Pharyngula

Posted by: Joe Bloe | March 29, 2011 1:17 PM

Incitement to commit a crime. Is that not illegal over there?

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | March 29, 2011 1:24 PM

We need to impart a new vision: car bombs, 24/7 security cameras, embarrassing home demonstrations, threats, injuries, and fear. And, of course, these students need to realize that any personal risk they are willing to assume will also be visited upon their parents, children, and nearest & dearest loved ones.

Good lord, it sounds like these fuckers are taking their strategy directly from the same lunatics that bomb abortion providers.

Posted by: Archaneus | March 29, 2011 1:25 PM

I love the animal rights activists strategy of violating the rights of one animal(humans) in order to generate greater rights for the other animals. Everything else they think is ridiculous, but you don't even need to go any farther than that. Their initial strategy is already logically flawed.

Posted by: ereador | March 29, 2011 1:27 PM

I'm pursuing a career in science because I want to victimize animals. Oh wait, I don't want to victimize animals, and am not pursuing a career in science anymore, already got there. Oh wait, my subjects are human and I perform no intrusive testing. Oh wait, who the fuck are these assholes?

I might mention contrary to their delusion, the soft-bellied targets, students, do in fact have access to the FBI and legislators. WTF? Are these people a Poe or just incredibly misguided?

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | March 29, 2011 1:27 PM

Hit whoever and wherever they can, they don't care about people, they care about being right. Anyone who punishes people for the actions of relatives is reprehensible as far as I am concerned.

Posted by: A Bad Idea (♀) | March 29, 2011 1:28 PM

This is real?

This is freaking REAL?

Not a Poe? Not a Modest Proposal? These people are freaking serious about CAR BOMBING PROFESSORS AND COLLEGE KIDS???

Aren't there, uhhh, some law organizations who might want to hear about this?

I think animals have a right to not be unreasonably mutilated - but this - wow, these people are sick. I can't find a word strong enough.

Posted by: pilotkono | March 29, 2011 1:32 PM

So, I personally feel that if we are going to do research on animals, why not add the human animal to the mix? The so-called animal rights people are terrorists, but let's use humans for some of this research, and see how quickly we discover that some of the results aren't worth the effort.

Posted by: gadow | March 29, 2011 1:33 PM

How are they any different from the terrorists who bomb abortion clinics and murder doctors to "stop the killings"?

Posted by: Wise Bass | March 29, 2011 1:33 PM

What a bunch of psychotic scumfucks.

What I'd love would be to round up some of them for making these types of threats of open violence, then go after them with charges of domestic terrorism. That'll scare a bunch of them shitless (and maybe get some of the more crazy ones off the street).

Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies! | March 29, 2011 1:36 PM

I'm very tempted to build a EpicMealTime Slaughterhouse.

Posted by: satansnickerelastic | March 29, 2011 1:37 PM

I trust that Camille Marino is already remanded in custody with no prospect of parole awaiting trial.

If however Marino and colleagues are being closely watched by the appropriate authorities with the intention of gathering sufficient evidence to justify permanent incarceration that works for me.

If neither then the USA's usually exemplary commitment to free speech is too liberal.

Posted by: oihorse | March 29, 2011 1:43 PM

@zoobiewa

Not sure if serious.

Posted by: catofmanyfaces | March 29, 2011 1:45 PM

Wow Zoobiewa I hope you're kidding.

When car bombs and going after peoples families is the tactic, those people just gave up the right to be talked to.

Period.

Posted by: raven | March 29, 2011 1:45 PM

Bunch of dumb idiots.

The Earth Liberation Front was active out here not so long ago. They target property not people and mostly set a few fires here and there.

They also landed high on the FBI's terrorism list.

Most of them are in jail now, doing multi-year prison sentences.

Property vandalism was a completely counterproductive tactic that gained them nothing but minor notoriety and prison terms. Those who can't learn from history are going to repeat it.

Posted by: feralboy12, der Ken-Puppe Sie außerhalb in 1983 verlassen | March 29, 2011 1:46 PM

I don't know about students these days, but when I was in college I was so full of coffee I was ready to jump down the throat of anybody who looked at me wrong.
Threats would not have resulted in docile behavior.

Posted by: thedoogster | March 29, 2011 1:48 PM

They spell the student's name as both "Alena" and "Elena".

Posted by: realinterrobang | March 29, 2011 1:50 PM

Freedom of speech is still important to hold here. And speech should be met with speech.

Yes, but actionable speech, which this seems to me to be, should be met with jail time. The compromise position between batshit insane and sane isn't "the best possible solution," it's still insane.

I'm personally alive today because of animal research, and I don't negotiate or engage in dialogue with people who want to negate my existence.

Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente | March 29, 2011 1:51 PM

Sometimes inciting violence is a valid way to simply open up the conversation.

They want reasons, justifications, and thought put into this.

I don't want animals being hurt, be they human or non, but we live in a complex world where there is no clear ethical path.

Calling these people terrorists does little to disseminate information or explain.

Come on, P.Z., these are people who really care. They are confused and they are angry. Is the best way to react really with anger? You are wiser than that. Let's educate and negotiate, not retaliate.

Posted by: babble777 | March 29, 2011 1:53 PM

...and, of course, we see the typical conflation of ONE blog, and ONE post with the ENTIRE animal rights movement.

It's not remotely possible that one student had an actual change of heart regarding the false efficacy and necessity claims made by the pro-vivisection industry?

The FDA itself readily admits that better testing methods are necessary. The SAME FDA readily allows that the overwhelming majority of drugs tested on animals WILL fail in human trials. You lot would have better luck tossing a coin.

But no, we need to conflate the entirety of the animal rights movement with ONE blog - because you already know you don't have a leg to stand on if the facts are actually addressed.

Posted by: gracemccarter | March 29, 2011 1:59 PM

Perhaps instead of calling us morons you could look at what we stand for from a different perspective?

What would you do if someone took your pet dog or cat and abused it, mutilated it, ripped its skin off it's body for the sake of fashion?

We simply view all animals the same way most speciests view their pets. As family and friends.

Some of us are tired of holding signs, and the fact that PETA makes a mockery of us all. So, some of us do illegal activities to help said animals. If your dog was being held in pound about to be gassed to death, don't you dare lie and say you wouldn't do anything you could to get your dog out!

So instead of wasting your time complaining about us crazy animal rights people, perhaps you should envision the situation with your dog in the situation we're fighting.

Posted by: oihorse | March 29, 2011 2:01 PM

@babble777

And the blog posts from within the animal rights movement denouncing this ONE blog post will be forthcoming?

Posted by: babble777 | March 29, 2011 2:02 PM

(And before any of you call that out as an empty boast, I'm HIV+ and in a clinical trial as we speak. No idea if I'm getting drugs or placebo, of course, but I'd be perfectly willing to test otherwise untested drugs WHEN you folks guarantee me that you're not using nonhumans beforehand.)

Posted by: Eamon Knight | March 29, 2011 2:03 PM

I call Poe on #42. (Yes, I'm an optimist)

Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies! | March 29, 2011 2:05 PM

@babble777
#37

The SAME FDA readily allows that the overwhelming majority of drugs tested on animals WILL fail in human trials. You lot would have better luck tossing a coin.

Posted by: oihorse | March 29, 2011 2:07 PM

@Foreverinurface

Wait, wait, wait you just tipped your hand. Posting in all caps is clearly trademarked and registered by religious nutjobs.

C-, you can do better.

Posted by: oihorse | March 29, 2011 2:09 PM

@Foreverinurface

Wait, wait, wait you just tipped your hand. Posting in all caps is clearly trademarked and registered by religious nutjobs.

C-, you can do better.

Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy | March 29, 2011 2:10 PM

Probably about the time you folks stop conflating NIO with the entire Animal Rights movement.

So in order that we don't conflate NIO with the animal rights movement, the animal rights organizations are going to...wait until we don't conflate NIO with the animal rights movement. Sounds like good communication.

Posted by: magicJay | March 29, 2011 2:10 PM

"And the blog posts from within the animal rights movement denouncing this ONE blog post will be forthcoming?"

Probably about the time you folks stop conflating NIO with the entire Animal Rights movement.

So...their strategy to differentiate themselves from the loons is to not disagree with them but stay silent? Yeah, that should work.

Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente | March 29, 2011 2:12 PM

If your dog was being held in pound about to be gassed to death, don't you dare lie and say you wouldn't do anything you could to get your dog out!

Posted by: babble777 | March 29, 2011 2:14 PM

"Sounds like good communication."

Rey: waiting around for you folks to "communicate" these issues fairly is generally a waste of time. That's the point.

Oh, Audrey, love, see also:

"Predicting and subsequently demonstrating medical utility (also called benefit or effectiveness) are some of the most difficult and important challenges in product development. Currently available animal models, used for evaluating potential therapies prior to human clinical trials, have limited predictive value in many disease states. Better predictive nonclinical screening methods are urgently needed. In many cases, developers must gamble on the results of the large-scale, expensive trials necessary to assess effectiveness in people.”

http://www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/CriticalPathInitiative/CriticalPathOpportunitiesReports/ucm077262.htm

Posted by: QuestionAuthority | March 29, 2011 2:14 PM

#39, et al, I want to draw a line here, if I may.

The vast majority of people working and volunteering in animal WELFARE work, such as shelters, rescues, wildlife rehab, etc. have little in common with the animal RIGHTS folks. We are too busy trying to save pets from shelters, abuse or neglect, get them cleaned up, vet them and find them good homes (or release them back into the wild). We don't threaten people, burn down labs or participate in violence. People who do things like that are rightly called "terrorists" and we want no part of them.

Animal RIGHTS folks, including and especially PETA and the HSUS, are on their own if they want to go down that road.

Posted by: babble777 | March 29, 2011 2:16 PM

"You do know that most animal trials are testing for drug toxicity, NOT effectiveness?"

See the FDA-sourced link on the Critical Path report. Once again, the FDA is making its own claims about effectveness testing, NOT just "AR lunatics."

As for toxicity itself, you can't possibly test on cell cultures in more cases? Of course you can. You just don't.

Posted by: startlingmoniker | March 29, 2011 2:18 PM

I'd rather see an empty McDonald's burn, personally. These folks are taking shit way too far. I'm not in favor of animal research-- I'd definitely support any concrete efforts to minimize (or conclude) its use-- but I'm also aware that in many instances, there really isn't an alternative.

Posted by: charlystone | March 29, 2011 2:19 PM

I just watched their youtube video and it actually had more up-votings than down. These people are repugnant, vile, deplorable, sick and insane.

Posted by: babble777 | March 29, 2011 2:19 PM

"So...their strategy to differentiate themselves from the loons is to not disagree with them but stay silent? Yeah, that should work."

I've been commenting for the last half-hour. At what point have I advocated AR folks sit silent?

I'm asking supposedly reasonable, supposedly logical, science minded folks not to engage in flinging silly fallacies correlating ONE blog with the entirety of the AR movement.

What, exactly, causes you such indigestion at having your fallacies pointed out?

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | March 29, 2011 2:21 PM

You lot would have better luck tossing a coin.

I think terrorism against people who don't understand statistical probability is just fine, FYI.

Posted by: buggirl4ever | March 29, 2011 2:23 PM

oihorse, don't joke, a very popular topic in the ALF forums was how to train your pets to be vegan.

Even discussions on how to give snakes a vegan diet by making little vegan sausages and force feeding them.

That was one of the last crazy straws for me (I mostly just lurked anyway, like I said out of curiosity, but I couldn't stomach it after a while).

Posted by: The Other Ian | March 29, 2011 2:25 PM

"The Soft-Bellied Target"

Some of the biology students I know are quite trim, but only some. A few sit-ups might be the solution here.

Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies! | March 29, 2011 2:26 PM

@babble777
#63
Effectiveness testing and toxicity testing are two different things.

As for toxicity itself, you can't possibly test on cell cultures in more cases? Of course you can. You just don't.

Posted by: babble777 | March 29, 2011 2:26 PM

"(setting loose lab animals or fur farm animals is NOT helping them!)."

Which is why the vast majority of liberations turn animals over to shelters and other havens, rather than simply turn them loose to roam the lab itself. You didn't spend as much time on the ALF forums as you may think, if you actually think this is widespread practice.

"A group to organize themselves based on reality and working together and distance themselves from the extremists and terrorists."

But we ALL get labelled extremists and terrorists, by you lot, no matter WHAT we advocate. I've long argued - ON NIO, go ask them - for nonviolence and against property destruction as a long term strategy.

But I'm sure most of you are dismissing anything I'm posting because - horrors! - I've heard of NIO and don't froth at the mouth at everything that gets posted there.

Posted by: babble777 | March 29, 2011 2:29 PM

"we can guess, but if we guess wrong, a human dies)."

The point is, given the general utility of animal testing as it stands, you're ALREADY guessing. How many phase three trials - deemed safe by animals for EITHER toxicity or effectiveness, in EITHER case - failed for you last year *because they were too toxic or simply failed to do what your animal tests predicted?*

Posted by: Foreverinurface | March 29, 2011 2:30 PM

http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animal-testing-101.aspx

Posted by: Gus Snarp | March 29, 2011 2:30 PM

Wow, first egregious use of Caps Lock, now copy and paste spamming. This thread has now fully used up even its potential to amuse and no further good can come of it.

Posted by: Thebear, just an agent of peas | March 29, 2011 2:33 PM

It's very fascinating how the ARA-spambots are virtually indistinguishable from fundie spambots or loony spambots. I get almost a mabusy wibe from the face-ting...

Posted by: oihorse | March 29, 2011 2:34 PM

@babble777

You are utterly and totally full of shit here. It is very possible to have this conversation without being labeled.

There was a fantastically cogent conversation on Podcast #290 - January 31, 2011 of the Skeptics Guide to the Universe on this very topic.

Tossing out

But we ALL get labelled extremists and terrorists, by you lot, no matter WHAT we advocate.

Posted by: Foreverinurface | March 29, 2011 2:35 PM

i thought free speech included caps or whatever one wants to use to highlight gus !!!! it is so typical, the minute the truth is spoken some facist bushist usa citizen cries spam, and cries caps, oh bwoy, free speech my ass huh?

http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/default.aspx,

do u know cigaretess are tested on beagle dogs and monkeys, forever captured by philip morriss???

Posted by: kinzuakid | March 29, 2011 2:35 PM

@79 "But we ALL get labelled extremists and terrorists, by you lot, no matter WHAT we advocate. I've long argued - ON NIO, go ask them - for nonviolence and against property destruction as a long term strategy. "

So...it's a perfectly good short term tactic to burn down the houses of people you disagree with, just not a good long term strategy? Makes sense.

79 posts in and the closest you come to a sane position is is "somewhere else in a different argument with other like minded people I advocated not murdering dissenters, but you'll have to talk to them about it". You and those like you are less than the animals you purport to speak for and deserve no respect.

BTW: I am loving the new flavor of crazy on Pharyngula lately. It's somewhat refreshing but it is getting old rather fast.

Posted by: Summoner | March 29, 2011 2:36 PM

wow what should i comment on?
first of all, the people who talked about using students as targets and using car bombs as a way to prove their point certainly aren't part of the AR movement themselves. The AR movement is about love and compassion not terror and violence.
Secondly, the Ar supporters replying here should first denounce these extremist views that only bring bad criticism and hate to our movement and then try to make their point.
I should at this point, point out that i am an animal activist myself but i would never let myself use violence to make my point. Something like that would only go against everything i believe in.
Anyway, i hope i made my point.

Have a great night ;)

Posted by: DeusExNihilum | March 29, 2011 2:37 PM

Guys, guys, can't we just focus on the things we have in common? Like insects! Whether you're an animal rights activist or a gleeful vivisectionist, we can all agree on at least one thing - "Fuck insects".

ammirite? or ammirite?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 29, 2011 2:39 PM

I'd be perfectly willing to test otherwise untested drugs WHEN you folks guarantee me that you're not using nonhumans beforehand.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | March 29, 2011 2:40 PM

Today's going to be a fun day. Apparently animal rights whackjobs are more tech literate than fundies.

Posted by: babble777 | March 29, 2011 2:41 PM

"So...it's a perfectly good short term tactic to burn down the houses of people you disagree with, just not a good long term strategy? Makes sense."

Straw man. Go find where I've advocated that.

"79 posts in and the closest you come to a sane position is is "somewhere else in a different argument with other like minded people I advocated not murdering dissenters, but you'll have to talk to them about it"

Again, a straw man argument. I told you folks to go ask NIO if I'm well known *among them* as a pacifist advocate, knowing you'd likely call BS. Well, you're not even attempting to do that.

You're sure the readership of this blog - a scienceblogs hosted blog - understands what a logical fallacy is?

Posted by: crazyjoemalloy.myvidoop.com | March 29, 2011 2:41 PM

Sweet merciful FSM,

zoobiewa, not sure what your experience with violence has been like, but if history is any indicator (more often than not) violence tends to shut down conversation instead of encouraging it.

Actually, this has me curious - what exactly is the optimum level of violence that helps to "open up the conversation"? Where does CAR BOMBING rank on that little scale of yours?

With regard to your closing line, education and negotiation might be something to look into - if the overriding sentiment of the whole site weren't "Negotiation Is Over". Kinda precludes the notion that they're open to talking. Screaming, beating, bombing and threatening sure - talking? Not so much.

The problem with AR movement is that it's not grounded in reality, there is no negotiating with them - there's only concession, upon which they will demand more concessions until there is a complete and utter separation of humans and the animal kingdom (the irony of such a position just feeds on itself).

There is this terrible, "the ends justify the means" mentality that permeates the AR community - and the further along we go the more shrill and militant they become. The parallels you can draw between AR extremism and terrorism are many, and they're unsettling. This is just another permutation.

And I just love the cop out at the very end of their seething, malicious and hate filled little rant:

Disclaimer: The information on this site is for educational and entertainment purposes only. There is no intent, express or implied, to promote illegal activities. We assume no liability for the potential actions of any third party. All data compiled here has been gathered from, and is available through, independent public sources.

Now that, is just exquisite bullshit.

