Edyth London targeted again by animal rights terrorists

Nick Anthis has an interesting take on this issue
http://scienceblogs.com/scientificactivist/2008/02/oxonians_march_in_su…

I live in the UK and am disgusted that the tactics of our animal rights terrorists are now being used within the US.

All I can say is that the only way to combat these people is to invoke the full force of the law and treat these people like the terrorist scum they are. You also need to be very active in getting out the message that everyone will either had their life saved by medical treatments that came out of research involving animals, or will know someone who has.

Why the absurd obsession with the (strictly ethically controlled!) scientific use of animals as opposed to the far more widespread (and ethically uncontrolled) use in farming? These people are ridiculous hypocrites.

Ecosystems are falling to pieces and the best thing these people can do to protect the animal kingdom is attack scientists? They are the worst criminals -because- they should know better.

Mark,

I don't know...I think that ALL of the threats you listed are the "worst" threats.

The "animal liberationists" are more violent, but the religionists are better-funded, and have more political power.

Take away that funding and political power, and they would be just as violent....maybe more so.

But WRT the "animal liberationists"...I think it's clear from their increasing violence and stridancy (as well as their tactic of taking on small, isolated and poorly protected targets as opposed to huge agricultural concerns) shows that they are a marginal and powerless group whose lack of numbers and resources confine them to this sort of action...

More dangerous to individuals, but less dangerous to a whole system...and easier to pick off one-by-one if hunted down and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Which would be eaiser if there wasn't such a pernicious anti-science attitude being promoted by religious nuts and other cranks spreading this attitude that scientists are the enemy of morals.

The Los Angeles Times had a good story over the weekend, revealing that Philip Morris is funding London's work. We know cigarettes and drugs are addictive. Monkeys shouldn't be tortured and murdered because some people are stupid enough to begin taking these things.

And do you really believe that Philip Morris is funding this research for an altruistic purpose? Please. They only care about profits.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-me-tobacco9feb09,1,73…

I'd like to point out that the Animal Crackers article you link to ohas a link to the Center for Consumer Freedom.

You might want to check into the CfCF as a Denialist organisation.

I've had a number of commenters refer me to this organization.

For instance, the site currently has an op/ed with this teaser line:

"Preserve right to eat without guilt: Don't post calories of fast-food dishes"

Not surprising that they are heavily funded by elements of the fast-food industry.

To be sure, they are enemies of PETA and ELF, etc...but the enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend.

Tracy,

While funding by Phillip-Morris would certainly make me turn a jaundiced eye toward the out-put of a scientist, and question their studies if they somehow managed to show that cigaretts were not harmful...

...in the end, it really doesn't justify, in my mind, setting fire to their house.

From the LATimes article mentioned above:

"It is absolutely outrageous to see this kind of funding and this type of research within the UC system," said Yee, a psychologist. "The fact that a piece of research is funded by the tobacco industry, and their singular issue is how to sell cigarettes, taints the results of whatever the findings might be."

An indication that this particular politician has absolutely no idea how science works. Results can only be "tainted" if the peer-review process and attempts to reproduce the results by other scientists are bypassed. Does London make it a habit of not publishing her results in peer reviewed journals?

Also, there is no justification for killing scientists at all. None. If you are really concerned about how animals are treated in these labs, put the work and the time in and find a way for researchers to do it differently.

As Edythe herself pointed out a major problem for researchers working on addiction is the lack of funding available, mainly due to moralistic attitudes from both right and left (depending on the drug involved), so researchers are tempted to go for funding from tobacco companies and others on the supply side. As has been pointed out there's no indication that her research has been in any way affected by the source of the funding, though it's obviously been a gift to the AR extremists targeting her.

There's certainly no doubt in my mind that there is a need for more research into treating addiction, the war on drugs as it's currently being waged has been a failure. Perhaps the answer is for more charity involvement, or maybe under a Democrat president more NIH funding will be directed to this area of research, then at least the AR nuts would be denied the fig leaf of legitimacy they're getting from highlighting Phillip-Morris's funding of Prof. London's work.

