portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article

animal rights

Find the partner in animal torture in your area!

They're finally here! HLS campaign targets in every corner of the country have been posted to SHACAmerica.net as part of the new customer campaign.

What's that you say?? "Surely not in Wyoming." YES - in Wyoming!
Find the partner in animal torture in your area!
Find the partner in animal torture in your area!
"Surely not in South Carolina." YES - in South Carolina!

"But really...come on..there's no way there are targets in Hawaii." YES! In Hawaii too!

Newly leaked customers lists from inside HLS have opened up areas of the U.S. like never before. In nearly every corner of the nation, you too can be storming offices, protesting homes, and closing HLS!

Check it out at the customer banner at the top left corner of  http://www.shacamerica.net and get going!!

These companies are not only fully aware of the animal abuse inside HLS - they are commissioning it. HLS and its senior scientists have not escaped the SHAC campaign for their part in carrying out 500 deaths daily, and neither should the clients who keep the cash rolling while the blood spills out.

This is not a task of singling out and pressuring one company until it falls with the rest. HLS customers represent an entire block of business that continuously shows no mercy to the animals, and the entire sector will feel the force of this campaign.

Let no HLS customer feel comfortable, sitting back, happy that its number has not yet been chosen, watching its peers suffer protest. Any HLS customer can expect a visit at anytime. One day activists might show up at a Wacker office in Michigan. The next day they could hit a Chiron office in California. The night after that, who knows who might show up to the home of a Zonagen employee. The message is simple- pay for torture at HLS and activists will find and deal with you.

If none of the HLS customers in your area have contracted with HLS is the past 3 years, take on those who contracted pre-2000. Contracts for experiments are often given in frequently and span years at a time (these people aren't making a new product every day!). A client from 1997 means no less to this campaign than one from 2002, until they pledge NEVER to use HLS again!

There is currently a storm brewing in this campaign. For several months, dedicated people have been relentlessly researching HLS clientele. Activists know who they are and where they are. Soon they will know where we are as well- because we'll be at their homes, offices, and anywhere else they show their ugly faces.

Check SHACAmerica.net for a partial list of customers. Check back often as new information becomes available all the time. Find an abuser near you and remember what they pay for. Make them pay for it twice, and send a reminder to anyone else who would think of contracting work at HLS.

homepage: homepage: http://www.SHACAmerica.net


remember kids 15.Apr.2003 18:14

foad

It's animals like this dog, rats and mice that give you the great health you have today :)

Trolls like dogs, especially deep fried :o

Why do the fascists get all the smart ones?! 16.Apr.2003 07:35

Gertha

I don't know about animal testing as a whole, but I do know that in the long history of primate testing at OHSU, there has not been one cure or significant medical achievment.

Speaking of testing, go back to your petri dish foad.

And since you brought it up, you dribbling moron, NO medical testing has improved the standard of my, or many other's, health care; we can't afford it. That's largely thanks to your sadistic culture of ignorance worship, you putrescent-bowl-of-rancid-tripe-for-brains.

Prove it! 16.Apr.2003 09:44

foad

Gertha you are an idiot. You cannot do medical research without using animals. If you have taken a prescription drug, it was tested on animals. Medical procedures, drugs, after effects, organ toxicity...the list goes on.

Do me and all the other Trolls a favor and if you don't know what you're talking about, shut your trap and keep your claws off the keyboard!

As far as I can tell, my medical insurance costs skyrocketed under the last presidents' watch. What was its name...Klinton??? The drug and medical industry is in the same boat as the rest of us.

I'll tell you what, the more you animal rights terrorists make it difficult to develop new drugs (because of Your brown shirt tactics) the more expensive it gets.

You get what you pay for.

Crawl back home and shut your trap.

A bit incomplete 16.Apr.2003 10:26

montgomery

I didn't notice the Sumitomo office here in Portland listed in the SHAC-US booklet. They're one of the main Japanese targets that SHAC-UK is going after:
Sumitomo Corporation Portland Office
1300 SW Fifth Avenue,
Suite 2800
Portland, OR 97201 U.S.A.
Phone (503) 226-3271
Fax (503) 220-0233
Oh, and Gertha, arguing with a pro-vivisectionist that just repeats the standard, groundless claims of the vivisection industry is usually pointless. Best to just ignore them and spend the energy on abolishing their sick practices, since they obviously don't have critical thinking skills.