This is gonna give me a(nother) twitch - I've got to learn when to avoid certain posts PZ - I've thoroughly enjoyed my time here since stumbling in a few months ago - but stuff like this has got my inner centrifuge of infinite rage wound up to a ridiculous speed. I'm gonna go take a walk...

Posted by: charlystone | March 29, 2011 2:42 PM

babble777#98
I answer with another question - if on a train rack lies an earth worm and human baby, and you have time to save only one of them, which one would you save?

Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD) | March 29, 2011 2:44 PM

i thought free speech included caps or whatever one wants to use to highlight gus !!!!

And it's a good thing you stopped at four exclamation marks. To quote from Pratchett:

'Multiple exclamation marks,' he went on, shaking his head, 'are a sure sign of a diseased mind.'

and

'And all those exclamation marks, you notice? Five? A sure sign of someone who wears his underpants on his head.'

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | March 29, 2011 2:44 PM

.and while it's probably pointless to discuss speciesism with this particular crowd, I'm nevertheless compelled to ask: what's the moral difference between a human life and mouse life?

I've discussed speciesism with this particular crowd, and I often disagree with many of them on this particular issue. The trick is to not be a fucking moron.

This game you wish to play won't work the way you want it to. Because, after that, I'll ask what the difference between a mouse's life and a soy plant's is, and then we'll have to start describing all sorts of boundaries for don't kill this/kill that that don't work with a simple human/non-human dichotomy.

Posted by: oihorse | March 29, 2011 2:45 PM

@babble777

You're sure the readership of this blog - a scienceblogs hosted blog - understands what a logical fallacy is?

You've clearly shown you don't mind liberally including them out in every post you make.

How about getting your own shit in order first?

Posted by: Deluded Creodont | March 29, 2011 2:47 PM

THE TRUTH IS THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A HUMAN HURT BY ANY OF THE ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS ACTIONS!

Guess I should call all those people who were hit by shrapnel after a saw hit a tree spike in the 80s and tell them that they aren't really dead.

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | March 29, 2011 2:47 PM

These people are repugnant, vile, deplorable, sick and insane.

Yeah, that's pretty much my impression of the YouTube crowd, too.

Oh, and also NIO.

Posted by: oihorse | March 29, 2011 2:48 PM

@babble777

Which, of course, dodges the entire point. Try again.

The irony. Like thick, delicious bacon.

Posted by: gorunnova | March 29, 2011 2:48 PM

Yes, experimenting on sentient beings is cruel. That's why we experiment on animals, instead of on people so that people don't die from untested procedures. Surgical and medical procedures have to be tested before use... would you prefer animals be tested on, or for doctors to try out new techniques on actual patients (including, possibly, you).

Comparing animal testing in general to an evil cabal of people dead set on ripping holes in your pet dog and wearing it's skin is asinine and a strawman of the highest order. If scientists experiment on animals, it's because they have to in order to get useful results. They don't do it for fun, they don't experiment on people's pets, and they (typically) don't go around wearing the animal's head as a hat and cackle evilly.

ANY threat of physical violence against people for ANY reason is illegal, for good reason... and the use of explosives against people is terrorism. That site, in advocating the use of explosive devices and murder when it comes to promoting it's agenda, is a terrorist organization inciting violence against living, breathing people with lives, families, and friends. They DO have rights regardless of what the owner of that site thinks, and if that person incites other people to violate those rights or does it him or herself, he or she deserves to be fined or jailed as the crime demands.

If there ever comes a time when we can simulate the human body to a degree that animal testing is unnecessary, that will be wonderful. Unfortunately, that time hasn't come yet, and medicine can't just sit still until technology improves or a lot of living, breathing people who could be saved will die. Animal testing is still necessary, and as long as it is, it will continue.

Cell cultures are not the same as actual organisms, and if you're studying systemic toxicity you need to use a full system, not a culture, to discover this. Full organisms are a LOT more complicated than cell cultures, and the interaction between different tissue types can be hard to predict. Again, when (or if) it becomes possible to simulate a whole organism in all scenarios, then good riddance to animal testing.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | March 29, 2011 2:49 PM

Babble:

The FDA itself readily admits that better testing methods are necessary. The SAME FDA readily allows that the overwhelming majority of drugs tested on animals WILL fail in human trials. You lot would have better luck tossing a coin.

From your link:

A new product development toolkit --containing powerful new scientific and technical methods such as animal or computer-based predictive models, biomarkers for safety and effectiveness, and new clinical evaluation techniques --is urgently needed to improve predictability and efficiency along the critical path from laboratory concept to commercial product. We need superior product development science to address these challenges --to ensure that basic discoveries turn into new and better medical treatments.

Although traditional animal toxicology has a good track record for ensuring the safety of clinical trial volunteers, it is laborious, time-consuming, requires large quantities of product, and may fail to predict the specific safety problem that ultimately halts development.

FDA collaborated with industry and scientific groups to develop the data that allowed international adoption of a transgenic mouse model for drug carcinogenicity testing. This assay takes less time, saves two thirds of the cost, and uses half as many animals as a traditional study.

So... the FDA isn't saying "don't use animals!" It's saying "use animals more efficiently so we can get more drugs on the market." What was your point again?

Posted by: Foreverinurface | March 29, 2011 2:51 PM

i will post Links to a few Videos and Photos so u will see what u are defending, oh and i sleep very good at night! Ayurveda and Phytotherapy existed loooong before vivisectors and i know for a fact (on my own body) tha being cured with nature (plants, raw foods, herbs ec.) can cure even very bad sicknesses, it can even heal broken bones, just bc u brainwash ppl so u can make more $$$$$$ does not mean all people are sleeping, there are doctors opposed vivisection, like the Physicians for Responsible Medicine who by the way also advocate Veganism, what u say now??? do u also label them terrorists???? of course u can say nothing, bc truth will allways shine

Posted by: Blattafrax | March 29, 2011 2:52 PM

Babble777: Forget that we're discussing murderers killing students did you? But on your claim to want to test drugs that have previously never been tested on animals - you are even more stupid than you sound. I know what untested drugs do to the animals they are tested on. They die, frequently. That's why they are tested on animals.

On mouse and human life-value equivalence - no (Babble777)moral difference. Similarly there is no (Babble777)moral difference between your life and that of Plasmodium falciparium. We'll let you die horribly if you ever get malaria then shall we? What use are your morals when some of us want to discuss, explore and devise new ways to make life better for millions of people? Your morals make me sick. Your morals would make everyone sick. Your morals are advocating the killing of students.

Posted by: oihorse | March 29, 2011 2:52 PM

@babble777

And I'll keep on until one of you finally admits you're being hysterical twits. I don't see much reason to treat you with anything close to the respect you seem to think you're due. I'll treat you with the respect you and the others have demonstrated you deserve, so far.

You see, this is what is so amusing. You decry the painting of all animal rights activists as the same in PZ blog post, while not even understanding the giant brush you are painting with in your own hand.

Perhaps, eventually you'll realize what a fucking idiot you are being - and then the conversation can begin.

Posted by: Kagehi | March 29, 2011 2:54 PM

If there ever comes a time when we can simulate the human body to a degree that animal testing is unnecessary, that will be wonderful. Unfortunately, that time hasn't come yet, and medicine can't just sit still until technology improves or a lot of living, breathing people who could be saved will die. Animal testing is still necessary, and as long as it is, it will continue.

Stupider than that really. Without knowing how and why things work, which often requires taking them apart, we never will have a computer that can do it.

Posted by: Loreo | March 29, 2011 2:55 PM

Applause for Kagehi.

Finally, some useful information.

Posted by: Foreverinurface | March 29, 2011 2:57 PM

yeah ....we see who is vilent here, i do not recall using ANY INSULT unlike u!
and i did watch loved ones die thousands of times, killed by the monsters u protect!
i have seen ppl cured by nature and die by big pharma, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUFYzY-ZdZg

Posted by: Amphiox, OM | March 29, 2011 2:58 PM

How many phase three trials - deemed safe by animals for EITHER toxicity or effectiveness, in EITHER case - failed for you last year *because they were too toxic or simply failed to do what your animal tests predicted?*

A completely irrelevant and useless argument unless you present the comparison to trails going straight from lab bench/tissue culture to human tests, and show that they are even safer.

If you want to argue that such tests are not done, then you are merely admitting that that whole line of argument should not be used at all.

Posted by: Foreverinurface | March 29, 2011 3:02 PM

ha, ha, ha..........mercury content, yeah right! how about the aspartam, and all the other poisons from kraft foods, unilever, monsanto and all the other TERRRORISTS U WORK FOR????
who kill and destroy all the nature and clean foods

Posted by: MrFat | March 29, 2011 3:04 PM

foreverinurface: obvious troll is obvious

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | March 29, 2011 3:05 PM

yeah ....we see who is vilent here, i do not recall using ANY INSULT unlike u!
Yes, words are so violent, unlike car bombs, aren't they?

i have seen ppl cured by nature and die by big pharma, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUFYzY-ZdZg

Posted by: James F | March 29, 2011 3:06 PM

Question: do the animal rights folks tend to be religiously motivated, or are these generally secular loonies?

Posted by: babble777 | March 29, 2011 3:06 PM

While I'm loving the ego boost you all are giving me making it all about me, really, don't you care so deeply about the eeevil terrorists you're shrieking about more than me?

Don't you?

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | March 29, 2011 3:08 PM

Should I test it on human or mice?

D'uh. As a Nazi with an evil agenda, the choice is obvious.

*Fun fact: Both Nazi and evil agenda have been used in this post to describe an answer to UberFubarius' question. Can you guess which it was, kids?

Posted by: oihorse | March 29, 2011 3:10 PM

@babble777

While I'm loving the ego boost you all are giving me making it all about me, really, don't you care so deeply about the eeevil terrorists you're shrieking about more than me?

Don't you?

Non sequitur.

Try again.

Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente | March 29, 2011 3:12 PM

While I'm loving the ego boost you all are giving me making it all about me, really, don't you care so deeply about the eeevil terrorists you're shrieking about more than me?

Do you think that threatening human animals with violence is justifiable by claiming it is being done to protect other animals' rights?

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | March 29, 2011 3:13 PM

Actually, babble777, I'd agree with your comment 142, though I wouldn't count on sentience as being that clear a dividing line.

While I'm loving the ego boost you all are giving me making it all about me, really, don't you care so deeply about the eeevil terrorists you're shrieking about more than me?

An-n-n-n-nd, you're back to flailing.

Posted by: cerezo | March 29, 2011 3:14 PM

@babble777

The point is that the "simple human/nonhuman" dichotomy is TOO simple.

Only about as simple as your animal/nonanimal dichotomy.

Posted by: Gus Snarp | March 29, 2011 3:14 PM

OK, let's get back to basics:

We need to impart a new vision: car bombs, 24/7 security cameras, embarrassing home demonstrations, threats, injuries, and fear.

Posted by: sevandyk | March 29, 2011 3:15 PM

I love the days when the crazies come calling. So entertaining, so much low-hanging fruit.

*enjoys the show*

Posted by: babble777 | March 29, 2011 3:16 PM

"Do you think that threatening human animals with violence is justifiable..."

Clearly and obviously no as I've said many many many many times on Janet Stemwedel's blog, which, if memory serves you actually commented on at the time.

Posted by: thedoogster | March 29, 2011 3:18 PM

@#1:

Incitement to commit a crime. Is that not illegal over there?

Negotiationisover's registration information indicates that it's hosted in Sweden.

I don't know if it's illegal there or not.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | March 29, 2011 3:18 PM

h, I have, repeatedly, and over and over again, to many of the same commenters, on Janet Stemwedel's blog here and elsewhere. It gets old repeating the same things you lot NEVER listen to over and over and over again. So I'm largely saying, "NIO is one blog, kids, not the whole of the AR movement, not that you'll bother with facts getting in the way of a good rant."

Who fucking cares what you've written on Janet Stemwedel's blog?

Pharyngula is one blog, kids, not the whole of fucking scienceblogs.

Jesus Christ, but for someone who complains about an ego boost, you're suggesting we should all be aware of what babble777 has written elsewhere?

Do you know how big the internet is?

Hold up two hands, fingers outstretched. It's even bigger than that.

Idiot.

Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente | March 29, 2011 3:19 PM

Clearly and obviously no as I've said many many many many times on Janet Stemwedel's blog, which, if memory serves you actually commented on at the time.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 29, 2011 3:20 PM

And I'll keep on until one of you finally admits you're being hysterical twits.

Posted by: zoobiewa | March 29, 2011 3:23 PM

Malloy zoobiewa, not sure what your experience with violence has been like, but if history is any indicator (more often than not) violence tends to shut down conversation instead of encouraging it.

Actually, this has me curious - what exactly is the optimum level of violence that helps to "open up the conversation"? Where does CAR BOMBING rank on that little scale of yours?

I see animal rights activists as feeling incredibly ignored and unheard. Their violence and calls to violence are shouts for visibility. Yes it is immature. But sometimes it's even easier to completely ignore reasoned, calm voices because the content "stopping animal testing" seems so impossible to begin with. I was part of a reading group on theories of violence over the summer and I think Zizek's perspective is useful here. He tries to understand the Islamic violence in France:

The first thing they burned was the mosques. That’s why the fundamentalists were the first to raise their voices against the revolts. The young people of the banlieue simply wanted to say (to adopt a slogan from Badiou): we are here, and we are from here. It was a question of asserting their sheer existence. It was a pure demand for visibility. This is the best example of the limitations of our much-vaunted democracy. There are enormous numbers of people who find themselves in a situation where their most essential demands cannot be formulated in the language of a political problem. It’s what Roman Jakobson called "phatic" communication—not, "I want this" but simply, "here I am."

You are not going to get very far with animal rights activists by dismissing car bombing as unacceptable in one hand and accepting the torture of animals in the other. They see a hypocrisy in that statement. These hypocrisies allow them to write you off as nonnegotiable and it disrupts attempts at actual communication.

Posted by: babble777 | March 29, 2011 3:23 PM

"Do AR people generally include insects in their list of things to be protected, or not? What about other invertebrates?"

Yes. Or, at least, I do.

"Should we stop all experimentation on fruit flies? Planarians? Nematodes?"

Yes.

"Or is it only the vertebrates that matter?"

In my personal case, if it's got a nervous system, I'd default to it being sentient enough to matter.

"Actually, babble777, I'd agree with your comment 142, though I wouldn't count on sentience as being that clear a dividing line."

Why not? Just to muddy the waters?

Again, the choice is to kill that life which we are *reasonably certain* experiences nothing, or kill that life which we are *without doubt* experiences so much like *we* do that the differences are too minor to make any *moral* difference.

"Only about as simple as your animal/nonanimal dichotomy."

Again, not really, if you're willing to allow that the invented differences between human sentience and animal sentience don't hold up to a reasonable examination of the facts.

"Pharyngula is one blog, kids, not the whole of fucking scienceblogs."

The point, as I'm sure you've already seen, is that many of the same commenters here, professing to paint me as a terrorist for refusing to "denounce" this or that were regular commenters the LAST time I was here, as well, and are, in this case, being - what was the phrase? - disingenuous assholes, I believe.

Posted by: A Bad Idea (♀) | March 29, 2011 3:24 PM

I guess babble777 thinks it's okay if someone's threatening assault and possible murder if only ONE group is threatening assault and possible murder. How dare we call that group out, because there are other, more reasonable groups. I mean, it's not like any crazy people have ever acted on their public threats. Ever. Right guys?

gag

Posted by: zoobiewa | March 29, 2011 3:25 PM

Foreverinfurnace:

Blogs do not need to allow free speech. Your comments were unthoughtful and SPAM. If you want to communicate you need to do that within the comfort zone of the system you are operating within. Otherwise it can cut you out.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | March 29, 2011 3:26 PM

nice free speech u got here, deleted all the comments u did not like

If you include more than two hyperlinks in your comment, it will be held for moderation. That's not censorship; that's anti-spamming.

Pro Tip: comments written in English with some semblance of grammar and punctuation are less likely to look like they originated from a botnet.

Posted by: Blueaussi | March 29, 2011 3:28 PM

@zoobiewa #173

"You are not going to get very far with animal rights activists by dismissing car bombing as unacceptable in one hand and accepting the torture of animals in the other. They see a hypocrisy in that statement. These hypocrisies allow them to write you off as nonnegotiable and it disrupts attempts at actual communication."

You're not going to get very far with researchers by dismissing all animal research as torture on the one hand and accepting car bombing on the other.These hypocrisies allow them to write you off as nonnegotiable and it disrupts attempts at actual communication.

Posted by: Blattafrax | March 29, 2011 3:30 PM

"Should we stop all experimentation on fruit flies? Planarians? Nematodes?"

Babble777
Yes.

Oh dear. There really is no point to engaging with that level of inanity.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 29, 2011 3:31 PM

"You are not going to get very far with animal rights activists by dismissing car bombing as unacceptable in one hand and accepting the torture of animals in the other. They see a hypocrisy in that statement. These hypocrisies allow them to write you off as nonnegotiable and it disrupts attempts at actual communication."

Yeah, that's the same logic that terrorists use to justify bombings.

And in both cases it's fully deplorable and we should fight it not comfort it.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | March 29, 2011 3:33 PM

You are not going to get very far with animal rights activists by dismissing car bombing as unacceptable in one hand and accepting the torture of animals in the other. They see a hypocrisy in that statement. These hypocrisies allow them to write you off as nonnegotiable and it disrupts attempts at actual communication.

That seems perfectly reasonable and fair to me, how stupid of me.

Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD) | March 29, 2011 3:36 PM

I don't understand people that shorten "you" to "u" every single time, but spell out everything else completely. Also, with your rants about free speech while not understanding what it is, along with random caps and multiple exclamations... Foreverinurface, if your goal was to make people think "this person is wearing their boxers on their head and eating cheetohs through the flap", then you have succeeded with absolutely staggering results. So congratulations on making it nearly impossible to take you seriously.

Posted by: DeusExNihilum | March 29, 2011 3:38 PM

@#188

"Any one of you ready to admit that this post is conflating NIO with the whole of the movement?"

..No? because it doesn't? The post is very clearly directed at NIO specifically, "Animal rights loons" and Terrorist tactics. I think you wish it did conflate NIO with the entire animal rights movement, because it would make this pretty black and white picture you're painting all the more plausible.