I agree with Teresa that CfCF is a rather dubious organization, and some of its campaigns have a distinctly denialist smell to them. They can be a useful source of information, but I'd wear asbestos gloves when handling anything they produce.

When I was being treated for breast cancer, I told my children that I was alive because of animal testing and we would thank the animals that were sacrificed. My daughters are both vegetarians and buy cruelty free cosmetics but they respect the need for animal research.

Firstly, I think it is blind dogma that is the "real threat" - now, with that out of the way ...

I think most people are simply unaware of all the things surrounding animal study. I think that they get images of extreme neglect and cruelty when they think of lab animals. Cramped conditions, poor eating, lack of other stimuli, socializing, etc. If that were all true about animal testing, I would understand their complaints. But that's usually not the reality. Lab animals are usually treated quite well because neglected animals can change the result of any experiments that are done. That being the case, lab animals are generally in better health than wild animals (aside from whatever effects the experiment has - which isn't always fatal or severe).

Furthermore, being domesticated means that liberating the animal puts it at greater risk to be killed in the wild than their already wild counterparts. They haven't had the chance to develop the skills to survive in the wild.

I think if people took the time to learn more about what they were really protesting, we wouldn't see this kind of thing nearly as much.

On a side note: There has been some indication lately that people who are highly religious have differences in their brain when compared to the non-religious. I wonder how the brains of those who do these things compare as well.

The Los Angeles Times had a good story over the weekend, revealing that Philip Morris is funding London's work.

Poison the well much, Tracy? Look it up, that's a logical fallacy.

If London's work is shown to be questionable, then Philip Morris's funding is an explanation of that fact. But it's not evidence.

Matt Penfold said:

I live in the UK and am disgusted that the tactics of our animal rights terrorists are now being used within the US.

Seconded absolutely - apologies USA (please don't send us your creationists in exchange!).

Brian O'Connor kept the blog Animal Crackers (http://brianoconnor.typepad.com/animal_crackers/), tracking the animal-rights craziness, for quite a while. Here is an index post

I put together a short, annotated list of the posts which I believe (or at least hope) will be of value to those wanting to know things the AR people don't want them to know.

If your appetite is whetted and you want to learn more, I encourage you to visit any of the posts I've listed below, and/or to use the Google search function in the left column.

@Lindata:
I feel the same way your daughters do.

I'm a vegetarian, and I am appalled that radical groups like PETA do things like this. They are never going to convince anybody of anything they say that could be even moderately sensible- and I don't think that's the point. I honestly have no clue what they are actually trying to ultimately do.

Whatever reasons PETA has to devote so much time to animal research are probably superficial. Far, far more animals suffer in factory farms than in laboratories. My opinion is that it probably has to do with PR: Americans are more distrustful of science & scientists than they were a generation ago. This creates fertile ground for denialist and other extreme groups to emerge and hijack debate.

I just hope that someday, I won't have to lie about the fact that I am a vegetarian, so people won't think I'm a PETA nutcase. And that is truly saddening- because I want to have a rational discussion. But I think this blog is taking a step in that direction.

Would it be rude to protest the animal liberationists by simply sending them roadkilled creatures via UPS?

Would it be rude to protest the animal liberationists by simply pointing out to them that they are animals too (in addition to the human animals whose lives are saved by animal research?)

:-)

Teresa, it's pointless to try to point out anything to the animal liberationists. What the scientific community can do is show more support for the victims of AR extremism, that's what Pro-Test did in Oxford. Granted it was only one part of the anti-extremist effort but it certainly had an effect.

http://www.pro-test.org.uk/

Paul,

"Teresa, it's pointless to try to point out anything to the animal liberationists."

I know, I was just being flip.

in addition to the human animals whose lives are saved by animal research?

Or you could point out that animal research saves animals, too.

Sorry Teresa, I forgot to put a smiley at the end of that last statement...hope I didn't seem rude.

I guess my view is that there's little point in trying to win over the animal liberationists, so in debates with them it's better to think about how what you're saying will appear to somebody who hasn't made up their mind yet.

I appreciate the link to my post Vlasak Openly Advocates Assassination, though I notice the link to the video of Vlasak had expired. I have updated the link, and it is now active. I apologize for the inconvenience.