From today's NYT 16.Apr.2003 10:41

Chimpan-Z

UNITED NATIONS, April 15 Monkeys experimentally infected with a new coronavirus have developed an illness similar to the mysterious human respiratory disease SARS, and it is now almost certain that the coronavirus causes the disease, a World Health Organization official said here today.

Dr. David L. Heymann, executive director in charge of communicable diseases for W.H.O., said the agency "is 99 percent sure" that SARS is caused by the new coronavirus based on the monkey experiments in the Netherlands. Experiments on animals are necessary because the lack of an effective treatment for SARS and the relatively high death rate make it unethical to conduct such experiments on humans.

Preliminary findings show that the monkeys developed an illness resembling SARS after the coronavirus was put in their nostrils. Some monkeys developed pneumonia, and examination of their lungs under a microscope showed that the coronavirus caused a pattern of lung damage similar to what affected humans have suffered.

Scientists from the W.H.O.'s network of 12 international laboratories who have been seeking the cause of SARS will meet Wednesday in Geneva and by teleconference to review the evidence concerning the new coronavirus.

The monkey experiments are essential in fulfilling the steps known as Koch's postulates that are needed to establish proof that a virus or other microbe causes a disease. Applying the postulates to SARS, scientists must determine whether injecting the coronavirus into animals causes similar symptoms to those that humans experience. A formal announcement that the likely cause of SARS has been found could come as early as Wednesday.

Verifying the cause of SARS is essential for the development of reliable diagnostic tests to determine who has the disease so that affected patients can be treated in isolation and those who are not affected can carry on with their normal activities. A principal aim of the W.H.O meeting on Wednesday is to discuss how close researchers have come to developing such tests and to reach a consensus on their use in controlling the epidemic.

As of today, the disease has affected 3,042 people and caused the deaths of 154 of them in 22 countries and Hong Kong. The fatality rate has risen to 5.1 percent from 4 percent in recent days.

Dr. Heymann, in addressing United Nations delegates and staff today, expressed hope that new tests aimed at the coronavirus would eventually help contain SARS.

There is no determination yet whether SARS has the potential to cause epidemics around the world and become a permanent cause of disease like tuberculosis, Dr. Heymann said. "We can't make any predictions until we understand what is going on in China."

China has come under severe worldwide criticism for not fully reporting until recent weeks the number of SARS cases that have occurred there since November, and for not allowing international teams of experts to visit affected areas until recently.

Despite China's pledge to report SARS cases fully, in recent days Chinese doctors have contended that they have treated many cases in military hospitals that the Chinese government has not reported to W.H.O. A team of experts from W.H.O. had been denied access to military hospitals. W.H.O. reported today, however, that its team of experts had visited one military hospital in Beijing and expected to visit others soon.

The Chinese government's decision to allow the W.H.O. team to visit military hospitals "is a welcome indication of China's willingness to come to terms with the SARS outbreak on the mainland," the organization stated. On Monday, China's president, Hu Jintao, said on state television that he was "very worried" about SARS.

Dr. Heymann said that China had developed a national SARS reporting system over the last three weeks and had elevated SARS to the status of two diseases, cholera and yellow fever, for which the government can impose quarantines.

Nine patients in Hong Kong died of SARS on Tuesday, setting a new single-day record for such fatalities. Five of those who died were younger than 45 and included a pregnant woman and four patients with no underlying illnesses.

On Tuesday, Shanghai imposed the first travel restrictions within China by ordering a halt to all group tours to Hong Kong.

As of today, doctors in the United States have reported 193 cases and no deaths. All but 19 of the cases have involved travelers to affected areas. The 19 cases represent secondary transmission to 14 family members and 5 health care workers.