It's a pity that reality is full of different shades of color, or you'd actually make sense.

Posted by: See Nick Overlook | March 29, 2011 3:39 PM

By the way, DANGER WILL ROBINSON! If you follow the link to their website and are tempted to post a dissenting comment, be advised that one person did and they published her email address, you know the one you fill in where it says it will not be displayed? Well, it was. They did.

Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente | March 29, 2011 3:39 PM

@babble777,

How would you test medicine then, if not on animals? I know, you would volunteer but please don't fool yourself, others wouldn't. Or at least not enough to conduct any significant research. Even less if mental stability is tested beforehand.

Is your answer to simply give untested medicine to people? To conduct open surgeries for the first time on a sick person in the hospital bed, without prior practice on animals?

Wouldn't that count as torturing humans?

Posted by: starstormcat | March 29, 2011 3:40 PM

How nice of these people to... "warn"... students about the violence they would face if they continued their path to "torture animals". I think it is very considerate of them, like how Operation Rescue "warns" us about all the violence that will happen if we continue "killing babies".

charlystone @#186

You are really more funny than creationists. They at least have holy book to back up their claims, whereas you pull your assertions right from where the sun shineth not.

to-MAY-toe, to-MAH-toe.

Posted by: sevandyk | March 29, 2011 3:41 PM

@ babble777

Any one of you ready to admit that this post is conflating NIO with the whole of the movement?

Still waiting.

I'll admit it. I'll even say it's a good thing. When a significant portion of a movement advocates violence, it casts a negative light on the whole movement. It should concern us that these animal rights activists advocate killing students, and it should make us question all those who advocate letting humans die for the sake of rodents.

I personally believe the blog post quoted by PZ is a logical consequence of babble777's strain of animal rights activism. It is not a far leap from "Your life isn't worth the life of these rodents that help scientists develop medication" to "Your life is worth nothing if you kill a rodent to save a human."

Posted by: Islander | March 29, 2011 3:42 PM

Babble, are you still pretending not to be affiliated with NIO?

I ask because someone named 'Babble' was the first commenter on the blog post PZ quoted from NIO. At 12:46, a link to Pharyngula was posted. At 12:53, someone with a virtually identical name shows up and starts flailing.

Why give the impression, @37 and 46, that you don't agree with NIO if you are a reader and commenter there? Unless you're a disingenuous asshole, of course.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | March 29, 2011 3:43 PM

I don't want animals being hurt, be they human or non, but we live in a complex world where there is no clear ethical path. Calling these people terrorists does little to disseminate information or explain. Come on, P.Z., these are people who really care. They are confused and they are angry. Is the best way to react really with anger? You are wiser than that. Let's educate and negotiate, not retaliate.

Are you fucking shitting me? I hope you die in a premature explosion you terrorist fuckwit.

Posted by: zoobiewa | March 29, 2011 3:44 PM

@Retee

So it's entirely on scientists to see things from their perspective, with absolutely no responsibility in the other direction.

That seems perfectly reasonable and fair to me, how stupid of me.

Ultimately, you can only control yourself. That being said, I want to try and understand why people are unhappy, angry, and sad rather than find out ways to dismiss them. Attempting to reach out like this sets a rhetorical tone much more conducive for reciprocity. I would rather direct my communication at understanding and empathy than somehow brute-force proving someone "wrong."

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | March 29, 2011 3:45 PM

for the foaming-at-the-mouth crowd

Yes, it's just awful that we feel passionately about some issues.

And rabies isn't a fucking half-joking insult to throw around at whomever you don't like.

IT'S A SERIOUS KILLER OF ANIMALS.

Posted by: Blattafrax | March 29, 2011 3:46 PM

PZM #202

Man, another subject that brings out the kooks.

Posted by: Gus Snarp | March 29, 2011 3:46 PM

If they're publishing email addresses then everyone who goes over there to comment should use a mailinator.comaddress. Preferably the same one, and post it here so we can all go read the hate mail!

Posted by: babble777 | March 29, 2011 3:49 PM

This is, naturally, what I mean when I say that NO MATTER what we're actually advocating, we're all going to get labelled terrorists by you crowd, so there's little point in repeating over and over again my own pacifist stance that none of you actually listen to, ANYWAY.

I talk to NIO. I talk to them because I think they're wrong on a few things.

I talk to YOU folks for the SAME reason.

The difference is, once in a while, NIO bothers to listen.

Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD) | March 29, 2011 3:51 PM

crose1021,

Paragraphs are your friend.

Everyone else,

Is there a name for the cliche of starting your post with "For seemingly educated people I am appalled at your comments"? I thought for sure this was in Cupcake Bingo, but I can't find it.

Posted by: Sal Bro | March 29, 2011 3:52 PM

babble777, How are you defining "sentient"? As "able to perceive or feel things" (Oxford) or as "characterized by sensation and consciousness" (Dictionary.com)?

Even if you're only going by the ability of animals to perceive or feel things, how is this different from the ability of plants to perceive light, gravity, and nutrients? From a 2006 review paper in Trends in Plant Science: " The behavior plants exhibit is coordinated across the whole organism by some form of integrated signaling, communication and response system. This system includes long-distance electrical signals, vesicle-mediated transport of auxin in specialized vascular tissues, and production of chemicals known to be neuronal in animals." It's arguable that some plants (e.g., venus fly traps) have response systems that are even more complex than those of, say, worms. You've already defended worms here, so does this make venus fly traps sentient, too? More relevant to the issue at hand, are you equating any ability to avoid damage with sensing "pain"?

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | March 29, 2011 3:52 PM

For seemingly educated people I am appalled at your comments.

Having read the rest of your comment, I am unsurprised, though not for the reasons that you think (if I can use that word here.)

Before you freak out on humans for not mastering animal languages, I suggest you attempt to master a human one. Then, consider starting here for a discussion on non-human language.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | March 29, 2011 3:53 PM

I thought for sure this was in Cupcake Bingo, but I can't find it.

Posted by: Blattafrax | March 29, 2011 3:54 PM

Is there a bingo game on here?
Sweepstake on the comment number for the next kook?
Bets on how many times Babble can smell, sound & taste like a nutter and insist that he's really quite sane?

Crose1021: You are out to get students. You are helping them to die of cureable diseases. You're doing that to me and my family as well. I take that personally.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | March 29, 2011 3:54 PM

I would rather direct my communication at understanding and empathy than somehow brute-force proving someone "wrong."

Wrong is wrong is wrong. Understand where people are coming from, but there's little need to empathize with the position of amoral crackpots.

Not once have I seen a comment from anybody that states the results and or waisted and false results obtained as a results of the massive amount of testing done on animals.

Right, that's because people here are typically educated and understand the utility of animal testing.

Have you taken a biology class? A Psych class? They have demonstrably communicable results.

Posted by: zoobiewa | March 29, 2011 3:55 PM

@PZ, #202.

Very nice. I'm glad you said that. I think than animal rights activists regularly dehumanize researchers. These researchers actually feel awful and sadness about doing these tests. They must deal with the weight and the guilt of calling for a study to be done. They are not heartless.

We are all complicit - no matter where you are - in a civilization that, in order to create happinesses must also do great horrors.

Posted by: Gus Snarp | March 29, 2011 3:57 PM

@babble777 - I've ignored you thus far, but now I'm curious. How about you cut the evasiveness and tell us if you are or are not the commenter Babble at number 1 and number 2 on the above linked post at NIO, and if you are, then what good is your supposed reputation for advocating for nonviolence when your only comments on a post calling for car bombing students and directly stating that they should experience fear and injury are comments about how evil medical testing is. If you are so committed to non violence, and if this post is antithetical to you, then your first comment should say something along these lines: "we should not be responding with violence. For goodness sake you're advocating car bombing students, what is wrong with you?"

Unless you're not that Babble. So what is it, is that you completely failing to distance yourself from the violence advocated in the post or to challenge it? And if it is you, how do you reconcile your silence in the face of very real threats of violence?

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | March 29, 2011 3:57 PM

KOPD,
Dammit, I knew I left something out of the bingo cards!

Babble,
Just admit it, you didn't even read your own link. Pro tip: Don't link to shit you haven't read.

Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente | March 29, 2011 3:58 PM

@babble777,

Please answer my questions at #197.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | March 29, 2011 4:00 PM

OMFG I simply cannot deal with this level of stupidity. Started a point-by-point marjanović, but fuck it.

Let's educate and negotiate, not retaliate.

LOL. Did you notice the title of the odious website linked in the OP?

the AR movement ignores you and simply liberates labs, instead.

First, please clarify WTF it could possibly even mean to "liberate a lab," and then please provide a list of successfully "liberated" labs. Thanks.

Oh, you know what else would be good? A coherent definition of 'sentience'.
Um, no, 'haz a nervous system' doesn't cut it.

Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is Because the animals are like us. Ask the experimenters why it is morally OK to experiment on animals, and the answer is: Because the animals are not like us. Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction." -- Professor Charles R. Magel (1980)

Professor Charles R. Magel is (or was) a fucking idiot. Or, perhaps more likely, a disingenuous rhetorician. How is a raven 'like' a writing desk?

As for toxicity itself, you can't possibly test on cell cultures in more cases?

Of course you can, if the question you're interested in is the toxicity to cultured cells.
You are perhaps aware that a functioning whole mammal is a teeeeensy bit more complex than that?

Why is it that these idiots who are so concerned with animals don't in general know the first thing about animals?

god I just want to fucking hulksmash clowns like babble, who seems perhaps intelligent enough to know better.
(The naive huggybunnies like kimmy and the deranged lunatic dumbshits like foreverinurface or whatever stupid nym it's using get a pass for just being plain stupid.)

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | March 29, 2011 4:00 PM

I talk to NIO. I talk to them because I think they're wrong on a few things.

I talk to YOU folks for the SAME reason.

The difference is, once in a while, NIO bothers to listen.

I'm amazed they can hear you over the frantic beastiality. Remember the NIO doesn't fuck goats, they make love to goats!

(yes cheap shot but when someone is defending terrorists boohoo)

Posted by: Gus Snarp | March 29, 2011 4:02 PM

Hmm, I almost commented over there when it occurred to me that just using a mail dump wasn't good enough. An organization or individual that advocates terrorism and glibly publishes commenter's email addresses cannot be trusted with your IP address. Don't make a comment with your real email address, and use a proxy to cover you IP if you feel the need to comment.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | March 29, 2011 4:05 PM

By what rational standard?

Why does this actually matter, even if true?

Are severely mentally handicapped humans (with supposedly a self-awareness closer to your preferred test subjects) acceptable to exploit for this purpose?

Posted by: oihorse | March 29, 2011 4:06 PM

Have there been any psychological studies on hyper-empathy?

Posted by: Gus Snarp | March 29, 2011 4:08 PM

@babble777 - So, more evasiveness. I gather from what you wrote at #234 that you are the commenter Babble at number 1 and number 2 on the linked post, even though you still won't just come out and say it. I'm sorry, but I don't buy your act. You say you don't feel the need to repeat your position, but I would think that when a clear call to violence is issued you might denounce it rather than heaping fuel on the fire. When someone has just been told to go car bomb students, your response should not be to post some additional reasons that those students are evil. I would also think that if you comment there because they are wrong on a few things, that your comments would generally refer to them being wrong, like your string of comments here, instead of simply heaping fuel on their fires.

Posted by: Quodlibet | March 29, 2011 4:08 PM

babble777 @ #122

And I'll keep on until one of you finally admits you're being hysterical twits.

[steps up to volunteer]

OK, I'll 'fess up. I have, on occasion, been a[n] hysterical twit.

Now, will you go away?

Posted by: Escuerd | March 29, 2011 4:09 PM

Not once have I seen a comment from anybody that states the results and or waisted and false results obtained as a results of the massive amount of testing done on animals.

So are you suggesting that we get less accurate results with animal research than we would without it, or do you think that it should be shocking that science doesn't always get everything right the first time? In the former case, you're delusional, and in the latter, merely making one of the same lame, tired and irrelevant points that we all get from anti-science lunatics all the time.

If humans were so smart why is it that we can't learn the language of these species?

Delusional it is.

We know a good deal about the communication methods that many organisms (not just animals) use. Few (possibly some cetaceans and other primates) closely resemble what we think of as language in being learned and having a generative syntax.

I am...sane

If you insist.

Posted by: babble777 | March 29, 2011 4:10 PM

"You say you don't feel the need to repeat your position, but I would think that when a clear call to violence is issued you might denounce it rather than heaping fuel on the fire."

On that particular post, if you'll read what I actually commented on, I took an educational tack.

No, I didn't feel the need to repeat a longstanding argument I've had over there oodles of times, just for the sake of mollifying you lot.

Still don't.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | March 29, 2011 4:13 PM

On that particular post, if you'll read what I actually commented on, I took an educational tack.

No, I didn't feel the need to repeat a longstanding argument I've had over there oodles of times, just for the sake of mollifying you lot.

Still don't.

Not to mollify us (I'm already Mollified *bling bling the squid medal) but to try to convince crazy people not to kill and terrorize sentient sapiant self aware beings

You're lack of concern for when someone is putting the proverbial gun to a hostage's head is staggering!

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | March 29, 2011 4:14 PM

See if I went to an Al Quida site where they were talking about plans to bomb the french embassy and responded with a post about what horrible imperialistic pricks the French were...some might read that as me being a supporter.

Because those 'some' have fucking eyes.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | March 29, 2011 4:15 PM

grudgedk is on point: The very concept of 'animal rights' is pure anthropomorphism from square one.

The idea of 'speciesism' is just so freaking stupid as to cramp my eye-rolling musculature.

You're angry and frustrated because your half-baked concerns are not being listen to?
Maybe try saying something coherent first before resorting to threatening students' families with carbombs.

Is there anything more hyperbaricizing than this combination of high-horsed moral supremacy and pure fucking stoopid?

I have to get out of here

Posted by: sevandyk | March 29, 2011 4:16 PM

Ing @ 257

Because those 'some' have fucking eyes.

Are those like normal eyes?

Posted by: babble777 | March 29, 2011 4:17 PM

So now even Dear PZ Is frothing at the mouth? Goodness, what fun.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | March 29, 2011 4:18 PM

Babble,
Your insistence that there are alternatives now doesn't match the linked FDA article (which, once again, was calling for more efficient testing and development, not an end to using animal research).

Be honest, did you even read it?

Posted by: Gus Snarp | March 29, 2011 4:20 PM

@babble777 - I don't give a flying rat's fuck if you mollify me or anyone else, but if PZ suddenly started seriously advocating car bombing, you'd better believe that I would leave comments that he had lost his fucking mind and ought to stop it, and that when I got tired of it I would just stop visiting his blog, not make tangential comments and ignore calls to violence.

You can call it an educational approach if you want to, but the post you were commenting on is nothing but a call to violence, and your comments were intended to show just how cruel and unnecessary animal testing is. That's fuel on the fire. You don't see that?

But no, you are a liar. You see it. You like these people and their calls to violence. You tell us that you comment there to tell them they're wrong, but the comments we see you making on their call to violence do nothing of the sort. The evidence is clear.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | March 29, 2011 4:21 PM

Do you really imagine that a significant number of people would volunteer to be the first subjects that some new drug or procedure is tested on? I would bet that you couldn't get enough for one single serious research.

To be fair during the days of the draft the US biological and chemical warfare research made use of human volunteers from a sect of pacifistic Christians.

Posted by: oihorse | March 29, 2011 4:22 PM

@Ing

(Horses are horrible people)

HEY! I saw that.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | March 29, 2011 4:26 PM

Babble are you a man? I would love to marry you.

Dear god...don't let them reproduce.

Bombing buildings and cars- OMG you ignorant morons! So then what, everyone of you is a suddenly peaceful lefty against all war where they burn buildings down every day that have humans, animals and babies of both inside? No, in fact you believe its completely justifiable if terrorists or chemicals are in there with the kids and women isn't that right? AR people do not hurt life. Vivisectors do. AR people take away the tools that abusers use on animals. So get off your high horses YOU ARE THE KILLER TERRORISTS that only require a good mind screw to get you believing that doing wrong is right. .

You failed a sanity roll

YOU THOUGHT WE WOULD JUST STAY UP LATE PAINTING POSTERS? THOUGHT WE WOULD JUST KEEP YELLING FROM THE SIDEWALK? THOUGHT NO REAL HUMANS EXISTED WHO WOULD TRY TO PUT A TURNIQUET ON YOUR BLOODLETTING? I think the real loons are those who think us and our methods insane and unstable.

We are your greatest transmugenic creation. You made us

You selfish little twit. You live off of the fruits of science and medicine in unprecedented comfort and have the gall to bitch about it. You don't give a single shit out of a turtles ass about animals. You just want to feel 'special' and be the rebel. You are a fucking child playing super hero and you want to kill people to do it.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | March 29, 2011 4:28 PM

@Babble

I'm sorry reality disagrees with you so strongly.

I'm starting to think that with a name like babble we're just being trolled.

Posted by: Phil65 | March 29, 2011 4:28 PM

Speciesism- no creature has no more of a right to live than another. How in the hell can you argue that regardless of what you believe? Only an asshat would bring plants into this and purely to avoid the obvious.

What's "obvious"? That plants are lesser beings? Why should that be obvious? They're alive, aren't they?

Look, if life is so fucking precious to you, you've got a long battle ahead, but it's not with mankind. Nature is the most bloodthirsty asshole imaginable, and has been for several billion years. So get out there and put a stop to the real slaughter. And start with plants, they really get shafted.

Posted by: Blattafrax | March 29, 2011 4:29 PM

#260. Not only that. In the current system for approving drugs it would be prohibitively expensive to risk an trial in humans for something with no pre-clinical in vivo efficacy.

We go from the question of - this prevents heart arrhythmia in mice, rabbits and rhesus monkeys. Why not try it in humans?

to

This seems to have some positive effects on intracellular signalling in cardiomyocytes. It doesn't kill them either. We think that might translate to a benefit in a real heart, no idea of brain penetration, dosage needed, metabolite properties, accumulation in any organ you care to mention or immunogenicity. Let's go for it anyway.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | March 29, 2011 4:30 PM

Is it possible that I've been killfiled by a troll? Moi? *sad face!*

Already doing that, love, but thanks for pointing out how much you and the rest of the pro-testing crowd here care so deeply about the good of all humankind.

