedated and strapped down for dissection.
While the school claims that it only dissects "dogs [who] don't have owners," after Tomas' story was made public, at least one other guardian found her missing dog in the same laboratory.
We're following this case and will keep you posted on any developments.
This problem isn't limited to Peru. Animals suffer in laboratories no matter where they come from, but laboratories that are willing to pay for animals provide an incentive for unscrupulous people to get animals wherever they can—often from our streets and yards. "Bunchers" may drug animals, pose as animal control officers, or answer "free to a good home" ads to get puppies and kittens to sell.You're out for a walk with your dog when two men suddenly appear and grab him... more
-
-
Eyelids are sewn shut to study effect of light deprivation.
HIDDEN CRIMES: A Photographic exhibition on vivisection
(WARNING: GRAPHIC PHOTOS)
Please visit my blogger at: http://julesrs007saveanimals.blogspot.com/ for information on how you can help end the atrocity to our fellow creatures.Eyelids are sewn shut to study effect of light deprivation.
HIDDEN CRIMES: A... more
-
-
“Dying to Learn: Exposing the Supply and Use of Dogs and Cats in Higher Education” documents the hidden practices of colleges and universities in which unscrupulous Class B dealers, who obtain animals from shelters, sell former pets to education facilities, where these animals are used, and often killed, for dissection and live surgeries in teaching laboratories.
It traces the route that brings dogs like Cruella, a shepherd-mix from Michigan, to an unhappy end at university teaching labs.
The result of a two-year investigation of animal acquisition and use at 92 public colleges and universities in the U.S, “Dying to Learn” reveals that 52% are using live and dead dogs and cats for teaching, despite the availability of viable alternatives.
The report also dentifies specific schools that are obtaining animals from unethical sources.
DETAILS:
Cruella's story: http://www.dyingtolearn.org/cruella.html
Download report in full: http://www.dyingtolearn.org/dyingToLearn.pdf
What you can do to help the animals: http://www.dyingtolearn.org/takeaction.html“Dying to Learn: Exposing the Supply and Use of Dogs and Cats in Higher... more
-
-
A National Academies report released Friday concludes that researchers have no need to deal with “random source” dealers of laboratory dogs.
Random source, or class B dealers are those that procure and sell dogs and cats from the general animal population to laboratories, rounding up dogs and cats from animal shelters, auctions, private individuals and other “random sources.” Class A dealers are those that sell animals bred for a life in the laboratory.
The report comes in response to a request by Congress through the National Institutes of Health for an evaluation of the need to use random source dogs and cats in NIH-funded research.
The report states that “despite new enforcement guidelines and intensified inspection efforts, not all origins of (Class B) animals are or can be traced. The USDA simply cannot assure that stolen or lost pets will not enter research laboratories via the Class B dealer system.” The U.S. Department of Agriculture licenses Class B dealers.
The findings in the report — mostly praised by both the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and the American Anti-Vivisection Society (AAVS) — could provide momentum in Congress to eliminate Class B dealers, whose numbers have been rapidly shrinking.
According to the report, 20 percent of cats and dogs used in research were obtained from Class B dealers in 2002; by 2008, only 3 percent were.
One of the alternative sources suggested in the report — which stopped short of ruling out the use of random source animals entirely – is for researchers to buy animals directly from pounds and shelters.
“AAVS is extremely disappointed, however, that the Committee fell short of recommending entirely against the use of random source animals, including former pets, in NIH research. The Committee suggests that if the use of random source animals is deemed necessary, one option is that NIH research laboratories actually go directly to animal pounds and shelters to acquire cats and dogs for experiments.
The AAVS says that approach, known as pound seizure, could led to problems, with laboratories focusing on poor and overcrowded shelters, and shelters that cooperated losing public trust.
“A shelter (or) pound that releases animals directly to research facilities will lose the public’s trust, and this could decrease the number of animals brought to the shelter … and increase the number of abandoned animals,” the AAVS said. “AAVS encourages Congress to eliminate Class B dealers and to address the public’s concerns about former pets ending up in research by prohibiting the provision of random source animals for research.”
The report failed to consider other means of scientific study that do not involve the invasive or harmful use of cats and dogs, AAVS said — even though such alternative methods are receiving increasing attention.
AAVS’s educational division, Animalearn ( http://www.animalearn.org/home.php) recently released a report, Dying to Learn: Exposing the supply and use of dogs and cats in higher education. To view and download the report, visit http://www.dyingtolearn.org/.A National Academies report released Friday concludes that researchers have no need to... more
-
-
No Federal Violations for Boiled Monkey Death - Everett Judge Refuses to Allow Prosecution in Scalded Monkey Case
She was a cynomolgus monkey, also known as a crab-eating macaque or a long-tailed macaque. Whatever name you prefer, her horrifying, gruesome death followed a brief life that itself was surely lonely, frightening, and painful.