Later this week, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta is expected to lower the total of SARS cases in the United States to about 30. The C.D.C. has deliberately used a broader case definition than W.H.O. because federal officials wanted to cast a wide net to make sure they did not miss a mild case.

Over the weekend, W.H.O. added the United States to its list of SARS-affected areas. The agency took the step after the C.D.C. was criticized for not reporting secondary transmission of cases to W.H.O., as other countries have done.

The list includes Toronto; Singapore; China (Beijing, Guangdong, Hong Kong and Shanxi); Taiwan; Hanoi, Vietnam; and London. W.H.O. said that the United States and Britain had limited local transmission and there was no no evidence of international spread from those areas since March 15 and no transmission other than close person-to-person contact reported.

Then how do we make advances? 16.Apr.2003 10:54

Observer

So, how do you do research without animals? Computational models are VERY insufficient. We can't create a model of two cells interacting, let alone an entire system of cells. People are making advances, but it will take decades before we can replicate simple lab rat experiments on the computer.

Herbal medicine is the rallying cry of almost everyone who is against modern medicine. Know what? Herbal medicine isn't reliable or totally safe. If herbal medicine were a cure-all, there would be no SARS, because China is one of the largest proponents of herbal medicine in the world. Besides, how will you know if an herb works or not? Just try it on random people in the street?

And what would happen if you released all the rats from just one institution into the wild. I can say that even in a small facility, you'll have...a few thousand rats, mice, flies and worms, many of which are infected with diseases. Do you have any idea of what the environmental impact of even 1,000 rats ccould be, let alone the health and safety risks? Would you like a list of all the environments that have been destroyed by the addition of non-native species? Also, many of these animals are in no state to be released. Can you care for a few hundred rats with head and stomach canulas? How would you care for all the FIV and SIV infected animals? You're not thinking ahead: freeing the animals will create 2x as many problems as leaving them in the labs.

Finally, most lab animals aren't cute puppies. They're rats and mice...ever heard of the bubonic plague? :)

Progress! 16.Apr.2003 11:07

Protester

True progress has been made, my brothers. the magazine biteback says that in 2002 we liberated 1 catfish! in teh whole summer of 2002 we put graffiti in 1 bathroom in a facist run starbucks/..

but next year, we'll start liberating goldfish from pet stores and putting them in toilets of our oppressors! maybe one day we'll actually kill someone. hooray.

SARS is media hype 16.Apr.2003 11:35

bejing

Good ol garden variety influenza, the flu, will kill more people in the US and the world in one year than SARS ever will and no amount of monkey testing has ever found a cure or ever will.

uh oh... 16.Apr.2003 11:54

Gertha

Sounds like I upset the baby. Maybe its nap time. Huh foad, is it nap time? Oh that's a boy, just go back to sleep...

First off, I suppose you are, from the bog of your stupidity, asking me to prove a negative. While I don't know if I'm quite up to that, I can make an argument that animal testing is hardly some invaluable pillar of medical accomplishment. Though this is not my area of expertise, it takes only a cursory read of what's out there to cause atleast a little eyebrow raising.

Secondly (before I get started), why do you and your bilious brethren believe that we all have some kind of respect for former pres. Clinton? Is it just because it was such an integral part of your 1990's talk-radio brainwashing that you can't leave it out of any debate? The man was an arrogant, underhanded, manipulative slime that wouldn't have put on his own socks if the polls didn't tell him to. That of course does not make me your friend, you vapid yes-man, it's just the truth.

Now, I believe your wording was: "You cannot do medical research without using animals. If you have taken a prescription drug, it was tested on animals. Medical procedures, drugs, after effects, organ toxicity...the list goes on." Well, let's start with prescription drugs, and though you didn't mentionit, I'll throw in vaccines.

Penicillin. Animal testing was used in penicillin's devopement, but the fact is that animal tests sidetracked development of this important drug. In 1929, Alexander Fleming observed penicillin killing bacteria in a Petri dish. Intrigued, he administered the compound to bacteria-infected rabbits, hoping that it would do the same thing. Unfortunately, penicillin was ineffective against the rabbit's infections. (We now know that because rabbits rapidly excrete penicillin in their urine, the drug is not able to work prior to being eliminated.) Disappointed, Fleming set the drug aside for a decade, as the rabbits had "proved" the drug was useless as a systemic medication. Years later, he thought of the drug when he had a patient near death, for whom all other treatments had proved ineffectual. In desperation, he reached for the penicillin and performed a miracle. The rest is history. Fleming attributed his discovery to serendipity.

