portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reporting portland metro

animal rights | health | social services

March of Dimes Walk report

Saturday morning was the annual March of Dimes walk to raise money and promote awareness of birth defects and birth defect prevention. Here is my brief report.
My girlfriend and some of her friends often do these walks for exercise. My girlfriend's sister works in a bank that helps sponsors the event so we were invited to participate. The walk is 10k (6.5 miles) but they also had a 3k for those wanting a shorter distance.

I was really regretting my agreement to participate when 8am Saturday rolled around and I was walking to the bus stop to get to the Rose Quarter to begin the walk. Arriving at the Rose Quarter I guess the crowd size was 2,000 complete with music and of course, CORPORATE sponsorship crap everywhere.

I do appreciate the good work by all the people involved but don't they know the connection between plastic disposable crap and birth defects (www.ourstolenfuture.org)? Along the route they handed out plastic bubble pens, platic bags, plastic noise makers, plastic bottles of water, disposable cups, plates and forks, ballons and other crap as well.

Do the sponsors not know the connections?

At the end of the route was a group handing out information about MOD animal testing as well as information on top executive compensation (CEO makes over $400,000/year). I also saw a plane fly overhead with a message to stop animal testing.
The March Of Dimes' Crimes Against Animals 02.May.2005 21:45


Experimenters funded by the March of Dimes have:

sewn shut newborn kittens' eyes, then killed them after they had endured a year of blindness.

put newborn kittens in completely dark chambers, then killed them after three to five months.

removed fetal kittens from the uterus, implanted pumps into their backs to inject a drug that destroys nerves, then re-implanted the fetuses in the uterus. After the kittens were born, they were killed and studied.

implanted electric pumps into the backs of pregnant rats to inject nicotine, even though the dangers of cigarette smoking to human babies is already known.

injected pregnant rats with cocaine, though the dangers of cocaine to human babies is already known.

injected newborn opossums with alcohol, decapitated them an hour to 32 weeks later, then removed and studied the gonads (immature sexual organs), though the dangers of alcohol to human babies is well known.

transplanted organs from pigs to baboons, most of whom died within hours.

transplanted organs from guinea pigs to rats.

destroyed the ear drums of unborn lambs, then killed the mother sheep and lambs just before birth to examine the brains.

Despite these experiments, the Centers for Disease Control reports that birth defects are occurring more often. Of 38 birth defects studied over a 10-year period, an astounding 27 have increased in frequency, nine occur at the same rate, and only two have decreased in frequency.

There are many reasons for this, but the most important is that the human physiology is vastly different from the physiologies of other species. It's true that all animals are sentient beings capable of feeling pain, but the similarities essentially end there.

For example, testing chemicals, pharmaceutical drugs, and addictive substances on pregnant animals and then trying to apply the results to humans is a waste of lives and money because humans are so different from other animals. Consider that:

humans have a longer period of fetal development, so may be more
sensitive to birth defect-causing agents than other species.

genetic differences among species of animals affect the way they react to chemicals.

different species develop in utero at different rates and along different schedules, calling into question animal studies on chemicals that affect fetuses at different stages of development.

differences in the placenta may affect the absorption of chemicals among species.

the route of administration of a potential birth defect-causing agent to the animal may not be the most common route of human exposure. For instance, animals may be given nicotine intravenously, whereas human exposure is through inhaling cigarette smoke.

animals are rarely given chemicals on the same time schedule as humans. Animals are usually given a large amount of a substance over a short period, while people are usually exposed to small amounts over a long period.

stress imposed by animal handling, food or water deprivation, and restraint have been shown to affect test results.

animals learn and show intelligence differently from humans, and animal studies usually cannot detect a substance's potential for causing learning or behavioral problems in babies.

Even birth defects researchers admit the difficulty of interpreting animal tests because any substance can harm fetal development if given in the right dose to the right species at the right time. This is called "Karnofsky's Law" and it's often used by experimenters to excuse the inaccuracy of animal studies.