As opposed to those who would kill to prevent new medical procedures from being developed? *eye roll*

Question (and maybe it's already been answered and I missed it): what drugs are you taking to prevent your HIV status from becoming full blown AIDS? And were they tested on animals?

Posted by: Vicki, Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief | March 29, 2011 4:32 PM

LisaG: "How can you argue that?" = "I can't prove this, or even make a good argument, so I'm going to demand you refute my unproven claim." I can turn around and say "No rodent is equal to a great musician. How can you argue that, no matter what you believe?"

Were you convinced of the AR position because someone bombed your car or threatened your family? If not, why do you assume that threats are necessary to convince other people? People whose "beauty and strength of heart" you praise.

It doesn't matter what the issue is, if someone's position is "Do as we preach, or we will kill the people you love," the only question is whether I take them seriously enough to dial 911, walk away and look up a police or FBI non-emergency number, or file them under "troll, ignore." Those options do not include "decide the terrorist is correct on ethical or factual grounds" or "cooperate because it's safer."

That would include people who nominally agreed with me: the sort of person who says "cooperate or we will kill your mother" is all too likely to decide that I am not doing precisely what they want, as enthusiastically as they want.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | March 29, 2011 4:33 PM

Then if you REALLY think I'm just here to troll, why keep feeding me?

We do that here. It amuses us.

Posted by: whitebird | March 29, 2011 4:33 PM

@204 : "I can't, naturally, but there's a difference between indirect and direct, intentional killing. One's an avoidable choice. The other isn't."

Ooooooooohhhhhhh....so it Isn't about "the animals" as much as it is about (your ideas of) morality. So if I accidentally hit a and kill a pigeon while driving, it's not nearly as bad as if I shoot and kill a deer on purpose. Even thought both animals experienced a fairly swift death after a lifetime of freedom.

Also, it's ok for a lion to hunt a wildebeest, but for a Native human inhabitant to hunt a wildebeest is wrong? How is THAT not "speciest"?

Finally, haven't we been through this before, re: "vivsectors"? Hasn't it been proven that most of the photos and video that AR use as propaganda are misleading/outdated?
They seem to think that scientists are all sadistic weirdos who love to torture animals - I'm also seeing that a lot of the posters here seem to think that "science" is kind of useless, cause, you know, like, nature provides, man.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 29, 2011 4:34 PM

I'm almost 1 year in the AR movement. Not a newbie, but not so eloquent yet.

Obviously. That whole rant sounded like a poorly regurgitated chunk of crib notes you scribbled down on your Born Free spiral notebook from the latest AR meeting you attended. Maybe the Skinny Puppy blasting in the background made it difficult to write down all the talking points coherently.

I hope you've never taken any modern medicine.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | March 29, 2011 4:37 PM

Speciesism- no creature has no more of a right to live than another. How in the hell can you argue that regardless of what you believe? Only an asshat would bring plants into this and purely to avoid the obvious.

The obvious is that you and babble have no coherent definition of sentience because you're grossly ignorant of biology.

YOU THOUGHT WE WOULD JUST STAY UP LATE PAINTING POSTERS? THOUGHT WE WOULD JUST KEEP YELLING FROM THE SIDEWALK? THOUGHT NO REAL HUMANS EXISTED WHO WOULD TRY TO PUT A TURNIQUET ON YOUR BLOODLETTING?

Oh, so it's okay to subject us to the horror of your melodramatic overacting?

Posted by: A Bad Idea (♀) | March 29, 2011 4:39 PM

Okay, officially bored with the Tower of Babble here, he's not shocking and edgy anymore.

Posted by: Blattafrax | March 29, 2011 4:40 PM

#274.

Inconvenient truth being what it is for you, I didn't make that claim about the FDA. I said - which they DID say - that they admitted that oodles of stage 3 trials deemed safe and effective by animal testing will still fail.

By the time you have reached phase 3 trials, the phase 1 and 2 results are known. Safety and likely efficacy is assessed on the basis of these data. Phase 3 trials do fail to reach the expected outcomes and do result in increased deaths. Sometimes. That's why they are needed. If none of them failed, there wouldn't be much point in doing them would there now?

Of course under your system there would already have been brain damaged cripples and dead people produced aplenty in aborted phase 1 and 2 tests. It is unlikely we would ever be worrying too much about continuing to phase 3.

Posted by: FTS | March 29, 2011 4:41 PM

I'd like a BLT, hold the L and T, with a side of Bystolic.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | March 29, 2011 4:42 PM

Oh, so it's okay to subject us to the horror of your melodramatic overacting?

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/F0citZF5w4J5sZG8rjJ14jz9BpVYXAblHw--#444b8 | March 29, 2011 4:45 PM

This seems relevant. Or at least funny. :-)

And an Annie Dillard quote: "Fish gotta swim and bird gotta fly; insects, it seems, gotta do one horrible thing after another." If you don't like what scientists do to animals, take a nice close look at the insect world. Compare how we treat animals with how animals treat each other. It ain't pretty.

Posted by: oihorse | March 29, 2011 4:46 PM

Seriously though...I thought after I beat the Elite 4 I was done dealing with you people.

Omg. An Elite fan?

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | March 29, 2011 4:47 PM

Speciesism- no creature has no more of a right to live than another

I firmly and wholeheartedly disagree, even in the incoherent double-negative form as presented here.

If it came down to a choice between my life and my dog's life, I would choose my life. It'd be a hard call, but I'd call it in my favor, every time. I'd even call it in my wife's favor. Every time.

If it came down between you and my dog, I'm not so sure.

Posted by: Gus Snarp | March 29, 2011 4:48 PM

You're off the streets right now, aren't you

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | March 29, 2011 4:49 PM

I firmly and wholeheartedly disagree, even in the incoherent double-negative form as presented here.

If it came down to a choice between my life and my dog's life, I would choose my life. It'd be a hard call, but I'd call it in my favor, every time. I'd even call it in my wife's favor. Every time.

If it came down between you and my dog, I'm not so sure.

Quick question Animal Right Nuts.

You see a Dingo that is carrying a baby in its mouth by the diaper. Obviously this Dingo is planning on eating said baby. What do you do? Kill the dingo or let the baby die?

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | March 29, 2011 4:51 PM

Seriously though...I thought after I beat the Elite 4 I was done dealing with you people.

I mean, far be it from me to interfere wth punching out animal rights groups in the /real world/, but I mean... in Pokemon?

:D :D :D

Posted by: charlystone | March 29, 2011 4:54 PM

babble777 #272 Already doing that, love, but thanks for pointing out how much you and the rest of the pro-testing crowd here care so deeply about the good of all humankind.

You really are a moron of epic magnitude. You do not even realize you are missing the point of each and every post written in response to you.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | March 29, 2011 4:55 PM

Ing:

You see a Dingo that is carrying a baby in its mouth by the diaper. Obviously this Dingo is planning on eating said baby. What do you do? Kill the dingo or let the baby die?

Well, I'd have to side with the dingo in the situation. I mean, how many times do you get to watch a dingo eat a baby? That doesn't happen very often. It'd be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

Although I would be tempted to steal the baby and grill it up with bacon and onions for myself.

Posted by: Paul | March 29, 2011 4:58 PM

So students are "soft-bellied targets" are they?

I seem to remember the ALF thought the same when they targeted students in Oxford University a few years back, now what happened again?

Oh yes, the students kicked the ALF's arse!

Lets make sure the same thing happens here.

No more lies! No more fear! Animal research wanted here!

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | March 29, 2011 4:59 PM

I would rescue the child, but in doing so I am not merely preventing its suffering, but the prolonged suffering of other humans as well.

Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies! | March 29, 2011 5:01 PM

@Ing
#300
Elite 4 is out!?
*Check google*
Aw...

@oihorse
#303
Quite surprised to find Elite fans here.
I won't consider myself a "fan" per-say, but I do find the idea behind a dynamically generated universe with dynamically generated planet to be an incredible technical achievement given the time.
Elite 2 - 100s of billions of unique star system in 1 floppy disk.
A game that have enough star-system that no player can possibly explore the entire game world in their life-time (assuming exactly 100 billion star systems, and you visit 1 every second, you need 3000+ real-life years to visit the entire game-world).

Posted by: LisaG | March 29, 2011 5:03 PM

Rutee, yes I'm against hurting humans as I am hurting animals. You can keep repeating all the all the media driven rhetoric you've been taught without thinking about anything if you want. No one (human or not) is hurt by the fire bombing of a tool an abuser uses then how can you keep using "car bombing" with terrorists or killing?

Terrorists use flammable airplane fuel and crash into buildings killing thousands of people. How is it you can just throw that word around where there is no killing? Are there terrorist butterflies? Terrorist washing machines? I mean seriously- stop! Taking away a tool of oppression without hurting anyone is not anywhere near terrorism.

You know you science people might be really educated but its very hard to consider anything your saying when you make no sense on certain issues. I mean your bonkers on this freaking out about a fire with no one in it while saying murder is ok. I see you might have started out to help people and make a better world, but humans abusing weakness in animals because its cheaper is not making a better place. Yes, alot of stuff was found by animal experimentation. But it could have been done another way too. Neither of us could say for sure that's not true. The reasons why you settle on advocating animal experimentation; money, ease, etc are not good enough reasons in a civil society. What you are doing is wrong if there's another way.

I know if somehow all animal experimentation was syopped here and now, mankind would go on to discover and cure just as many things. Alternatives would be found and used. Just from the fact that its so antiquated, unchanging and non progressive- animal experimentation should be something pure logic should have us to move on from.The only things that seem to change is the latest spin you guys put on torture.

I don't know how to argue what the FDA does, what some people's definition of life is, or whatever.
What vivisectors do is horrible. It's just horrible. There's at least 100 different answers to every problem, I don't know why scientists would resist the change.

Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente | March 29, 2011 5:06 PM

No one (human or not) is hurt by the fire bombing of a tool an abuser uses then how can you keep using "car bombing" with terrorists or killing?

Posted by: Lyle | March 29, 2011 5:10 PM

Every time a vivisector's car or home — and, eventually, the abuser him/herself — blows up, flames of liberation light up the sky.

So, these people have no problem with killing scientists, but won't go so far as to risk offending someone by being gender biased in the writing.

I wonder if they have any connection to PeTA.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | March 29, 2011 5:12 PM

You can keep repeating all the all the media driven rhetoric you've been taught without thinking about anything if you want.

Take a fucking biology class before you scream about media rhetoric, you dumb fucking waste of skin.

There's at least 100 different answers to every problem, I don't know why scientists would resist the change.

Why don't you solve the problem? You take the courses, and you figure it out.

I know you won't though, because you're too fucking stupid. So, instead you'll scream, and you'll cry, and you'll implore other people to solve the problems for you as if you have even the foggiest grasp as to what's going on, and maybe you'll kill someone. Because you're honestly that stupid.

Please, scientists: don't cure whatever it is LisaG might contract. It would not be worth sacrificing willow tree bark for the tea to rid this nitwit of a headache.

Posted by: Gus Snarp | March 29, 2011 5:13 PM

@LisaG -

Every time a vivisector's car or home — and, eventually, the abuser him/herself — blows up, flames of liberation light up the sky.

We need to impart a new vision: car bombs, 24/7 security cameras, embarrassing home demonstrations, threats, injuries, and fear. And, of course, these students need to realize that any personal risk they are willing to assume will also be visited upon their parents, children, and nearest & dearest loved ones.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | March 29, 2011 5:14 PM

I mean your bonkers on this freaking out about a fire with no one in it while saying murder is ok.

Also, who the fuck said murder is ok besides your people?

Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD) | March 29, 2011 5:15 PM

Terrorists use flammable airplane fuel and crash into buildings killing thousands of people.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | March 29, 2011 5:18 PM

Terrorists use flammable airplane fuel and crash into buildings killing thousands of people.

Alright, who's responsible for letting this 7-year-old use the 'net without supervision?

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | March 29, 2011 5:21 PM

Terrorists use flammable airplane fuel and crash into buildings killing thousands of people.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | March 29, 2011 5:23 PM

@Jules

Of course there's nonflammable airplane fuel! There's no reason to use flammable fuel! There are 100s of solutions to every problem! I have no idea why those mean industrialists keep using combustible fuels!

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | March 29, 2011 5:25 PM

Ing:

Of course there's nonflammable airplane fuel! There's no reason to use flammable fuel! There are 100s of solutions to every problem! I have no idea why those mean industrialists keep using combustible fuels!

Right. We could use pixie dust.

I reckon we could also do all our testing on pixies.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | March 29, 2011 5:28 PM

No, you guys firebombing empty labs is hilarious to me. Putting aside that yo'ure torturing the poor bacteria that live there, when animal rights groups get your hands on actual animals, the results are usually tragicomedy. I'm going 'bonkers' over the threats of violence and killing. Why aren't you?

I don't find it hilarious. Often such fuckery ruins the experiments or hurts the animals. If the experiment is pouched then those animals were used for no reason, the data is useless. They can't be used for any other experiment usually and we can't sell them or any shit, they have to be destroyed. Congrats ARA you just turned using an animal death to forward knowledge and medicine into an animal death for no fucking reason. There was some grant money well spent, fuckers.

Oh and lets not forget when they release lab rats used in infectious disease study. Thanks for releasing those bubonic plague rats!

Posted by: Stanton | March 29, 2011 5:30 PM

No one is killing people or advocating it. Darn, you are seriously thick headed on getting this point!

Posted by: It'spiningforthefyords | March 29, 2011 5:31 PM

It's threads like these that make me glad I am unsure about most everything - except that anyone who sees "purity" in anything as a goal is a deluded, and given enough time and power almost certainly dangerous. And wrong, deluded, dishonest, and all the rest that goes with certainty of belief.

Animal rights creeps like Mr. Inside and Mr. Outside (Insanity) here have done more to harm their cause than "Fast Food Nation" did to assist it.

Drop dead of natural causes, animal rights fanatics.

Posted by: Aquaria | March 29, 2011 5:32 PM

Why not just tell me to get a gun? Won't that make it easier for you?'

No need for you to get one. I'm in Texas, so I can get plenty of them. I'll buy one for you, but only if you agree to put a loaded one under your chin and pull the trigger.

The entire world's IQ will increase exponentially after that happens.

Posted by: Blattafrax | March 29, 2011 5:33 PM

There are 100s of solutions to every problem.

Calcium phosphate? No solution of that problem.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | March 29, 2011 5:36 PM

I can't believe it.

In a world where Piltdown, ABQ, Heddle, Slanted Science, Mercurial Muse, and Juggalos exist...Lisa has usurped them all and quickly become, unquestionably, the stupidest person I have ever met.

I am not exaggerating when i say I know mentally challenged people who are not only better people than Lisa, but I would say in most metrics are 'smarter'. They would not miss the point in the way that Lisa does. This is phenomenal...

I mean...jesus christ. Does your mouth fill with water when it rains? When you nod do you hear rattling? I...Even the "feminist==conservative" moron has you beat in terms of brains. Are we sure Lisa is really an unusually stupid person and not an unusually intelligent chinchilla?

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | March 29, 2011 5:38 PM

Are you doing actual good, or do you just get a little thrill playing Rambo?

This I believe is closest to the truth. We have substandard, over inflated egos and sense of righteousness who don't really care about the animals they just want an excuse to be the good freedom fighters able to murder the evil empire.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | March 29, 2011 5:40 PM

They will keep stealing things you hurt animals with until you run out of your precious money to regroup and start torturing again or rebuilding your prisons.

LisaG, you have no idea how much suffering you will ease if you would just deign to share with us what, in lieu of 'precious money', you use to survive.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | March 29, 2011 5:41 PM

Oh and lets not forget when they release lab rats used in infectious disease study. Thanks for releasing those bubonic plague rats!

Again you keep adding in that somewhere people are going to be hurt of killed by AR people.

We need to impart a new vision: car bombs, 24/7 security cameras, embarrassing home demonstrations, threats, injuries, and fear. And, of course, these students need to realize that any personal risk they are willing to assume will also be visited upon their parents, children, and nearest & dearest loved ones.

Posted by: onion girl, OM - Social Workers: Fixing Fuck-ups Since 1880 | March 29, 2011 5:42 PM

You dodge the question and say you'll rescue the baby from the lovely dingo, which will not resist, and both will live. Especially after you give the dingo a delicious cucumber sandwich.

CUCUMBER KILLER!

---
You know I try to take this seriously (the AR aspect, not the car bombs), but I didn't buy the arguments when I was 12, let alone now.

I'm a vegetarian. I try to limit my use of animal products. I try to be an ethical consumer whenever possible.

But I'm also trying to become a participant in an NIH study for fibro. The drug is made by injecting a rabbit with a virus and extracting a substance from the inflamed skin of that rabbit.

Yes, a cute little fuzzy rabbit. And I do feel for that rabbit, but I am still going to participate in that study, because I do put a value on my quality of life over that of a rabbit's.

If the drug is successful and improves my quality of life such that I can, I'll volunteer time at the local Humane Society or donate money to support planting trees which create environments for animals to live in.

But I won't apologize for using a rabbit to try to improve my health.

If someone had offered me the chance to cure ALS when my mother was dying by killing a cat, I would value the life of my mother over the life of a cat.

If someone told me there was a safe, effective and sustainable way to conduct scientific and medical research without ever using an animal I'd give my time and money to support that.

And I don't believe either of these two statements are in conflict.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | March 29, 2011 5:44 PM

I think NIO deserves some sort of aware for recruiting the world's stupidest person in LisaG.

I'm convinced the only way she's found herself here is because she's followed some sort of gradient. Maybe AR activists, like bacteria, use quorum-sensing?

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | March 29, 2011 5:46 PM

Are you doing actual good, or do you just get a little thrill playing Rambo?

It is very sad to me that she got caught up with this organization. She'd probably be better off in fundamentalist religion. At least then she'd be less likely to wind up injured or in jail for her stupidity.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 29, 2011 5:47 PM

becoming more creative in ways to stop your escalating sickness.

Again you are shamelessly saying that setting fire to an inanimate object is terrorist

AR people will steal your cars that you use to get to work.