Fleming might have thrown penicillin away had he done his initial tests on guinea pigs or hamsters, since it kills those species. Fleming later told his students: "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."

And how 'bout the Polio vaccine? Animal experimentation actually delayed this much-needed vaccine throughout the first half of the twentieth century.

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

Oh, this might be of interest to you foad, as your moronic culture insists on eating poison that often leads them to adult-onset diabetes. Pro-animal experiment contingencies always site the development of insulin as support for continued animal testing. They assert, with justification, that without insulin harvested from slaughterhouses many diabetics would have lost their lives. Whereas it is true that animals have figured largely in the history of diabetic research and therapy, their use has not been necessary and furthermore has not always advanced science.

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

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

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

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

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



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


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

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

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

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

Well foad, atleast you can rest your argument on testing (assuming that 's what you meant by "drugs, after effects"). Wrong caca head! Drugs would be just as safe and probably safer than they now are if the animal testing phase was eliminated. Presently, legal drugs kill more people per year than all illegal drugs combined.

It is first important to recognize that drugs do not spring from lab animal to bottle. There are four methods of designing drugs. Scientists begin by one of the following methods:

Discovering new substances from nature

Uncovering a different curative value in an existing medication

Modifying the chemical structure of a similar medication

Designing a new medication from scratch based on anticipated chemical reactions

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

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

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

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



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


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

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

Your words were "You cannot do medical research without using animals." This view assumes that animal experiments have been responsible for medical advances in the past. If this were true, the concern would be valid. But it is not. Benchmarks in medical history have relied on the following nonanimal-based methodologies, as will future developments:

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

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

Bacteria, viruses, and fungi reveal basic cell properties.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Many safe and useful drugs have been shown to cause birth defects in lab animals: Lovastatin, Chondroitin sulfate, Acetazolamide, Dichlorphenamide, Ethoxzolamide, Methazolamide, Furosemide, Clonidine, Diazoxide, Hydralazine, Reserpine, Guanabenz, Diltiazem, Nifedipine, Codeine, Hydrocodone, Hydromorphone, Meperidine (Demerol), Morphine, Oxymorphone, Phenazocine, Propoxyphene, Colchicine, Allopurinol, Aspirin, Acetaminophen, other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, Enflurane, Ether, Halothane, Isoflurane, Nitrous oxide, Sevoflurane, Procaine, Corticosteroids, Ampicillin, Cephalothin, Chloramphenicol, Erythromycin, many antibiotics, antifungal medications and antiviral medications, Antiparasitics, Anthelmintics, Antimalarials, Anti-hyperglycemics, Insulin, Thyroxine, Triiodothyroacetic acid, Methylthiouracil, Propylthiouracil, Aminophylline...

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

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

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

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

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

Of course, there's AIDS and cancer, our modern plagues. Some say AIDS originated with primates. Billions of dollars have been spent trying to inflict AIDS on animals over the last twenty years, and these efforts have been entirely futile. Though researchers have succeeded in infecting chimpanzees with HIV, none has progressed to AIDS. Given this inability to produce an adequate animal model, it is foolish to assume that animal experimentation will lead us to therapies and cures for this terrible disease. Some in the AIDS community, with lives hanging in the balance, have come to this conclusion and engage in political protests against animal experimentation. Even scientists who have supported the chimpanzee model now vehemently criticize its lack of scientific merit. The chimpanzee model doesn't get a lot of support in the scientific community.

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

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

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

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

"...there is a big leap from monkeys to humans: For starters, HIV-1, the main AIDS virus that infects humans, differs significantly from SIV..." (Science vol270, Nov. 17, 1995 p 1121).