There were no trees, no gusts of wind, no natural smells, sounds, and sights, no family or companionship, no joy or wonder in her daily existence. Instead there was a tiny, barren space, with walls, ceiling, and floor made of cold metal wires. Instead there was terror.
Instead there were likely injections and restraints and intentionally inflicted pain and isolation. And there was to be far more of that, as humans tested drugs on her--and in a lab with a history of abuse and cruelty at that.
But then even before they were done with her, she was killed, and in the worst way. She died horrifically in the same cage in which she lived so sadly. She gripped the cage bars as 180 degree water and caustic, burning chemicals rained down forcefully all over her trapped body, boiling her ALIVE, melding the skin of her tortured body to the cage, permanently fusing her fingers to the metal bars that she gripped in terror and excruciating pain like we will never know.
There is no doubt that she screamed. God, how she must have screamed.
They had to peel her dead body from the cage.
To those of you out there who don't understand why animal rights activists are sometimes so angry, who think we have nothing to be angry about, who don't understand how we can cry over animals we've never met, who prefer to remain blissfully ignorant and insist that the way we use animals is fine and that animals don't suffer at our hands because, after all, we have laws to prevent and punish animal abuse, or who condemn the open or covert rescue of animals from labs, to all of you--please pay attention.
Incidents such as this, in which animals are not just abused but tortured--these 'incidents' are not rare -- WE, the general public, are informed only by mistake or by undercover work --when informed, OUR society chooses not to listen to such uncomfortable and disgraceful acts of inhumanity -- these are among our reasons for being angry.
Go read the article that first appeared early this year, http://www.kirotv.com/news/15189249/detail.html ...when a Washington news station first broke this story. Among everything else you read will be the following, which tells a not-unusual story about what happens when employees who witness cruelty, whether in a lab or a slaughterhouse, dare to speak up: they get fired, and the abuse continues.
Details of this story will shock and sadden you. Please follow links at:
http://www.kirotv.com/investigations/16341994/detail.html
http://animalrights.change.org/blog/view/no_justice_for_the_monkey_boiled_alive
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008326494_webmonkey29m.html
http://animallawonline.blogspot.com/2008/10/washington-state-judge-refuses-to-allow.html
'Protect Captive Primates Act' http://animalrights.change.org/actions/view/urge_senate_to_pass_captive_primate_safety_actNo Federal Violations for Boiled Monkey Death - Everett Judge Refuses to Allow... more
-
-
What else will they pass on? And what then will we pass on to our own offspring in time as a result of our eating genetically altered food? Scientists claim they did this in order to test these animals to find cures for human diseases. I personally think it is cruel to use these animals for such a purpose and deprive them of a natural life. Wouldn't it be ironic however, to be using these genetically altered monkeys to look for cures to human diseases that are actually exacerbated by eating genetically altered organisms? The cures for diseases are not in green glowing monkeys... they are found in our natural world which provides all we need to survive. Why doesn't science concentrate on that instead of altering it with unknown consequences that may breed more problems than solutions? I am all for scientific research, but not when it intrudes on the natural order of our planet.
So, is this innovative scientific research, or animal cruelty?What else will they pass on? And what then will we pass on to our own offspring in... more
-
-
Stop Shelter Animals From Being Sold for Research!
Target: Michigan House
Sponsored by: American Humane Association
Michigan House Bill 4663 will eliminate pound seizure in Michigan animal shelters.
Pound seizure is the practice of allowing shelter cats and dogs to be used in experimental research. HB 4663, called "Koda's Law," is named after a shelter dog that, instead of being placed for adoption, was sold to a USDA Class B Dealer (animal broker) and resold to the University of Michigan, where he was used in the university's Advanced Trauma Life Support Class, and then euthanized. Koda's former family believed that taking him to a shelter would allow him another opportunity to find a home and did not know he would be used in a research experiment. Sadly, this happens to far too many shelter cats and dogs in Michigan.
Companion animals depend on humans for their safety and well-being. Tragically, this dependency is betrayed when shelters allow these pets to be taken by Class B Dealers for resale to research. When Class B dealers and research facilities can obtain cats and dogs -- like Koda -- from animal shelters, it diminishes the shelters' credibility and purpose, and betrays public trust.
Currently only 4 county animal control shelters practice pound seizure (Gratiot, Mecosta, Montcalm and Osceola). Koda's Law will not prohibit legitimate medical research. Research facilities will still be able to obtain cats and dogs from licensees who breed animals for research. This bill simply stops shelter cats and dogs from being used in research. The bill permits several veterinary training/research activities of shelter cats and dogs, including allowing spay-neuter training, correcting pre-existing medical conditions (such as broken bones or illnesses), and allowing blood banks to obtain life-saving animal blood. The cats and dogs are then placed for adoption.