I continue to believe that the way to defeat the Animal Rights movement is to attack its ideology.

If you understand what AR (as opposed to Animal Welfare is), where it's "anti-speciesism" ideology logically leads, and the enormous violations of AR dogma called for by AR luminaries, you are well equipped to reveal AR for the ugly, dangerous and destructive fantasy it is.

Paul wrote:

Teresa, it's pointless to try to point out anything to the animal liberationists. What the scientific community can do is show more support for the victims of AR extremism, that's what Pro-Test did in Oxford. Granted it was only one part of the anti-extremist effort but it certainly had an effect.

That's true as far as it goes. But that's a game that only deals with individual incidents, rather than patterns derived directly from the AR ideology. It's much easier for an AR defender to simply say: "We don't condone the actions of XXX . . ." and then to turn it AR advantage by continuing " . . . but we certainly understand the anti-cruelty motive which animated his actions. etc. etc. etc."

The best approach is to attack the ideology, thereby separating the AR movement from its largest base of support, viz, a public that doesn't understand the difference between Animal Rights and Animal Welfare.

The AR people have deliberately conflated the two (AR and AW), and a naive public is ill equipped to understand what they are really supporting when they give big bucks to AR organizations.

Educate the public . . . just keep hammering.

Absolutely true Brian, and certainly where Pro-Test is concerned it has always been about far more than merely facing down extremists. Public education is a vital part of the equation, and something Pro-Test have in their own small way tried to improve.

Actually in this respect Pro-Test's greatest success was not anything it itself has published, but rather the large number of articles that appeared in the British press in the immediate aftermath of the first Pro-Test rally in February 2006. Some of these were written by science journalists, some by editors, some by social commentators and several by scientists. Overall they did much to raise awareness of what animal research actually involves, and why it is ethically justified.

This is something to remember, small campaigns against extremism can provide the catalyst for much wider, more informed discussion of these issues.

I am a vegetarian and love animals, and I'm glad my research only involves killing drosophila because I think I would have a hard time working with rats. But I would do it because animal research has been the precursor to every medication I have ever taken, saving my life and probably every one I know in one way or another. I can't imagine advocating living in a world with smallpox & polio, without insulin or antibiotics or kidney transplants or anesthetics, etc. Like some of the comments above suggested, focus on factory farming (but without the arson).

I'd also like to point out that animal research has saved non-human animals...witness all of the medications and procedures available for pets, domesctice animals, and wild animals (expecially of endangered speciaes)in need of rehabilitation.

Couldn't do it without animal testing.

Thanks for the post Mark. Violence and threats are the most sickening aspect of the animal rights movement.

Brian, may I take this opportunity to say thank you for your great work in helping to expose the misanthropic psycho-pathology underlying AR ideology.

Whilst I agree that the dark nature of AR ideology has to be publicly exposed, and our outrage over violence and intimidation given vocal expression, a huge amount of education needs to be done to address the concerns of honest decent folk who know little or nothing about science, but care very much about animal welfare. Amongst them will be some who care little about science and others who are ambivalent or hostile towards it.

Assurances from scientists are not going to play too strongly amongst this group of people. We need to be constantly challenging the constant stream of misinformation, disinformation and lies put out by poorly camouflaged antiviv organisations like AFMA, PCRM, Dr. Hadwen Trust and the various openly declared AV and AR organisations like PeTA.

The violent actions of a small number of pathologically misguided individuals will grab the headlines, but the decent people I have mentioned above will not associate themselves with the perpetrators of those actions. They will feel as much repugnance for such acts as we do.

What they may be affected by, is the constant drip-drip saturation of the public consciousness with nonsensical, antivivisection, non-science. All those involved in the biological sciences need to publicly mark-up this kind of clap-trap, whenever they come across it; it's just as important, if not more so, as in the case of intelligent design.

The animal rights people argue that whatever progress has been made using animals could have been much more quickly and cheaply realized if we'd used alternative techniques, like computer modeling. Plus, they argue, animals are so different from humans that they aren't necessary, are misleading and actually hinder progress towards identifying effective treatments.

If you're interested in how I approached answering these points, you might like to read my post Reply to Peter Tatchell's: "Why Animal Research is Bad Science".