"a molecular clone of the prototype SAIDS virus...has no notable similarity in either genetic organization or sequence to the human AIDS retrovirus." (Science 1987;231:438-446)

"What good does it do you to test something [a vaccine] in a monkey? You find five or six years from now that it works in the monkey, and then you test it in humans and you realize that humans behave totally differently from monkeys, so you've wasted five years." Dr. Mark Feinberg, Atlanta Journal Constitution, September 21, 1997

"SIV in monkeys is not the same as HIV in humans" Steven Bende, Research Coordinator, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. (The Scientist, Vol:13, #16, p. 7, August 16, 1999)

"The ideal animal model of infection will provide data that allows the outcome of therapy in humans to be predicted. For a variety of reasons, this ideal is difficult to attain...Up to this very day, all infectious diseases affecting humans are far from having appropriate animal models and, even in those cases where such infections are possible, the symptoms observed in animals and the course of the disease are often very different from those encountered in humans." Handbook of Animal Models of Infection.

"Differences between HIV and SIV could prove important in vaccine evaluation. First, and perhaps foremost, SIV and HIV are distinct viruses. SIV and HIV envelope proteins, which are the key target of neutralizing antibodies, are considerably divergent. Antibodies directed against the envelope of SIV do not neutralize HIV and vice versa. Cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs) specific for HIV do not recognize SIV-infected cells and vice versa. Thus, to utilize monkey models, an analog of the human HIV vaccine must be prepared. In terms of quality or efficacy, SIV analogs might or might not be comparable to vaccine candidates optimized and manufactured for human trials. Another difference is that SIV isolates use the CCR5 coreceptor for virus uptake into cells. In 4050% of HIV-infected humans, HIV that uses CCR5 predominates early and throughout the asymptomatic phase of a typical HIV infection, but a shift of tropism to CXCR4 is observed as these humans progress to AIDS. This shift has not been reported in SIV-infected macaques." Margaret I. Johnston of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in Molecular Medicine Today 2000, 6:267-270, speaking of the way SIV and HIV are combined to study animal models.

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

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

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

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

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

As Dr. Richard Klausner, the director of the National Cancer Institute itself said, "The history of cancer research has been a history of curing cancer in the mouse...We have cured mice of cancer for decades--and it simply didn't work in humans."

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

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

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

Even the book widely regarded as a sort of Bible for animal experimenters, The Handbook of Laboratory Animal Science, states, "It is impossible to give reliable general rules for the validity of extrapolation from one species to another. This... can often only be verified after the first trials in the target species (humans)... Extrapolation from animal models... will always remain a matter of hindsight...."

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

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

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

Just in case you are planning on using polls, a favorite of Clinton and George W. Buisson, I thought I would add this: Many medical professionals endorse lab animal research, as a matter of principle rather than informed conviction. With busy specialized careers and only thin information to the contrary, few physicians are willing to shoulder the burden of publicly dissenting with their peers. This dissent requires too much research and too much risk. However, if consulted privately, they will admit that they study human data, not animal data to determine how best to treat their patients. The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and The Medical Research Modernization Committee are two physician-based organization that agree with AFMA that experiments on animals do not lead to cures for human disease.

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

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

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

ANIMALS CANNOT DISSENT!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And on the other side of this cabal is the unwitting American consumer, paying through the nose for, at best, nothing and worse, ill health. Trillions of taxpayer and charity dollars continue to be funneled into wasteful experiments that are of no use to the consumer who supports them. Animal experimentation is a kind of "white coat welfare." But the animal testing machine, now large and in perpetual motion, will be difficult to stop. Unless we put foad's inordinately swollen ego in front of it.

Gertha, you're my heroine! 16.Apr.2003 13:27

3 Cheers for Gertha

Thank you very much for your enlightened and enlightening comment, Gertha. It was fascinating and very fruitful! :)

about the China comment 16.Apr.2003 14:56

a little more

Yeah, thanks Gertha for the info-- I'm saving this for future debates!

Just wanted to throw out a bit more about research methods overseas if y'all aren't sick of reading yet--

In China many of the herbs referred to here, actually were tested on animals... but not until after 1959, when Mao, gaining power after his "communist" revolution, demanded that China embrace western medicine and cease using Oriental herbs since they weren't scientifically proven to be safe or effective... by western standards.