Posted by: Akira MacKenzie | March 29, 2011 5:48 PM

So, they're furries?

Just as suspect that most Anti-Choicers are wanna-be pedophiles, I suspect that there is a hidden streak of bestiality among the tofu-suckers.

How often does Ingrid Newkirk or Peter Singer masturbate to fantasies about Catherine the Great... or rather, her horse?

Hey, babble777? I wonder how many "yiffing" JPEGs do you have salted away on your hard drive?

Posted by: Quodlibet | March 29, 2011 5:49 PM

Hmmm.

Maybe Lisa was sent here by the fundie YEC crowd as an illustration of their argument against evolution.

Hey...a missing link? Homo nonsapiens?

Posted by: grudgedk | March 29, 2011 5:50 PM

Speciesism- no creature has no more of a right to live than another.

How in the hell can you argue that regardless of what you believe?

Only an asshat would bring plants into this and purely to avoid the obvious.

OMG you ignorant morons!

We are your greatest transmugenic creation. You made us.

Then if you REALLY think I'm just here to troll, why keep feeding me?

And were they tested on animals?

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | March 29, 2011 5:52 PM

Both terrorist and criminal. What a loser if you can't see that. Not playing with a full deck, are you? More to come...

Full deck? Lisa doesn't even have a full hand! She doesn't even have a Joker! All she has is the "Bicycle copy right" card

How often does Ingrid Newkirk or Peter Singer masturbate to fantasies about Catherine the Great... or rather, her horse?

Be fair...Catherine the great most likely never engaged in bestiality and that's just a nasty bit of sexist propaganda from her detractors.

There is always someone with mental problems and/or a low IQ that can't reason out the consequences and takes that stuff seriously.

See Dark Knight, Lisa? You're wearing a clown mask.

Posted by: CJO | March 29, 2011 5:54 PM

we still don't stup

Sure you do. You especially. So much, in fact, that I can completely understand why you needed to make it a verb.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | March 29, 2011 5:56 PM

@Foreverinurface

Oh cool! Can I cut and paste from propaganda too!?

I would personally strangle 100 monkeys to save the life of one HIV strung out meth addled prostitute

Posted by: whitebird | March 29, 2011 6:00 PM

holy shit. I just moseyed over to the NIO site and read the comments. There is really something unbelievably wrong with Camille. She talks about the "outright torture and murder of our non-human brothers and sisters"...

So..yeah, when is my cat's trial date? She's tortured and murdered many more innocent birds and mice (wait, maybe they weren't so innocent - I did see one eat a worm once) than I'm sure I've witnessed. Wait, does that make me an accessory to murder? I didn't call the cops on her once!

Or that Zebra I saw on TV killing some other male's foal? Should he get life or the death penalty? I mean, he killed a child. Oh yeah, my cat should probably also be charged with child endangerment because when she brought her kittens into my house, she left the runt in a different location (fortunately, we called CPS and they, um, I mean, we placed the runt in front of her and eventually she started licking her and raised her).

Posted by: LisaG | March 29, 2011 6:01 PM

Onion girl, do you know for a fact that there is no other way to cure the fibro or ALS except to cause fear and pain in an animal? We once thought the world was flat and our whole existance was based on that. We were wrong then- surely you could maybe see there's a possibility that helping people and your mom could be done another way? What if there are ways to both save those we love and stop hurting animals? Maybe you could have a goal to find that way.
Specifically for toxicology studies I think there's a ton of new in vitro alternatives. Google that- I did not too long ago and there was alot of new ideas to learn about.
I think its great that your a vegetarian and an ethical consumer, these are such easy steps that we can take to be real humans. But its only part of the way because when we make those choices they are mostly about us and our well being only. The sky is not going to come crashing down if all animal experimentation is stopped. If we can add, not change, add, to our world view that all life is important then we WILL be able to make progress in the medical fields just as we do now.
If you can see that ethical living is in your heart on some level, then please think about what animal experimentation does to the live of the animal. I know people want to turn there heads away or make jokes to move on from it, but google vivisection. That can't be right to us. We HAVE to find other ways and it has to start now.

Posted by: whitebird | March 29, 2011 6:01 PM

Also, I wonder what Anonymous thinks of the AR tactics?

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | March 29, 2011 6:02 PM

Houghton said he really wouldn't mind. In fact, he said Primate Products is "actively looking for alternatives" to animal research even now. Too hard to believe? I think so.

That's because it conflicts with your narrative in which you're a hero and he's a villain.

But, as is the case with creationists and others ignorant of how the world works, your incredulity is evidence of nothing.

Posted by: Blattafrax | March 29, 2011 6:05 PM

I then asked him if he could cite one cure that Primate Products was involved in.

Come back when you have some information.

Posted by: Richard Austin | March 29, 2011 6:07 PM

LisaG:
This should be an easy question for you to answer: Why is life important? What is it, in your opinion, that makes life so important?

Posted by: Foreverinurface | March 29, 2011 6:07 PM

u ppl get upset by someones spelling, that is nothing more then a creative way of writing, but its ok to be nasty and outward ugly towards people who do nothing except answer logically .....in the end u only show ur true ugly face that is interested in only one thing: PROFIT! the above interview speaks for itself, the answers of one of ur vivisectors speak for themselves, in case there are ppl on this thread who trully care about the suffering of lab animals and humans (which i doubt), they will see the truth by comment # 380. By the Way: many humans died by drugs claimed as safe, bc of animal tests, and its funny how u allwayz use the same damn argument, if we can not test on humans we will test on animals, well: u do test on humans all the time!!!, illegally! and also: there are and alllways been alternatives to animal testing, the reason why they are not being used, is as seen in comment 380, PROFIT!!, i hope u suffocate on ur $$$$$$ and i hope ur children will find out what u doing to their friends, the animals and stand against u and oppose u and finally i hope u rot from the inside! OH, AND THOSE ARE MY WORDS! .....its funny how u being ANAL about my spelling etc. everytime POST THE TRUTH!

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | March 29, 2011 6:09 PM

What if there are ways to both save those we love and stop hurting animals? Maybe you could have a goal to find that way.

MAYBE YOU COULD, YOU STUPID FUCK!

Why is it up to everyone but you, you goddamn moron?!

Find an alternative. Show all this sadists that you can cure cancer with a simulation.

Do that for me, and I won't have to analyse cancer data anymore. I could retire; maybe get myself a little non-exploding-fuel-using boat and tool around some tropical reef, snorkelling and living off of tropical fruits and tarot.

We HAVE to find other ways and it has to start now.

Then get yourself a fucking biology degree and do the work, dumbass.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 29, 2011 6:09 PM

Full deck? Lisa doesn't even have a full hand! She doesn't even have a Joker! All she has is the "Bicycle copy right" card

Yep, in-your-face liar's post is a copypasta. And probably fiction, on top of that. Well, what do we expect from a half-wit. Oops, probably overestimating the AR Loons again.

Posted by: Stanton | March 29, 2011 6:12 PM

Foreverinurface: we aren't upset by your spelling. We were noting that your sudden bout of coherence was because you copy and pasted someone else's transcripts, and inappropriately claimed it was your own.

We are annoyed by your constant stream of incoherent nonsense, arrogant stupidity and shameless spamming.

Posted by: whitebird | March 29, 2011 6:13 PM

LisaG:"Onion girl, do you know for a fact that there is no other way to cure the fibro or ALS except to cause fear and pain in an animal?"

woah, you can cure fibro or ALS by causing fear and pain in an animal? THATZ HOW SIENZ WURKZ?

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | March 29, 2011 6:15 PM

Akira,

Hey, babble777? I wonder how many "yiffing" JPEGs do you have salted away on your hard drive?

Oh my gawd. I just threw up a little.

grudgedk:

And were they tested on animals?

Of course they were. But it's not hypocritical when he does it, because he's on The Right Side®

Oh, no doubt. I just wanted to bubbles777 to say it. *shrugs* I know there's no arguing with a hypocrite, but the optimist in me thinks that one of these days they'll stop lying to themselves.

Posted by: Kol | March 29, 2011 6:16 PM

Sorry. Didn't read the shenanigans between the murderous ARA and the plagiarist.

I'll just stand over here

Posted by: Sal Bro | March 29, 2011 6:17 PM

OH, AND THOSE ARE MY WORDS!

Much better.

PROFIT!!

Not all scientific research is pharmaceutical research. Most geneticists, microbiologists, developmental biologists don't make all that much money (that link is for full professors, btw--the upper crust). The pursuit of knowledge, and sometimes the pursuit of solutions that will directly help people, is the main motivation.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | March 29, 2011 6:18 PM

and he need not to be looking for alternatives, as they allready exist! and also Animaltesting is completelly unreliable! and you will never find a cure through torture

WELL THEN SLAP MY ASS AND CALL ME JESUS BECAUSE WE FUCKING DO THE IMPOSSIBLE!

Posted by: whitebird | March 29, 2011 6:18 PM

Luuurlz:
"u ppl get upset by someones spelling, that is nothing more then a creative way of writing,"

Ah, yes. It's creative. Like the way my 2 year old nephew "tunes" my guitar.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | March 29, 2011 6:20 PM

*Slaps Ing's ass*

I've really just been waiting for an excuse.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | March 29, 2011 6:21 PM

@Quasirob

They do not have that integrity.

And the translated version for our plagerist

O HAI UZ NO HAS INTEGRITY. PROFIT. TO Does what u sayz us does. PROFIT! u is no smart roflcopter

Posted by: onion girl, OM - Social Workers: Fixing Fuck-ups Since 1880 | March 29, 2011 6:23 PM

Lisa:

(BTW, I think your grammar is improving a little--yay! Now try adding spaces between paragraphs; it's kind of fashionable around these parts.)

Onion girl, do you know for a fact that there is no other way to cure the fibro or ALS except to cause fear and pain in an animal?

Nope, I don't. I leave that up to doctors and researchers and IRBs that make those determinations. And since I personally know doctors, researchers and individuals on IRBs, I know that the majority of them do not recommend animal testing lightly.

What if there are ways to both save those we love and stop hurting animals?

Wonderful! Show me those methods and the solid, peer-reviewed research supporting them and I'll back it 100%. Again--I know that the choice to use animals is not made willy-nilly. I know that scientists are looking for alternative methods. And I know that until those alternative methods are found, the need exists for the current method.

Maybe you could have a goal to find that way.

And is that your goal, Lisa? Other than the University of Google, how much of your life are you investing in this? Do you work? Go to school? Write your political representatives? Do you eat meat? Wear leather shoes? Is your intended career (assuming you're out of school) focused on working with animals?

I think its great that your a vegetarian and an ethical consumer, these are such easy steps that we can take to be real humans. But its only part of the way because when we make those choices they are mostly about us and our well being only.

And what about your well-being? Where do you live? In a house or a yurt? Where does your food come from? Do you use a car? Have an Ipod? Read books made of trees? Use air-conditioning? Pay taxes that support institutions that use animal testing? Are you a "real human?" Please explain: how do you go "all the way?"

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | March 29, 2011 6:24 PM

Please explain: how do you go "all the way?"

Step one involves wine or your grog of choice...

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | March 29, 2011 6:26 PM

i hope u suffocate on ur $$$$$$ and i hope ur children will find out what u doing to their friends, the animals and stand against u and oppose u and finally i hope u rot from the inside!

But my children won't be able to find out if you have your way. Why's that now? Oh right...BECAUSE YOU WANT TO MURDER THEM.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | March 29, 2011 6:28 PM

Is anybody else as tired as I am of being on the payroll of Big Pharma, Big Industry, and Big Vivisection and still driving a shit car?

Just wondering.

[Opens mailbox. Again, no cheque for 'ur $$$$$$'. Sighs.]

Posted by: Noadi | March 29, 2011 6:29 PM

PZ - had a thought here ... while Pharyngulating online polls is great, why dont you put that massive power to work for good and advise all readers to call the office of homeland security, or whoever you guys call for terrorist tip offs ... FBI? They probably even have an online system to file a complaint.

They do have an online system for filing complaints and I have done so. I doubt I'm the only one.

Posted by: onion girl, OM - Social Workers: Fixing Fuck-ups Since 1880 | March 29, 2011 6:30 PM

*Slaps Ing's ass*

I've really just been waiting for an excuse.

I love you, just so you know.

Posted by: Akira MacKenzie | March 29, 2011 6:31 PM

Oh my gawd. I just threw up a little.

Well, my personal position on the "yiff" issue is this: If erotic art featuring anthropomorphous animals turns you on, fine. No problem. Some people juggle geese.

However, it's just when I come across this much murderous zeal for a particular thing (e.g. animals, fetuses) I tend to suspect that there is something a little more Freudian going on, My "Inner Asshole" (it's like an "Inner Child" only far more snarky) will use it as a rhetorical weapon to piss the morons off.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | March 29, 2011 6:33 PM

Or in the case of Lisa and the other Animal Wrongs Activists, step one involves ample amounts of peanut butter or suet

For fuck's sake, she's already propositioned babble777. Don't give her any more fucking directions on how to produce more idiots!

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | March 29, 2011 6:34 PM

My guess is many of you know this but realize if you accept change, you're going to have to accept all the horrible things you've done to animals in your careers- fighting and lying may seem easier.

....*snap*

YWHABUHWHAAAAA?

CARBOMB. FAMILY. LOVED ONES. DEATH. TERROR

YOUR SIDE WANTS TO KILL PEOPLE YOU STUPID VACUOUS TART!

Posted by: John Morales | March 29, 2011 6:37 PM

LisaG:

There are comrads in jail to write to and legal proceedings to look over.

Why are your comrades in jail?

Posted by: quasirob | March 29, 2011 6:37 PM

I have actual work to do tonight with my NIO comrads. We have politicians to contact, actions to plan, and financial researching to do with some of current campaigns

Is that a euphemism for "building bombs"?

I have actual work to do tonight with my NIO comrads. We have politicians to bomb, murders to plan, and explosives costings to do with some of current campaigns

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | March 29, 2011 6:39 PM

Cancer can easilly be cured with certain Natural Foods, we do not need your shit!

Wrong blog, idiot.

Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente | March 29, 2011 6:40 PM

Why are your comrades in jail?

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | March 29, 2011 6:42 PM

Seriously what is wrong with these people? My guess is they watched Fern Gully as a kid and got their first sexual arousal from Tim Curry's voice, thus sending them off on this green fog psychotic hippy happy murder spree.

Posted by: Janis | March 29, 2011 6:43 PM

I am a friend of Camille Marino. I am an animal rights advocate. I do believe most vivisectors are sociopaths, with no feelings towards these poor animals. There is no excuse for animal abuse. The mere fact that you cannot feel for animals worries me. Just who is the terrorist here? The poor primate who's heart is beating out of his chest because he is so terrified or the vivisector who is getting ready to put something caustic in his eye?
Yes, I support the ALF and vivisectors ask for bombings and such because you vivisectors are the terrorists. You are just getting a taste of your own medicine

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | March 29, 2011 6:44 PM

Akira,

Well, my personal position on the "yiff" issue is this: If erotic art featuring anthropomorphous animals turns you on, fine. No problem. Some people juggle geese.

Not yiffing in general*, but the thought of bubbles777 in any sort of sexual situation makes me lose my appetite.

*"Whatever butters your muffin" is what I always say.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | March 29, 2011 6:45 PM

Yes you are so much more intelligent and informed than the US FBI and they need you to ...file a complaint. LOL!

Maybe you might want to consider that if they haven't arrested Camille or myself, could you possibley, dare I say it, be missing something here?

Says the dumb-as-rocks bombmaker who's just sure there's a way of conducting research that doesn't involve animals, but oncologists, spurred on by nothing more than their hatred of bunnies, can't find it.

LisaG, when they offer you a vest to wear tonight, it's not because they're worried you'll be cold.

Posted by: rather be fishing | March 29, 2011 6:45 PM

Give LisaG a break. She may not know what causes children.

"financial researching to do with some of current campaigns"
Is that a euphemism for robbing banks?

Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente | March 29, 2011 6:46 PM

There is no excuse for animal abuse.

Yes, I support the ALF and vivisectors ask for bombings and such because you vivisectors are the terrorists.

I'm wondering just who is the sociopath here.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | March 29, 2011 6:49 PM

Tell me Janis, does the thought of people being blown up turn you on? Is that it? Is it the thought of people you don't like blasted apart their guts spewn and sizzling as their torso is fused with the burning wreckage of their car? Are you laughing imagining you and your friends shooting a child playing in his yard as you watch the scientist find the body and break down into tears? Does it make you happy to imagine the look on their spouses face as they open up your letter bomb?

I see why you fuckers love the animals so much. You one day hope you can reach their level of humanity.

Posted by: LisaG | March 29, 2011 6:51 PM

www.altTox.com Wow, no takers huh?

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | March 29, 2011 6:51 PM

Now you just had one of your member who is close friends with the queen bee herself say that she wants us murdered and terrorized. You honestly are going to stand behind that?

That's right; ask the moron a question she can't copypaste an answer to.

Why are you so cruel to helpless animals, Ing?

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | March 29, 2011 6:52 PM

Janis,

Yes, I support the ALF and vivisectors ask for bombings and such because you vivisectors are the terrorists.

Oh for fuck's sake. Really? Really? You are so dumb, I can't even...

You really are no better than the people that bomb abortion providers.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | March 29, 2011 6:54 PM

I do believe most vivisectors are sociopaths, with no feelings towards these poor animals.

The mere fact that you cannot feel for animals worries me.

Just who is the terrorist here?

It's these guys!

Aspiring scientists envision curing cancer at the Mayo Clinic. We need to impart a new vision: car bombs, 24/7 security cameras, embarrassing home demonstrations, threats, injuries, and fear. And, of course, these students need to realize that any personal risk they are willing to assume will also be visited upon their parents, children, and nearest & dearest loved ones.

The poor primate who's heart is beating out of his chest because he is so terrified

You are just getting a taste of your own medicine

Posted by: John Morales | March 29, 2011 6:55 PM

LisaG:

www.altTox.com Wow, no takers huh?

They don't advocate killing, maiming or terrorising researchers and their families, so they hardly support your stance, do they? ;)

Duh.