Please sign to show your support for Michigan House Bill 4663 so we can make Michigan the 19th state to outlaw pound seizure.Stop Shelter Animals From Being Sold for Research!
Target: Michigan House
Sponsored... more
-
-
"I wasn't allowed to see animal experiments, but I did get to look at the two operating theatres on the new primate research floor.
It looks like a hospital - only the operating tables have still to be fitted.
What will go on here will appal those who are opposed to animal experiments.
Under general anaesthetic monkeys will be given brain lesions to mimic the effects of Parkinson's disease.
Oxford scientists say this has already helped lead to new treatments for the condition.
And they point out that all animal experiments - especially those involving monkeys - are strictly controlled.
Animals can be used only if experiments with cells or computer models are deemed inappropriate.""I wasn't allowed to see animal experiments, but I did get to look at the... more
-
-
Gitsie
-
added this
-
3 years ago
- |
-
Philosopher Neil Evernden wrote that vivisectionists cut animal vocal cords so they did not have to hear the tortured animal cry as they conducted experiments.
Vivisectionists silenced the animal and therefore did not acknowledge it’s a tortured being.
Right of passage into the scientific way of being centers on the ability to apply the knife to the vocal cords - not just of the dog on the table - but to life itself. It’s about silencing voice then - and reflects the silencing of voices today.
“We are on the tip of an iceberg and the iceberg runs deep and the ship is running right into it. Industrial civilization is not sustainable. We all know that. It cannot be sustainable.”
“We could have solved these problems 50 years ago, but we are not going to solve these problems in the next 20 years. We can start, maybe. But I think we are in for a very, very difficult time. ”
“Dorothy is not in Kansas anymore. And Dorothy is not coming back to Kansas. This is not going to be easy. And like that Great Oz asked Dorothy and her friends - so are the politicians of our day - they ask us. Pay no attention the Great Oz says ‘to the man behind the curtain.’ Because the great deception is alive and well.”
Hubbard compares yellow brick road to gold & Emerald City to the green of money.
Oz is “this old white guy doing his thing, pulling hi levers, lying to the people to maintain is power. This is what we have been doing as a culture for how many years – ignoring the man behind the curtain. And now the chickens are going to come home to roost.”
A failed businessman/store owner, L. Frank Baum edited the Aberdeen Saturday Pioneer newspaper before writing the Wizard of Oz..
After 1890 Wounded Knee massacre, Baum targets Native Americans in editorial for Aberdeen Saturday Pioneer on death of Sioux Chief Sitting Bull.
Hubbard: That was act one. The great Wizard silencing nature.
Baum editorial
Sitting Bull, most renowned Sioux of modern history, is dead. He was not a Chief, but without Kingly lineage he arose from a lowly position to the greatest Medicine Man of his time, by virtue of his shrewdness and daring. He was an Indian with a white man's spirit of hatred and revenge for those who had wronged him and his. In his day he saw his son and his tribe gradually driven from their possessions forced to give up their old hunting grounds and espouse the hard working and uncongenial avocations of the whites. And these, his conquerors, were marked in their dealings with his people by selfishness, falsehood and treachery. What wonder that his wild nature, untamed by years of subjection, should still revolt? What wonder that a fiery rage still burned within his breast and that he should seek every opportunity of obtaining vengeance upon his natural enemies. The proud spirit of the original owners of these vast prairies inherited through centuries of fierce and bloody wars for their possession, lingered last in the bosom of Sitting Bull. With his fall the nobility of the Redskin is extinguished, and what few are left are a pack of whining curs who lick the hand that smites them. The Whites, by law of conquest, by justice of civilization, are masters of the American continent, and the best safety of the frontier settlements will be secured by the total annihilation of the few remaining Indians. Why not annihilation? Their glory has fled, their spirit broken, their manhood effaced; better that they die than live the miserable wretches that they are.
Author Neil Evernden
http://www.derrickjensen.org/essay.html
http://haydon4.tripod.com/id20.htm
http://www.derrickjensen.org/books01.html
Vivisection
http://www.infonature.org/english/world_news/eng-nature_news_animal_torture.htm
http://www.tonglen.oceandrop.org/Letter_Ban_Vivisection.htm
Baum on Sitting Bull
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Frank_Baum
http://www.put.com/oz/ozdi/199712.TXT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wonderful_Wizard_of_Oz
Baum fans apology
http://www.dickshovel.com/roeschbaum.htmlPhilosopher Neil Evernden wrote that vivisectionists cut animal vocal cords so they... more
-