Until an herb could be shown scientifically, individually and in certain groupings, to have attributes and side-effects in many cruel experiments on animals, it wasn't allowed to be used under Mao's new rules.

Slowly the many hundreds presently in use were allowed to be used... many never were ... because the method of double blind placebo based studies, that is accepted by western culture, simply doesn't apply to the use or study of Oriental Herbs.

The way Oriental herbs are used is in combinations, and the formulas are made to specifically address the needs and constitution of the patient for short periods of time, until balance is restored. In other words, what works for one pathogen/imbalance likely will have to be modified to have good effects in someone else with a different constitution or set of symptoms.

What I'm getting at here, is that for decades in Europe certain herbal remedies have been "experimented" with, by simply treating patients who are ill, with what has been known to work herbally and building the contitution to be more in balance, nutritionally or herbally... by treating everyone and using the data of how many folks' conditions improved, and how many didn't, with an aim to heal, not to prove anything... till later on, by compiling data from needed treatments being given to those suffering.

Yeah, I know this is rambling, but the comment about oriental herbs not providing a cure for SARS, (any more than western medicine is likely to) got this acupuncurist's back up. I think many folks don't know that overseas there is a much more compassionate way of conducting "experiments" and that yes, it often does involve just trying an herb out on people that for centuries may have been used to treat similar imbalances or pathogenic invasions...

And this method works for me. I'd rather consult an herbalist or midwife with experience with real people using an herb or group of herbs, than ask a scientist or a pharmacist about herbal medicinal remedies any day. Because preventative treatment is not covered in any scientific research; it isn't profitable for those funding the research. Neither is finding a cure.


(Oh, and about the dissing of thousands of years of Oriental theory, relocation and retraining of herbalists and acupuncturists who had been trained through generations, along with the other oppressive and illogical changes Mao instituted...Within a decade the economy of China was crumbling under the cost of using only western medicine. So Oriental medicine was then reintroduced, to ensure the people had adequate health care. Unlike in the U.S.-- Most countries realize the importance of having a healthy population and prioritize socialized health care.)

What is in a petri dish? 16.Apr.2003 19:30

Observer

You have made many excellent points, Gerta. I applaud your thoroughness and careful research. As a mainly cellular and behavioral neuroscientist, I don't work on things much larger than the brain, so my knowledge of vaccines and medical practices are sorely lacking. I will go back and reread your post at greater length.

What I do know about is lab work in my field. Most of the advances in genetics have come from the most beautiful and simple of animals: C. elegans, a 1-2 mm long free living flatworm and the Drosophila, the common fruit fly. By working with and experimenting with their genomes, we have a better understanding of diseases such as Alzheimer's (C. elegans has a protein in the flp gene family that when disrupted produces similar neurofibrilary tangles). C. elegans was one of the first animals to have its genome sequenced and manipulated, an accomplishment that has led to better techniques for working with the human genome. Superchildren aside, a practice I abhor, there are thousands of horrifying disorders (from Cystic fibrosis to Prader-Willi) that could be avoided once we know more about the genome. What better way to treat a disease than to prevent it from existing at all? And no, I don't consider stupidity, homosexuality, race or religion to be a disease.

You spoke about the non-animal systems that we can use to examine disease: bacteria, virii, fungus. I've worked with all three. In order to grow these organisms, you need to feed them. The heading for this topic is "what is in a petri dish." The answer? Agar (derived from seaweed), protein) derived from animal sources), and glucose. Want to culture yeast? You need nitrogenous bases, most of which have their origins in animals. Bacteria? Same thing. Virii grow in bacteria/cells which by extension require these products.

Okay, so what about tissue culture? You can get blood/tissue from a living organism and not kill it, right? Yes. But once you have the tissue, you need to keep it alive. One of the best media to do this in is something called BSA: bovine serum albumin. There is also FSA, which comes from fetal calves. There is a large movement to eliminate these products and replace them with plant-based products, mostly to eliminate contamination from the animals.