Posted by: grudgedk | March 29, 2011 6:56 PM

No one (human or not) is hurt by the fire bombing of a tool an abuser uses

then how can you keep using "car bombing" with terrorists or killing?

What you are doing is wrong if there's another way.

What vivisectors do is horrible.

Alright, who's responsible for letting this 7-year-old use the 'net without supervision?

They will keep stealing things you hurt animals with until you run out of your precious money to regroup and start torturing again or rebuilding your prisons. Therefore forcing you to use and discover non animal alternatives

It looks like to many that ther'es no other choice.

Are you doing actual good, or do you just get a little thrill playing Rambo?

share with us what, in lieu of 'precious money', you use to survive.

Posted by: rather be fishing | March 29, 2011 6:58 PM

Re Dhorvath, The Impersonal You @454

No, you could invite LisaG to see the cute liddle puppies and then have her stay for dinner...

And Lisa, if the jacket your new friends in the matching white lab coats offer you tonight has very long sleeves, just remember, their fashion sense is MUCH better than yours.

Fucked_in_the_face's grammer seems to go through phases of completely unique rules to a set of rules followed by most people fluent in English. Those must be powerful but short lived med’s s/he.it is on.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | March 29, 2011 6:58 PM

@Brownian

Too cruel or too expensive

Either we let them die or we go through the trouble of constantly dropping food in to them. These fuckers couldn't solve the T maze

Posted by: Foreverinurface | March 29, 2011 7:02 PM

all u are trying to do is making the AR Moovement look violent, whileby is u who s responsible for Millions of Deaths:

Yes, here comes more copy and paste, since u never answer why many Doctors and many Scientists also oppose U:
"The growing opposition to vivisection is understandable both on ethical and biological counts. However, a certain scientistic culture says they serve to save human lives. But reality is quite the opposite. Let's take the case of pesticides. These dangerous products, used in agriculture, are classified according to their acute toxicity, graduated with the Lethal Dose 50% tests on animals. This represents not only a useless sacrifice of animals, but it's an alibi that enables the chemical industry to sell products which are classified as harmless or almost harmless, but are in reality very harmful in the long run, even if taken in small doses. Many pesticides classified as belonging to the fourth category, meaning they can be sold and used freely, have turned out to be carcinogenic or mutagenic or capable of harming the fetus. Also in this case, animal tests are not only ambiguous, but they serve to put on the market products of which any carcinogenic effect will be ascertained only when used by human beings - the real guinea-pigs of the multinationals. And yet there are laboratory tests that can be used, which are cheaper and quicker than animal tests; in vitro tests on cell cultures, which have been proving their worth for years already. But the interests of the chemical industries which foist on us new products in all fields may not be questioned."
- Prof. Gianni Tamino, 1987, biologist at Padua University, a Congressman in the Italian Parliament.

"The reason why I am against animal research is because it doesn't work, it has no scientific value and every good scientist knows that."
- Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, M.D., 1986, Head of the Licensing Board for the State of Illinios, paediatrician & gynaecologist for 30 years, medical columnist & best-selling author, recipient of numerous awards for excellence in medicine.

"Since there is no way to defend the use of animal model systems in plain English or with scientific facts, they resort to double-talk in technical jargon...The virtue of animal model systems to those in hot pursuit of the federal dollars is that they can be used to prove anything - no matter how foolish, or false, or dangerous this might be. There is such a wide variation in the results of animal model systems that there is always some system which will 'prove' a point....The moral is that animal model systems not only kill animals, they also kill humans. There is no good factual evidence to show that the use of animals in cancer research has led to the prevention or cure of a single human cancer."
- Dr. D.J. Bross, Ph.D., 1982, former director of the largest cancer research institute in the world, the Sloan-Kettering Institute, then Director of Biostatics, Roswell Memorial Institute, Buffalo, NY.

"Practically all animal experiments are untenable on a statistical scientific basis, for they possess no scientific validity or reliability. They merely perform an alibi for pharmaceutical companies, who hope to protect themselves thereby."
- Herbert Stiller, M.D. & Margot Stiller, M.D., 1976.

"Like every member of my profession, I was brought up in the belief that almost every important fact in physiology had been obtained by vivisection and that many of our most valued means of saving life and diminishing suffering had resulted from experiments on the lower animals. I now know that nothing of the sort is true concerning the art of surgery: and not only do I not believe that vivisection has helped the surgeon one bit, but I know that it has often led him astray."
- Prof. Lawson Tait, M.D., 1899, Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons (F.R.C.S.), Edinburgh & England. Hailed as the most distinguished surgeon of his day, the originator of many of surgery's modern techniques, and recipient of numerous awards for medical excellence.

"Experiments have never been the means for discovery; and a survey of what has been attempted of late years in physiology will prove that the opening of living animals has done more to perpetuate error than to confirm the just views taken from the study of anatomy and natural motions."
- Sir Charles Bell, M.D., 1824, F.R.C.S., discoverer of "Bell's Law" on motor and sensory nerves.

"Atrocious medical experiments are being done on children, mostly physically and handicapped ones, and on aborted foetuses, given or sold to laboratories for experimental purposes. This is a logical development of the practice of vivisection. It is our urgent task to accelerate its inevitable downfall."
- Prof. Pietro Croce, M.D., 1988, internationally renowned researcher, former vivisector.

"Vivisection is barbaric, useless, and a hindrance to scientific progress. I learned how to operate from other surgeons. It's the only way, and every good surgeon knows that."
- Dr. Werner Hartinger, 1988, surgeon of thirty years, President of German League of Doctors Against Vivisection (GLDAV).

"Normally, animal experiments not only fail to contribute to the safety of medications, but they even have the opposite effect."
- Prof. Dr. Kurt Fickentscher, 1980, of the Pharmacological Institute of the University of Bonn, Germany.

"Experiments on animals lead inevitably to experiments on people...As if an animal experiment could ever predict the same result on a person. And as if an experiment on one human being could enable us to foresee the reactions of another human being, whose biology and metabolism are different, whose blood pressure is different, whose lifestyle and age and nourishment and sensitivity and genes and everything else are different...We recognise that each single organism, whether human or animal, has its very own reactions...Today's orthodox medicine and suppressive surgery don't understand the purpose of disease and therefore don't know how to treat it. A real doctor's experience derives from his natural intuition coupled with his observation at the sickbed, but never from invasive, violent experiments on people, and much less on animals. Instead of vital hygiene, which aims at preservation or reconstruction of health by natural means and shuns all use of degrading, destructive chemicals, today's medical students are only taught to manipulate poisons and mutilate bodies. We demand that this be changed."
- Prof. Andre Passebecq, M.D., N.D., D.Psyc., 1989, Faculty of Medicine of Paris, then President of the International League of Doctors Against Vivisection (ILDAV).

"Giving cancer to laboratory animals has not and will not help us to understand the disease or to treat those persons suffering from it."
- Dr. A. Sabin, 1986, developer of the oral polio vaccine.

"Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research organisations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them."
- Linus Pauling, PhD, 1986, two time Nobel Prize Winner.

"Not only are the studies themselves often lacking even face value, but they also drain badly needed funds away from patient care needs."
- Dr. Neal Barnard, M.D., 1987, President of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), Washington.

"All our current knowledge of medicine and surgery derives from observations of man following especially the anatomical-clinical method introduced by Virchow: symptoms of the patient while alive and the alterations found in the dead body. These observations have led us to discover the connection between smoking and cancer, between diet and arteriosclerosis, between alcohol and cirrhosis, and so on. Even the RH factor was not discovered on the macasus rhesus. The observations of Banting and Best on diabetes, attributed to experiments on dogs, were already well-known. Every discovery derives from observations on humans, which are subsequently duplicated in animals, and whenever the findings happen to concur, their discovery is attributed to animal experimentation. Everything we know today in medicine derives from observations made on human beings. The ancient Romans and Greeks gained most of their knowledge from epidemiological studies of people. The same goes for surgery. Surgery can't be learned on animals. Animals are anatomically completely different from man, their reactivity is completely different, their structure and resistance are completely different. In fact, exercises on animals are misleading. The surgeon who works a lot on animals loses the sensibility necessary for operating on humans."
- Prof. Bruno Fedi, M.D., 1986, Director of the City Hospital of Terni, Italy, anatomist, pathologist, specialist in urology, gynaecology and cancerology.

"My own conviction is that the study of human physiology by way of experimenting on animals is the most grotesque and fantastic error ever committed in the whole range of human intellectual activity."
- Dr. G.F. Walker, 1933.

"Why am I against vivisection? The most important reason is because it's bad science, producing a lot of misleading and confusing data which pose hazards to human health. It's also a waste of taxpayer's dollars to take healthy animals and artificially and violently induce diseases in them that they normally wouldn't get, or which occur in different form, when we already have the sick people who can be studied while they're being treated."
- Dr. Roy Kupsinel, M.D., 1988, medical magazine editor, USA.

"It is well known that animal effects are often totally different from the effects on people. This applies to substances in medical use as well as substances such as 245y and dioxin."
- A.L. Cowan, M.D., 1985, Acting Medical Officer of Health, New Plymouth, N. Z.

"The reason why I am against animal research is because it doesn't work, it has no scientific value and every good scientist knows that."
- Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, M.D., 1986, Head of the Licensing Board for the State of Illinios, paediatrician & gynaecologist for 30 years, medical columnist & best-selling author, recipient of numerous awards for excellence in medicine.

"Since there is no way to defend the use of animal model systems in plain English or with scientific facts, they resort to double-talk in technical jargon...The virtue of animal model systems to those in hot pursuit of the federal dollars is that they can be used to prove anything - no matter how foolish, or false, or dangerous this might be. There is such a wide variation in the results of animal model systems that there is always some system which will 'prove' a point....The moral is that animal model systems not only kill animals, they also kill humans. There is no good factual evidence to show that the use of animals in cancer research has led to the prevention or cure of a single human cancer."
- Dr. D.J. Bross, Ph.D., 1982, former director of the largest cancer research institute in the world, the Sloan-Kettering Institute, then Director of Biostatics, Roswell Memorial Institute, Buffalo, NY.

"Practically all animal experiments are untenable on a statistical scientific basis, for they possess no scientific validity or reliability. They merely perform an alibi for pharmaceutical companies, who hope to protect themselves thereby."
- Herbert Stiller, M.D. & Margot Stiller, M.D., 1976.

"Like every member of my profession, I was brought up in the belief that almost every important fact in physiology had been obtained by vivisection and that many of our most valued means of saving life and diminishing suffering had resulted from experiments on the lower animals. I now know that nothing of the sort is true concerning the art of surgery: and not only do I not believe that vivisection has helped the surgeon one bit, but I know that it has often led him astray."
- Prof. Lawson Tait, M.D., 1899, Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons (F.R.C.S.), Edinburgh & England. Hailed as the most distinguished surgeon of his day, the originator of many of surgery's modern techniques, and recipient of numerous awards for medical excellence.

"Experiments have never been the means for discovery; and a survey of what has been attempted of late years in physiology will prove that the opening of living animals has done more to perpetuate error than to confirm the just views taken from the study of anatomy and natural motions."
- Sir Charles Bell, M.D., 1824, F.R.C.S., discoverer of "Bell's Law" on motor and sensory nerves.

"Atrocious medical experiments are being done on children, mostly physically and handicapped ones, and on aborted foetuses, given or sold to laboratories for experimental purposes. This is a logical development of the practice of vivisection. It is our urgent task to accelerate its inevitable downfall."
- Prof. Pietro Croce, M.D., 1988, internationally renowned researcher, former vivisector.

"Vivisection is barbaric, useless, and a hindrance to scientific progress. I learned how to operate from other surgeons. It's the only way, and every good surgeon knows that."
- Dr. Werner Hartinger, 1988, surgeon of thirty years, President of German League of Doctors Against Vivisection (GLDAV).

"Normally, animal experiments not only fail to contribute to the safety of medications, but they even have the opposite effect."
- Prof. Dr. Kurt Fickentscher, 1980, of the Pharmacological Institute of the University of Bonn, Germany.

"Experiments on animals lead inevitably to experiments on people...As if an animal experiment could ever predict the same result on a person. And as if an experiment on one human being could enable us to foresee the reactions of another human being, whose biology and metabolism are different, whose blood pressure is different, whose lifestyle and age and nourishment and sensitivity and genes and everything else are different...We recognise that each single organism, whether human or animal, has its very own reactions...Today's orthodox medicine and suppressive surgery don't understand the purpose of disease and therefore don't know how to treat it. A real doctor's experience derives from his natural intuition coupled with his observation at the sickbed, but never from invasive, violent experiments on people, and much less on animals. Instead of vital hygiene, which aims at preservation or reconstruction of health by natural means and shuns all use of degrading, destructive chemicals, today's medical students are only taught to manipulate poisons and mutilate bodies. We demand that this be changed."
- Prof. Andre Passebecq, M.D., N.D., D.Psyc., 1989, Faculty of Medicine of Paris, then President of the International League of Doctors Against Vivisection (ILDAV).

"Giving cancer to laboratory animals has not and will not help us to understand the disease or to treat those persons suffering from it."
- Dr. A. Sabin, 1986, developer of the oral polio vaccine.

"Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research organisations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them."
- Linus Pauling, PhD, 1986, two time Nobel Prize Winner.

"Not only are the studies themselves often lacking even face value, but they also drain badly needed funds away from patient care needs."
- Dr. Neal Barnard, M.D., 1987, President of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), Washington.

"All our current knowledge of medicine and surgery derives from observations of man following especially the anatomical-clinical method introduced by Virchow: symptoms of the patient while alive and the alterations found in the dead body. These observations have led us to discover the connection between smoking and cancer, between diet and arteriosclerosis, between alcohol and cirrhosis, and so on. Even the RH factor was not discovered on the macasus rhesus. The observations of Banting and Best on diabetes, attributed to experiments on dogs, were already well-known. Every discovery derives from observations on humans, which are subsequently duplicated in animals, and whenever the findings happen to concur, their discovery is attributed to animal experimentation. Everything we know today in medicine derives from observations made on human beings. The ancient Romans and Greeks gained most of their knowledge from epidemiological studies of people. The same goes for surgery. Surgery can't be learned on animals. Animals are anatomically completely different from man, their reactivity is completely different, their structure and resistance are completely different. In fact, exercises on animals are misleading. The surgeon who works a lot on animals loses the sensibility necessary for operating on humans."
- Prof. Bruno Fedi, M.D., 1986, Director of the City Hospital of Terni, Italy, anatomist, pathologist, specialist in urology, gynaecology and cancerology.

"My own conviction is that the study of human physiology by way of experimenting on animals is the most grotesque and fantastic error ever committed in the whole range of human intellectual activity."
- Dr. G.F. Walker, 1933.

"Why am I against vivisection? The most important reason is because it's bad science, producing a lot of misleading and confusing data which pose hazards to human health. It's also a waste of taxpayer's dollars to take healthy animals and artificially and violently induce diseases in them that they normally wouldn't get, or which occur in different form, when we already have the sick people who can be studied while they're being treated."
- Dr. Roy Kupsinel, M.D., 1988, medical magazine editor, USA.

"It is well known that animal effects are often totally different from the effects on people. This applies to substances in medical use as well as substances such as 245y and dioxin."
- A.L. Cowan, M.D., 1985, Acting Medical Officer of Health, New Plymouth, N. Z.

"The reason why I am against animal research is because it doesn't work, it has no scientific value and every good scientist knows that."
- Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, M.D., 1986, Head of the Licensing Board for the State of Illinios, paediatrician & gynaecologist for 30 years, medical columnist & best-selling author, recipient of numerous awards for excellence in medicine.

"Since there is no way to defend the use of animal model systems in plain English or with scientific facts, they resort to double-talk in technical jargon...The virtue of animal model systems to those in hot pursuit of the federal dollars is that they can be used to prove anything - no matter how foolish, or false, or dangerous this might be. There is such a wide variation in the results of animal model systems that there is always some system which will 'prove' a point....The moral is that animal model systems not only kill animals, they also kill humans. There is no good factual evidence to show that the use of animals in cancer research has led to the prevention or cure of a single human cancer."
- Dr. D.J. Bross, Ph.D., 1982, former director of the largest cancer research institute in the world, the Sloan-Kettering Institute, then Director of Biostatics, Roswell Memorial Institute, Buffalo, NY.

"Practically all animal experiments are untenable on a statistical scientific basis, for they possess no scientific validity or reliability. They merely perform an alibi for pharmaceutical companies, who hope to protect themselves thereby."
- Herbert Stiller, M.D. & Margot Stiller, M.D., 1976.

"Like every member of my profession, I was brought up in the belief that almost every important fact in physiology had been obtained by vivisection and that many of our most valued means of saving life and diminishing suffering had resulted from experiments on the lower animals. I now know that nothing of the sort is true concerning the art of surgery: and not only do I not believe that vivisection has helped the surgeon one bit, but I know that it has often led him astray."
- Prof. Lawson Tait, M.D., 1899, Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons (F.R.C.S.), Edinburgh & England. Hailed as the most distinguished surgeon of his day, the originator of many of surgery's modern techniques, and recipient of numerous awards for medical excellence.

"Experiments have never been the means for discovery; and a survey of what has been attempted of late years in physiology will prove that the opening of living animals has done more to perpetuate error than to confirm the just views taken from the study of anatomy and natural motions."
- Sir Charles Bell, M.D., 1824, F.R.C.S., discoverer of "Bell's Law" on motor and sensory nerves.

"Atrocious medical experiments are being done on children, mostly physically and handicapped ones, and on aborted foetuses, given or sold to laboratories for experimental purposes. This is a logical development of the practice of vivisection. It is our urgent task to accelerate its inevitable downfall."
- Prof. Pietro Croce, M.D., 1988, internationally renowned researcher, former vivisector.

"Vivisection is barbaric, useless, and a hindrance to scientific progress. I learned how to operate from other surgeons. It's the only way, and every good surgeon knows that."
- Dr. Werner Hartinger, 1988, surgeon of thirty years, President of German League of Doctors Against Vivisection (GLDAV).

"Normally, animal experiments not only fail to contribute to the safety of medications, but they even have the opposite effect."
- Prof. Dr. Kurt Fickentscher, 1980, of the Pharmacological Institute of the University of Bonn, Germany.

"Experiments on animals lead inevitably to experiments on people...As if an animal experiment could ever predict the same result on a person. And as if an experiment on one human being could enable us to foresee the reactions of another human being, whose biology and metabolism are different, whose blood pressure is different, whose lifestyle and age and nourishment and sensitivity and genes and everything else are different...We recognise that each single organism, whether human or animal, has its very own reactions...Today's orthodox medicine and suppressive surgery don't understand the purpose of disease and therefore don't know how to treat it. A real doctor's experience derives from his natural intuition coupled with his observation at the sickbed, but never from invasive, violent experiments on people, and much less on animals. Instead of vital hygiene, which aims at preservation or reconstruction of health by natural means and shuns all use of degrading, destructive chemicals, today's medical students are only taught to manipulate poisons and mutilate bodies. We demand that this be changed."
- Prof. Andre Passebecq, M.D., N.D., D.Psyc., 1989, Faculty of Medicine of Paris, then President of the International League of Doctors Against Vivisection (ILDAV).

"Giving cancer to laboratory animals has not and will not help us to understand the disease or to treat those persons suffering from it."
- Dr. A. Sabin, 1986, developer of the oral polio vaccine.

"Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research organisations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them."
- Linus Pauling, PhD, 1986, two time Nobel Prize Winner.

"Not only are the studies themselves often lacking even face value, but they also drain badly needed funds away from patient care needs."
- Dr. Neal Barnard, M.D., 1987, President of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), Washington.

"All our current knowledge of medicine and surgery derives from observations of man following especially the anatomical-clinical method introduced by Virchow: symptoms of the patient while alive and the alterations found in the dead body. These observations have led us to discover the connection between smoking and cancer, between diet and arteriosclerosis, between alcohol and cirrhosis, and so on. Even the RH factor was not discovered on the macasus rhesus. The observations of Banting and Best on diabetes, attributed to experiments on dogs, were already well-known. Every discovery derives from observations on humans, which are subsequently duplicated in animals, and whenever the findings happen to concur, their discovery is attributed to animal experimentation. Everything we know today in medicine derives from observations made on human beings. The ancient Romans and Greeks gained most of their knowledge from epidemiological studies of people. The same goes for surgery. Surgery can't be learned on animals. Animals are anatomically completely different from man, their reactivity is completely different, their structure and resistance are completely different. In fact, exercises on animals are misleading. The surgeon who works a lot on animals loses the sensibility necessary for operating on humans."
- Prof. Bruno Fedi, M.D., 1986, Director of the City Hospital of Terni, Italy, anatomist, pathologist, specialist in urology, gynaecology and cancerology.

"My own conviction is that the study of human physiology by way of experimenting on animals is the most grotesque and fantastic error ever committed in the whole range of human intellectual activity."
- Dr. G.F. Walker, 1933.

"Why am I against vivisection? The most important reason is because it's bad science, producing a lot of misleading and confusing data which pose hazards to human health. It's also a waste of taxpayer's dollars to take healthy animals and artificially and violently induce diseases in them that they normally wouldn't get, or which occur in different form, when we already have the sick people who can be studied while they're being treated."
- Dr. Roy Kupsinel, M.D., 1988, medical magazine editor, USA.

"It is well known that animal effects are often totally different from the effects on people. This applies to substances in medical use as well as substances such as 245y and dioxin."
- A.L. Cowan, M.D., 1985, Acting Medical Officer of Health, New Plymouth, N. Z.

AND TO SIDE WITH THE ALF DOES NOT MEAN ANYONE IS VIOLENT! ITS ONLY U WHO IS VIOLENT TO LIFE!!! NOONE EVER died in Animal Rights Campaigns except the AR People themselves killed by u or the ones who protect u! ITS a Opinion to say: I SIDE WITH ALF! But Neither I nor Lisa nor Janice said we want to hurt anyone, the biggest Lie was posted by """"Ing: OM: Spreader of Slanderous Lies Against Little Boys"""" when he said i want to hurt his children, no i would never, AND LISA: DO NOT ANSWER!!!!!!

Posted by: Akira MacKenzie | March 29, 2011 7:03 PM

You know, I'm in the mood for a big, juicy steak tonight. Ribeye. Medium-Rare. Who is with me?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 29, 2011 7:06 PM

Is anybody else as tired as I am of being on the payroll of Big Pharma, Big Industry, and Big Vivisection and still driving a shit car?

I would be ashamed if my 19 yr old son was so adamently close minded on logic.

My degree is in computer aided drafting not biology

What your doing is wrong

fighting and lying may seem easier.

List of Companies i posted earlier who test on Animals,

Cancer can easilly be cured with certain Natural Foods,

What abut the Commitee of Physicians for Responsible Medicine?

Maybe you might want to consider that if they haven't arrested Camille or myself, could you possibley, dare I say it, be missing something here?

I am an animal rights advocate. I do believe most vivisectors are sociopaths, with no feelings towards these poor animals. There is no excuse for animal abuse.

Yes, I support the ALF and vivisectors ask for bombings and such because you vivisectors are the terrorists.

Posted by: stuv.myopenid.com | March 29, 2011 7:07 PM

AND TO SIDE WITH THE ALF DOES NOT MEAN ANYONE IS VIOLENT!

You are sick in the head. This is actual psychopathy.

How interesting to read this thread while reading a book on ponerogenesis. Every smoke break I'm standing outside going "yep, check, yep, yep"...

Posted by: onion girl, OM - Social Workers: Fixing Fuck-ups Since 1880 | March 29, 2011 7:08 PM

Oh, and if you want a response to your link:

Very nice. Sounds like a somewhat productive effort towards finding effective alternative methods.

It's a good start. I wish them the best, and hope they develop good ideas and perhaps truly move towards eliminating the need for animal testing.

But what exactly does that website have to do with a website advocating using car bombs on students? How does that answer any of the questions asked of you today?

Posted by: whitebird | March 29, 2011 7:09 PM

Wow, so much weird anthropomorphism, so little logic. There's pretty much no difference between the AR people commenting and Anti-Choice nuts. A cow becomes some kind of angelic cartoon with a human mind the way a shrimp-sized fetus is imagined as a gurgling teeny-weeny baby that you could put a tiny hat on (awwww!).

The commenting AR people are convinced that what they've been brainwashed into believing about "vivisectionists" is accurate. It's really sad, actually - I'd be outraged, too, if I believed what they seem to. I don't know how much masochism or whatever is involved - they relate to these animals intensely, then imagine them being tortured...there's something going on in their minds that ain't right.

I'd pity them if they weren't so dangerous..nah, I pity them still.

P.S., furinyourface, the reason I brought up the scenaria involving animals harming animals was in response, directly, to one of Camille's comments about out "non-human animal brothers and sisters" being tortured by evil humans. But, well, I don't expect any of what any of us are saying here to register at all.

I'm going to go make some popcorn now.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 29, 2011 7:17 PM

AND TO SIDE WITH THE ALF DOES NOT MEAN ANYONE IS VIOLENT!

Yep it does, until they renounce and denounce and terrorism in the animal rights community.

*Crickets chirring*
Guess not.

Posted by: Jessa | March 29, 2011 7:17 PM

For shit's sake, animal testing is difficult, expensive and not very efficient and I'm sure that researchers would drop it in a heartbeat if they had a reliable alternative, but the fact of the matter is they don't.

QFT. You know who would be the first to jump for joy if there were a reliable non-animal alternative to animal testing? (Hint: It's not the AR activists)

It's Big Pharma.

Ironically, for the one of very same reasons that the AR activists claim is the source of resistance to stopping animal testing: money. Pharma companies spend huge amounts of time and money on pre-clinical trials. If they could demonstrate safety of their drug compound using a computer program or some such, they could save millions of dollars and several years on the patent life of their compound.

Ugh. If you're going to go the "BIG PHARMA IS ALL ABOUT THE $$$$$$$$$!!!!1!!" route, at least try to follow the route to its logical end.

Posted by: rather be fishing | March 29, 2011 7:19 PM

Steak sounds great Akira, too bad about the 1.5 m of snow drifts between the BBQ and the back door (spring break? My frozen ass it is!)

PZ may have got his long-overdue cheques from SEED, but where the heck is mine from Big Pharma or its subsidiary Medium Medicine?

I got a question for Lisa. I teach high school physics. When a student gets shocked by the van de Graaf machine, am I guilty of animal torture, or just guilty of having a warped sense of humour?

Posted by: John Morales | March 29, 2011 7:23 PM

Overlook:

We will draw a circle. If we place the name of a species inside that circle, it means we agree that it is unethical to make individuals of that species the involuntary subjects of medical experiments.

It's not black or white, it's a continuum; furthermore, how do you suggest getting informed consent from non-human subjects?

Posted by: sylvarcat | March 29, 2011 7:23 PM

This was probably pointed out upthread but do any of these terrorists even consider the fact that animal research and work with animal models is also done to help animals. As a vet student, once we start our surgery lab, I will be performing surgeries on live animals. There is no better way to learn how to perform the surgeries that I will be using as a Veterinarian in order to save the lives of those very animals that the AR activists want to protect. But no, apparently despite the fact that I am a vet student I must also be an evil sociopath who has no empathy for the poor fuzzies. I can't even imagine the amount of cognitive dissonance one must ignore in order to hold that viewpoint.

Posted by: Kol | March 29, 2011 7:27 PM

@Lynna

#410 is BRILLIANT!

Research underway...

Posted by: Rachel Bronwyn | March 29, 2011 7:30 PM

And not a single one is willing to speak out against violence. Sheesh.

These people are no different than the anti-abortionists who kill doctors. Two wrongs make a right to them. They don't care that their efforts have accomplished nothing except increased suffering. They're going to continue on the path of vengeance.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | March 29, 2011 7:31 PM

John Morales, yes, biologically, it's a continuum but for experimental purposes, we draw the line at our species. Are there any other species worthy of being on our side of the line?

Posted by: great.daemon | March 29, 2011 7:34 PM

I would just like to reiterate Gus Snarp's comment:

If you are going to post anything on NIO's website, make sure you use a proxy and a throwaway email address that has no other connections to you. It is very easy to do (I recommend Tor; google it), and it's always better to be safe than sorry.

PZ, could you please put some sort of warning in your original posts. These guys are terrorists - a little bit more serious than the usual nutjobs whose sites we invade.

Posted by: Timaahy | March 29, 2011 7:37 PM

Hey look, I can copypaste too...

The term [vivisection] is often used by organizations opposed to animal experimentation but is rarely used by practicing scientists.
- Wikipedia

Posted by: scanadensis | March 29, 2011 7:42 PM

It's unfortunate that people like this are associated with the animal rights movement. Another example of organizations like PETA making the rest of us look insane and unreasonable. Being violent is not the way to solve problems, nor is threatening or intimidating people. Changing minds is more effective, and acting like this does not change minds- it causes even more resistance as is evident by the hopping mad comments on this post.

If you're interested in a more level-headed organization working for animal rights in the scientific world, check out NAVS- the national anti-vivisection society. They are trying to push for more analogs for dissection and an end to unnecessary animal testing (especially on things like cosmetics).

Posted by: pelamun | March 29, 2011 7:46 PM

Would that include being born in a hospital or otherwise receiving professional care during birth?

please learn how to blockquote. Thank you.

Of course. You wouldn't wanna support the medico-vivisetional complex in any way, shape or form now, wouldn't you? How was the argument against PP: even the dollars not spent on abortion/vivisection ultimately support abortions/vivisections...

Posted by: See Nick Overlook | March 29, 2011 7:50 PM

John Morales, actually, I was only asking a question, which Rutee @ 503 answered for me. But speaking of human experimentation, the are a lot of humans from whom we could not get informed consent either, so the ethical default position is that we don't use them. But with non-human species, the ethical default position is that consent doesn't matter because they can't give informed consent. And I was wondering if that applied to all species, including our fellow great apes. Are all the primatologists just anthropomorphizing?

Posted by: whitebird | March 29, 2011 7:51 PM

Timaahy, my psychic powers are telling me that FIYF isn't too keen on vaccinations, either.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | March 29, 2011 7:53 PM

Stanton:

Would that include being born in a hospital or otherwise receiving professional care during birth?

Uh, yes. What the hell kind of question was that?

Posted by: Amphiox, OM | March 29, 2011 7:53 PM

The intellectual incoherence of combining the BIG Pharma and Animal-testing-is-unreliable never ceases to amaze. Does anyone using them ever stop to consider how incredibly hard and expensive it is to set up an animal trial, and how exponentially harder and more expensive it is over even this to take that on to human trials? How many Pharma companies have BANKRUPTED themselves when a drug promising in animal trials fails in human trials? Any idea how many BILLIONS would be saved if they had an alternative, any alternative, to animal trials?

Posted by: PeteJohn | March 29, 2011 7:56 PM

Holy Helen that's a lot of comments.

Posted by: John Morales | March 29, 2011 7:58 PM

Overlook, I draw your attention to the Great Ape Project.

Posted by: Menyambal: Making sambal (it isn't dragon magic). | March 29, 2011 8:00 PM

I put some animals in cages yesterday, and they were terrified, and it was done for medical purposes, even. Oh, and they were someone's pets, too, not lab animals. What makes it particularly twisted is that I told their loving owner that I was doing it! Bwaahhhahaha!!111!!

Seriously, my aunt needed to go to her doctor, and she asked me to take care of her pets. She put them in carriers and brought them over to my house, I took good care of them, put them back in their carriers and took them back to her house. The animals didn't like it, but it was necessary.

I don't know how many other animals suffered so my aunt could get her medical care, but I have no reason to assume that any of them suffered unnecessarily, or that anyone gloated over their pain and death. I assume they were given life to be raised as lab animals, and raised to be healthy specimens, and treated as humanely as humans can treat animals.

It is obvious from the visiting commenters that there are some sadly deranged people out there, who would inflict gruesome pain on other living creatures to further their own sickly and twisted delusions. I would pray God that those sick fiends never get their hands on any of His creatures (if there was a God (and God knows these folks make me wish I could pray)).

And just because the visiting "animal rights" commenters have such poor reading skills, I say clearly, "You, you twisted human-hating 'animal rights' terrorists, are hate-filled and evil and wrong." But they won't understand why I say that, so I will go no further.

Except to say that this poor primate's heart is beating faster, and I am terrified.

Now excuse me. I am going to go pet my cat.

(And then turn him loose in the back yard so he can hunt baby birds, eat little rodents and fight with other cats. I do worry that dogs will catch him and tear him apart while he is alive, but that's better than being vivisected, isn't it? Animals are so much nicer than people.)

("Vivisectors"? Geeze, that is an old word (I last read it in _The_Ivisible_Man_, and so overwhelmingly when applied to someone who cleans the cages--calling all the medical testing profession "live-dissectors".)

Posted by: Akira MacKenzie | March 29, 2011 8:02 PM

AND TO SIDE WITH THE ALF DOES NOT MEAN ANYONE IS VIOLENT! ITS ONLY U WHO IS VIOLENT TO LIFE!!! NOONE EVER died in Animal Rights Campaigns except the AR People themselves killed by u or the ones who protect u!

Oh, pardon the fuck out of them for not laying down and passively letting you and your fellow bunny-humpers murder them.

Go find some barnyard animal to screw, furryfuckface.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | March 29, 2011 8:02 PM

If you're interested in a more level-headed organization working for animal rights in the scientific world, check out NAVS- the national anti-vivisection society. They are trying to push for more analogs for dissection and an end to unnecessary animal testing (especially on things like cosmetics)

See, that's the fucked up thing: is there any reason whatsoever that animal testing is being done on cosmetics? And by that I mean, is there any use of cosmetics that could justify vivisection or skin scraping or what have you?

Any idea how many BILLIONS would be saved if they had an alternative, any alternative, to animal trials?

Considering animal trials "don't work", you'd think that the Big Pharma who are only interested in $$$$$$$ would stop flushing their bucks down the proverbial toilet.

But, when following the money doesn't work, sayeth the AR activists, simple insert 'evil agenda' and ta-daa! No further explanation required.

These people learned everything they know from old James Bond flicks.

"OMG and u MURDERERS keep bleu Ringes Octopusi for killing MI6 agenst how can u say you love wher is thelove for people now huh, you make me sic."

Posted by: Dianne | March 29, 2011 8:04 PM

The thing I find bizarre and disturbing about this web site is that they're proposing changing people's minds exclusively with violence. No "students aren't as hardened in their ways as senior researchers: let's argue with them" or anything, just straight to violence and harassment. It's like they've given up on anyone believing that they're right or attempting to persuade anyone. Violence is the last refuge of the failed debater.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 29, 2011 8:08 PM

Wow. And I thought we'd had stupid Zealots here before. LisaG is making a meteoric rise to the top.

Idiotic ARA and naturalpath?

LisaG you're a Fucking moron.

Posted by: FossilFishy | March 29, 2011 8:09 PM

FIW I lived with an ALF terrorist in the 90's. He and his partner in crime broke into a lab on the uni took a bunch of cats, trashed the records and computers and tried to set fire to the place. They then sent a videotape manifesto full of threats to the local media.

The authorities took it very, very seriously. The group that raided our place 8 months later consisted of 6 plainclothes officers. Three from the local cops, two RCMP terrorism officers (self identified as such) and one guy they never introduced whom I suspect was CSIS. It turned out that our phone had been tapped for most of the preceding 8 months as well. I also have reason to suspect that there was a mic in his bedroom for that time but that never came up at the trial. Possibly because it wasn't legal.

I also have reason to believe that they had already searched the house at some point prior. Again it never came up at trial but they never asked anyone who's room was who's and didn't spend very long at all gathering the bits and pieces they took as evidence.

At the time I didn't have much of an opinion about his beliefs. He refused to wear leather, or wool and wouldn't eat honey. It all seemed a bit daft but harmless.

The thing that really made me shake my head wasn't the taking of the cats. I can understand that even if I think it wasn't going to change anything much in the long run. I couldn't get my head around destroying the lab's records. I mean fuck, it doesn't take much to realize that all that will mean is the lab will have to do all the experiments again. And they'll probably have an easy time getting funding to do so considering the sympathy they'll get as victims of terrorism.