Even immunology and virology, just looking at cells and DNA, requires animal help. Sequencing DNA is often done with an enzyme isolated from worms that live in deep sea vents. Examining protein requires albumin or powdered milk. Antibodies used in protein searches are made in rabbits, goats, and mice. And yes, I believe that we'll eventually be able to synthesize these out of plants as well, but I don't see that coming very soon.

In neuroscience, though, we are largely dependant on higher order animals. In many respects, our nervous systems are not dissimilar. Proteins used on flies that help improve their memories (phosphodiesterase inhibitors) do the same thing in humans. The rat hippocampus has provided us with enough data to start making computer models of the same, a rudimentary step to eliminating animal research. Our development of sight and hearing evolves much the same as those in cats and even frogs. And of course, primates and humans have MANY similarities.

Destroying a lab will waste money, yes, but more likely it will also cause the death of many more animals as the researchers redo all the experiments. Threatening physical violence is rarely a way to combat physical violence. As touching as Nelson Mandela's quote on the "Bite Back" homepage is, I'd ask him to look at South Africa's amazing progress towards peace and equality and wonder whether violence or non-violence was more effective. After all, isn't that what the anti-war movement is advocating?

I am wondering where you will start to attack my viewpoint from. I am guessing it will be about the immoralities of genetics and the superiority of herbal medicine. Kindly refrain from calling me a "caca head" as I have not done any attacking of you but merely your viewpoints.

I should add 17.Apr.2003 09:05

Gertha

I had to do a lot of work yesterday and couldn't follow up on my last post. I just wanted to add that the overwhelming majority of the post was simply grabbed from links available on this site. I don't deserve any kind of credit for it (but thanks any way foad, I wish I could return the compliment).

Animal testing..hmmm... 17.Apr.2003 14:28

Hubub

Perhaps the amount of negativity has changed the politics of animal testing considerably in the recent decades. Consider the fact that MaryKay cosmetics was all but boycotted when it was widely publisized that they were using animals to test their products, right down to their perfumes, back in 1988. They swiftly turned to alternate methods to test their creations.
Not to say that this had put a stop to all animal testing, but it does alude to the notion that scientific tests can be performed to determine the accuracy and worthiness of anything from medicine to nail polish, without the use of animals.

Cher Observer 17.Apr.2003 15:45

Gertha

I won't call you by mean names. I reserve that for garbage like foad and his ilk only. I harbor a special disgust for those who's willful arrogance enables them to advocate for atrocity, while hatefully/ignorantly deriding any and all who disagree. So, sometimes I enjoy dishing out a little spiteful drubbing. No apology, however.

As for your comment, which I enjoyed up to the snide comment about immorality and herbs, I think that by-and-large we are talking different issues. There is certainly not a complete seperation, but a lot of what you had to say was based on assumptions about my opinions rather than what I had posted.

Since you both yourself and foad (sorry to include you in such a group) seem to think that you have some kind of handle on my value system, the first thing I have to say is that I am not at all against the killing of animals (including two legged ones) under all circumstances. I am though, against the torture of them in ANY situation, most especially when the animal's life is sutained ONLY to inflict more pain. And while I agree that "threatening physical violence is rarely a way to combat physical violence", the key word in that quote is "rarely".

The above paragraph covers most of your post, as far as I can tell (again, I'm no biologist), but lest I create confusion I should clarify some things.

So, again, towards the end of your post you say that I will attack your argument with a line of thought based on " ...the immoralities of genetics and the superiority of herbal medicine.", a dualism that I think is grossly divorced from reality. Often debates like this one take place in a kind of intellectual vacuum, where no other facet of existence can enter. That is the kind of false logic that allows us to make such a mess of ourselves and our world. The basic idea that I'm getting at is that one cannot judge the value, or cost, of a thing, if that thing is removed from the context of it's existence. Where context IS, is obviosuly where foad and I part company. I suspect, based on your career as a "cellular and behavioral neuroscientist", and my social/political views, that we would have some pretty different ideas as well. Maybe not, though, who knows.