It seems typical of these folks, and it certainly was so with my room mate, that they focus so tightly on their cause that they can't even envision obvious negative consequences of their actions. It almost seems like some sort of cognitive disorder where the one thing becomes so all consuming that everything beyond that is unreal to them. That would seem to include the suffering of the innocent loved ones of those they consider fair game for murder to name just one.

I wonder if we put these extremists under an FMRI and asked them about their obsession we'd see the same brain structures light up as those in fanatic collectors and hoarders? If so, perhaps we could reduce the incidence of fanatic terrorism by making collecting things a part of the curriculum. Thus diverting a few of these folks into an obsession that is as minimally harmful as possible.

Posted by: See Nick Overlook | March 29, 2011 8:12 PM

John Morales, thanks for the link. Now in the second paragraph, "The book highlights findings that support the capacity of great apes to possess rationality and self-consciousness, and the ability to be aware of themselves as distinct entities with a past and future. Documented conversations (in sign languages) with individual great apes are the basis for these findings..." Enough capacity to possess rationality and self-consciousness to place them a par with someone we wouldn't subject to experimentation, say a developmentally delayed human?

Posted by: Dianne | March 29, 2011 8:14 PM

Any idea how many BILLIONS would be saved if they had an alternative, any alternative, to animal trials?

So...what alternative are you suggesting? If the alternatives are so wonderful then why aren't profit driven entities and notoriously cheap with the research dollars universities using them? Why isn't the chronically bankrupt due to underfunding NIH INSISTING that these alternatives be used?

Posted by: John Morales | March 29, 2011 8:15 PM

LisaG:

You're so busy trying to bury and spin that, that you can't even think staright.

You're so busy railing you can't even spell correctly.

A homerun for ignoring the scholarly information at altTox.com!

You're ignoring that it doesn't support your advocacy of terrorisation towards researchers and students and their families.

Resistance to oppressors can take many forms.

But you are advocating oppression, O hypocrite!

Posted by: whitebird | March 29, 2011 8:15 PM

Well, you guys, I'm just glad that the Person of Porcine Persuasion who would have otherwise been kidnapped, tortured for pleasure, and had her heart ruthlessly ripped out (for the selfish pleasure of my own grandmother living a mere 25 years longer) by vivisectors, instead is still living with her husband in a beautiful condo in South Beach.

Her grandpiglets are doing well, I hear (she sometimes sends me postcards). Apparently Richard got into Brown last fall, which really cheered up his mother, Susan, who was feeling stressed out by her divorce to Richard's father (he cheated on her with his younger secretary. He always did have a thing for Poland Chinas).

Oh, wait, that's not how it happened.

Posted by: pelamun | March 29, 2011 8:18 PM

Lynna, if my google-foo is not failing me I think LisaG might already be in some kind of fundie anti-Islamic organisation. The news article I posted upthread does not really mention why she was arrested for trespassing onto the property of some kind of Islamic Outreach Center. Perhaps LisaG might enlighten us on that if that's not too much of a bother?

Posted by: Timaahy | March 29, 2011 8:20 PM

Brownian:

Considering animal trials "don't work", you'd think that the Big Pharma who are only interested in $$$$$$$ would stop flushing their bucks down the proverbial toilet.

Aggggggh! The logic! It burns!!

Posted by: Amphiox, OM | March 29, 2011 8:21 PM

But speaking of human experimentation, the are a lot of humans from whom we could not get informed consent either, so the ethical default position is that we don't use them. But with non-human species, the ethical default position is that consent doesn't matter because they can't give informed consent. And I was wondering if that applied to all species, including our fellow great apes. Are all the primatologists just anthropomorphizing?

If a single individual of another species is shown to be capable of providing informed consent, then I would say that is enough for the whole species to be included on "our" side of that line, even if there are other individuals in this species that cannot. (Because it may be in fact quite likely that we might find some species for which a minority of the most intelligent individuals would be capable of this, but the majority of normal healthy individuals might just fail to make it across that "Rubicon" of sophistication).

However, I would point out that this particular argument is in most senses, moot. Medical experimentation on great apes is already so rare (and the rate of it dropping so fast going forward), and the institutional and ethical barriers/hoops that must be jumped through to even contemplate designing such studies so onerous, that for all intents and purposes, medical experimentation on great apes barely exists in any meaningful sense right now, and will probably vanish entirely within a decade or so.

Indeed, the reverse situation, in which medical knowledge obtained through trails on humans is applied to the veterinary care of great apes, is already far, far more common.

Other animals that might one day (relatively soon) be placed across that line would include, in my opinion, dolphins, elephants, and some birds (like corvids). But I've never heard of anyone talking about medical research for humans being conducted on any of these.

Posted by: llewelly | March 29, 2011 8:22 PM

I urge everyone to go to their website and read the section labeled "Our First Success", and see these terrorists gloat about harassing a student until she gives a false confession:

Our First Success

We recently met an aspiring vivisector named Alena Rodriguez who exposed, perhaps, the greatest industry vulnerability we’ve yet to isolate — students.

On the afternoon of March 22, 2011, Alena wrote privately:

“Actually, I’m an undergrad researcher aiming to work at Scripps! I currently test on animals and think that it is perfectly fine.”

In the early hours of March 23, 2011, Alena wrote privately:

“I’m sorry! You all are right! : ( please stop saying such horrible, untrue things about me. It’s hurtful. I’ve done nothing but fruit fly research. I’m crying because of this… I’m sorry….”

And, after a long night of educational outreach, on the morning of March 23, 2011, Alena made a public statement:

“This is my public announcement denouncing animal testing and my involvement in it. I haven’t really even started any animal research and after reading all of the information and watching the videos you have all sent me, I have had my eyes opened. I was truly unaware of these horrible things going on to animals behind closed doors. I love animals with all my heart and I would never do anything to harm them. I apologize for my original message to Ghazal, and I’m sincerely apologetic. Please accept my apology and I wish you all luck in your crusade against Scripps. I will be looking for other career choices. Thank you.”

.

Posted by: whitebird | March 29, 2011 8:25 PM

If the alternatives are so wonderful then why aren't profit driven entities and notoriously cheap with the research dollars universities using them? Why isn't the chronically bankrupt due to underfunding NIH INSISTING that these alternatives be used?

Duh, Dianne, which part of vivisectors are part of a sadistic fetish cabal known as Big Pharma do you not understand?

(I think I'm starting to get it)

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | March 29, 2011 8:26 PM

Aggggggh! The logic! It burns!!

Yeah, I've been told I'm no good at logic. My mom is very disappointed.

I urge everyone to go to their website and read the section labeled "Our First Success", and see these terrorists gloat about harassing a student until she gives a false confession.

I kind of wish I was a student now. Anyone wanna go undercover with me and teach a few terrorists the limitations of natural medicine?

Posted by: raven | March 29, 2011 8:27 PM

Some commenters noted that Lisa's naiveté is heartbreaking. She does seem like the one that will be sent out to place the bombs. Raven and Jules think she might be better off in one of the more common fundie religious cults.

Yes, probably. The really naive and young ones are the patsies. They will likely wind Lisa up and point her at a target. Unless she is capable of thinking things through and saying NO. And if she gets caught, no big loss. She can spend a few years in prison and be a martyr.

A lot of religions and religious based terrorist organizations do this. The suicide bombers of Al Qaeda are mostly teenagers and young adults stuck in a culture of hopelessness manufactured by the very religion they think they are defending.

The young Earth Liberation guy I mentioned upthread was destined to be a patsy. He was too wild eyed and irrational to be trusted with any real information or organizational secrets. His role was to be an expendable foot soldier for the cause, all he was capable of.

Terrorists are always looking for cannon fodder.

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | March 29, 2011 8:30 PM

Cancer can easilly be cured with certain Natural Foods

The capital letters make it More True.

Posted by: Blattafrax | March 29, 2011 8:30 PM

Since LisaG is so caught up on AltTox.org and seems to think us evil scientists have no interest in alternatives to the messy business of in vivo work, I thought I would point out the sponsors of this effort.

The development of AltTox was supported through a collaboration of the Procter & Gamble Company (P&G) and The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)

If you've read this thread from the start, you may recognise the company providing the cash. Comment #74 to be precise. So I'm confused. In LisaG/Foreveruphisownarse-world, are Procter and Gamble pourers of bleach down puppies' throats or crusaders for alternatives to animal testing.

It's an important question. Life or death you could say, considering the behaviour of the AR nutjobs commenting here.

Posted by: raven | March 29, 2011 8:31 PM

Yo Lisa. If anyone tries to get you to participate in vandalism, violence, or anything illegal, JUST SAY NO.

It's counterproductive. It just gets people ticked off, accomplishes nothing much, and gets the cops and FBI woken up. They are very good at tracking down who they want to track down.

You could spend 5 or 10 years in prison like the majority of the Earth Liberation Front are doing right now.

Posted by: Timaahy | March 29, 2011 8:33 PM

Brownian - I hope you know I was joking!

Posted by: Dianne | March 29, 2011 8:38 PM

I was trying to suggest that there are no alternatives available, as, if they existed, they would surely be used.

Sorry, I think I misread your comment. You're quite right: they would be. Actually, they are. Fewer animals are used in research now than in the past because of new techniques that make them unnecessary, at least for some indications. Ironically, these techniques can only be discovered through the use of animal research: hard to prove equivalence without a standard technique arm to compare against.

I'm quite pro-reduction of use of animals in research. Especially cute, furry animals and all that. It's just that I can't think of any way to mimic, for example, the effects of a tumor in a living organism, without a living organism. So far, no one else has either. The NIH funds studies of promising techniques to reduce the need for animal research. So does at least one pharma company. PETA, as far as I know, does not.

Posted by: Rachel Bronwyn | March 29, 2011 8:41 PM

Dogs are only one example. It's absolutely true that some organisms lacking any conciousness respond to sensation.

Posted by: Amphiox, OM | March 29, 2011 8:43 PM

if a chimpanzee could sign "Don't do that" would that constitute informed consent?

Not entirely, though it would be part-way there. Proper informed consent requires the consentee demonstrate the capacity for understanding the relevant risks and benefits of the proposed procedure, once it is explained to them.

(Denial of consent is somewhat different, and actually requires less intellectual capacity to be valid. If a chimpanzee signed "don't do that", to me that would be adequate denial of consent for any activity other than veterinary procedures that are for the chimpanzee's own direct individual benefit).

Posted by: See Nick Overlook | March 29, 2011 8:44 PM

Gotta call it a night and go home and look up "orthogonal". By the way, nothing I have said in arguing with John Morales and amphiox should be taken as an endorsement of fanatical loonies with explosive devices. Good night.

Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac) | March 29, 2011 8:53 PM

They spell the student's name as both "Alena" and "Elena".

Which suggests that the 'student' would be better known as "No Such Person". Propaganda....

Posted by: FossilFishy | March 29, 2011 8:55 PM

Dianna: ALF does go after meatpacking and the like. My room mate's (see #535) partner in crime's first action was to torch a couple of trucks used to supply a local seafood company. They seem to focus more on researchers though because it gets more press and more sympathy from the general public.

Raven #563

Yo Lisa. If anyone tries to get you to participate in vandalism, violence, or anything illegal, JUST SAY NO.

Seconded. You should also keep in mind that once you're proven to be part of the radical violent fringe the less radical groups, ones where a living might actually be made being a part of them, won't touch you with a ten foot pole. The choice on leaving prison is to go back to the violent fringe or give up being a part of the movement.

Posted by: Amphiox, OM | March 29, 2011 8:58 PM

The greater difficulty of releasing a herd of cattle into the wild as compared to a few mice?

Do they actually do that? Do they not realize that releasing an inbred, albino-white, half-blind laboratory mouse is tantamount to condemning it to a swift and gruesome death? (At least in the lab they get a few weeks of guaranteed food, water, warmth, and shelter, and anesthetic (or a swift and painless decapitation) at the time of death)

Or is their magnanimity to animals really about giving the nearest snake, cat, hawk, raccoon, fox or wild rat, a free lunch?

Posted by: Menyambal: Making sambal (it isn't dragon magic). | March 29, 2011 9:09 PM

This somehow reminds me of the test I saw of a humane mousetrap. There was a little box that the mouse could be transported in, out to the countryside, then left to chew his way out through a saltine cracker to glorious freedom. The mouse wiggled out above the saltine, no chewing needed, nosed around a few seconds, then wiggled back over the saltine to the safety of the box.

Posted by: Rorschach | March 29, 2011 9:12 PM

I'm staying out of this discussion, because the stupid is way too strong in some here. But that LisaG is one scary individual, I see a bright terrorist future ahead for her, just the right amount of stupidity and credulity.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | March 29, 2011 9:23 PM

nomen-nescio:

which of them gets the O2 mask, and why?

That's easy: the puppy. It's the smallest of the three, and easier to carry, though the mask won't fit exactly.

Plus, the adult was a disappointment as a human (aren't they all?) and the baby would most likely grow up into a disappointment of a human. The puppy, on the other hand, will only bring love and joy to the world.

I mean, puppy!

Gimme something harder.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | March 29, 2011 9:36 PM

But that LisaG is one scary individual, I see a bright terrorist future ahead for her, just the right amount of stupidity and credulity.

I know you killfile me Rorshatch but I wanted to congratulate you on finding the only possible way one could honestly use Lisa and the word 'bright' in a sentence

Posted by: serinxooiid | March 29, 2011 9:37 PM

Also, a direction to LisaG: From the Wikipedia Page for 'Car Bomb':

It is commonly used as a weapon of assassination, terrorism, or guerrilla warfare, to kill the occupants of the vehicle, people near the blast site, or to damage buildings or other property.

A bomb is a weapon. It's not a demo tool, and it's not a show of power. It's a weapon. It's purpose is to kill or destroy. To say that it isn't is either woefully ignorant or hatefully deceptive.

Even the origins of the 'Car Bomb' as was used by the IRA and various Mob Families, where the detonator was the ignition system. Tell me, how can a car bomb not kill someone when someone is required to start the car?

Also, I find it perfectly acceptable to call you a terrorist. It fits the Webster Definition, it reflects your goals, and your methods are similar to other 'terrorist' organizations.

Worse, you're not even a 'freedom fighter' terrorist. You're someone who wants to do harm solely on your belief that testing is wrong. Regardless of what the outcome to that testing is, or the status of the test subject, alive or dead. So, yeah, idealistic terror. Bad Lisa.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 29, 2011 9:42 PM

I think our trolls were from Europe, and are now in their beds. Oh well, makes for an early night...

Posted by: Chaos Cryptic | March 29, 2011 9:50 PM

Like some of the other sane people here, I hypothesize that these people don't have an irrational, overly strong sense of empathy with animals. Rather, they lack empathy entirely; their assignment of equal emotional weight to the experiences of non-human animals and humans comes not from raising the emotional value of non-human animals from our perceived norm but from lowering that of humans. That's why they can't regard their opponents as equals, can't conceive of scientists having emotions and making hard decisions. Their attempts to appeal with emotional language ("innocent animals" "no feelings towards these poor animals") are nothing more than fucking duckspeak. They know what normal humans are supposed to sound like and they try to mimic it and they fail.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | March 29, 2011 9:57 PM

Horace you're an idiot and don't get to tell us what to do.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 29, 2011 9:58 PM

and it would be more interesting to draw her out.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | March 29, 2011 9:59 PM

It's not like there's a whole bunch of these people (never mind just two) who are so totally disconnected with reality...

WARNING: SHARP LEARNING CURVE AHEAD

Posted by: rather be fishing | March 29, 2011 10:01 PM

LisaG has all the signs of being a well-indoctrinated activist. Her posts sound almost like the tapes the suicide bombers make just before the step onto a transit bus.

Posted by: Circles of the \brood | March 29, 2011 10:05 PM

Sharp learning curve huh? Waiting for it. You seem like one of my teenagers who have a know it all problem. It's ok though. I'm happy to help.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | March 29, 2011 10:09 PM

@ Circles

Hey fuck wit. There were even with babble and Lisa being the same two other morons who share their level of disconnect.

So fuck you and your arrogant 'oh you sound like a teenager'

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | March 29, 2011 10:20 PM

@ TIs

but how many creotards promote openly terrorizing sane people? These morons are sub creotards

Again, is it just me or did LisaG threaten Sailor there?

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | March 29, 2011 10:24 PM

Seeing as though I've got no lab animals to torture, I think I'm going to punch my kitties and go to bed.

Damn this insatiable blood lust.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | March 29, 2011 10:28 PM

@Circles

See you on the other end of the curve, jackass

Posted by: Orac | March 29, 2011 10:31 PM

Inconvenient truth being what it is for you, I didn't make that claim about the FDA. I said - which they DID say - that they admitted that oodles of stage 3 trials deemed safe and effective by animal testing will still fail.

First off, such trials are not called "stage 3" clinical trials. They are called phase III clinical trials. There are four main types of human trials: Phase 1, 2, and 3, and then post-marketing trials. Phase 1 clinical trials represent "first in human" testing of new drugs for toxicity. Phase 2 trials represent smaller pilot studies for efficacy. Phase 3 trials are the large randomized, double-blind clinical trials used to determine efficacy.

Definitions aside, note that before drugs are approved they have to go through phase 1 and phase 2 trials before they make it to phase 3. Animal studies only have relevance for determining which drugs make it to phase 1 trials. Finally, that you apparently don't even know the proper terminology does not give me confidence in anything else you say.

Posted by: ursulamajor | March 29, 2011 10:38 PM

@ginckgo

Having lost my husband, mother and both my in-law parents to debilitating disease, I am sorry for what you and yours are going through. I appreciate your insight.

I used to weep and wail when it was necessary to have a pet put to sleep. Since my husband was disconnected from life support and died 10 years ago, I've had to do have 2 cats put to sleep. I'm sad, I cry, but in the end, it's just a damn cat!

Posted by: JacobCH | March 29, 2011 10:46 PM

Every time I think I've caught up with this thread I refresh and there are a hundred more replies.

Notwithstanding her views on the organization's terrorism or her threats--which are unconscionable, had LisaG answered a single question submitted to her? Every post seemed to be a non sequitur divorced entirely from the discussion.