Teresa, it's fair of you to flag the Center for Consumer Freedom, but I would also point out that the reply of Davis to Tracy, with respect to Phillip Morris funded research, also holds good for CfCF.

Your reply to Peter Tatchell is an example for us Brian. He represents just the kind of decent, concerned person I was referring to.

He also is an example of why it is so important to educate the public by challenging AR/AV nonsense whenever we come across it. Peter has totally bought into the AR/AV package deal.
http://www.petertatchell.net/

I forgot to sign that last post:

Your reply to Peter Tatchell is an example for us Brian. He represents just the kind of decent, concerned person I was referring to.

He also is an example of why it is so important to educate the public by challenging AR/AV nonsense whenever we come across it. Peter has totally bought into the AR/AV package deal.
http://www.petertatchell.net/

Thanks for the kind words, Leigh.

Animal Rights people are very adept at putting us on the defensive by making their outrageous accusations. And while we can defend ourselves, we won't win this test by playing defense -- we'll lose incrementally.

So I'm a strong advocate of going on the attack.

But to do this, you have to understand how AR differs from AW. This is the key.

In a nutshell, the AR people believe that discriminating on the basis of species differences ("speciesism") is every bit as immoral as discriminating on the basis of differences in race, gender or age. (If it's immoral or unethical to do something to a human, it's no less so to do it to an animal.) In other words, animals have a right to the same moral consideration western civilization has conferred on humans.

That is fundamentally different from AW, which holds that animals and humans are not of equal moral value.

Once you understand this, the AR people can be forced to defend the indefensible.

So -- if humans and animals are of equal moral value, how do AR folks justify spaying and neutering domestic animals, unless they would justify spaying and neutering humans, for the same reasons.

And -- how can PeTA justify killing over 80% of the animals they take in to their shelter, if they wouldn't justify killing humans for exactly the same reasons?

When faced with these questions, the AR folks retreat to an AW defense, which is speciesist, the antithesis of AR ideology.

They'll argue: "Spaying and neutering is necessary because of animal overpopulation!", which is an AW argument, because it subordinates the rights of animals to human whim.

Or: "We kill them because they have been damaged and are un-adoptable and too expensive to keep!", which is likewise an AW argument -- unless you'd do it to humans who are expensive to maintain. (Parenthetically, one would think that "damaged" animals would be especially deserving of AR compassion, rather than death, all the more so if the "damage" was inflicted by humans.)

You won't change the true believers, but you will, in a public forum, reveal them for what they are, and force the disinterested third party to decide how much he wants to support AR groups.

Oooops -- I too forgot to sign my post.

Sorry

"Once you understand this, the AR people can be forced to defend the indefensible."

It was Animal Crackers which first switched the light on for me. That insane equation - most graphically and unequivocally expressed by Ingrid Newkirk - is the alpha and omega of AR ideology.

"Don't you know what they do to those animals?

No, but whatever it is it's delicious"

- Jim Gaffigan, Beyond the Pale

Violence against people or property, when there is no immediate threat to life and limb, is inexcusable. Individuals who seek to frighten scientists and alter policy share the same level of action as Islamic extremists who threatened to kill Salman Rushdie.

Having lived in Norfolk, Virginia, the heart of the PETA (and some say ALF) operation - I observed a strong narcissistic quality about the adherents to these skewed philosophies.

Mark H,
You claim that "groups" want vivisectors "dead". Who else besides Jerry Vlasak has ever said that? I would really like to know. One person makes a statement like that and you all think everyone thinks that way. Personally, I think Vlasak's comment has caused repression for demonstrators. I also suspect that Vlasak is working for the government along with his wife. Vlasak defends an informent who had film evidence edited. The person who "filmed" was involved in a lawsuit I represented myself in when I was injured at a UCLA demonstration. We are all individuals folks. Many of us are opposed to vivisection both for humans and animals because we realize that since animals and humans ARE different species the results are dangerous, misleading and a waste of time and money. That's why UCLA has not debated vivisection in 20 years.

Corinne Titus
Antivivisection Activist (not affiliated with any group)

Is there anyone in this antivivisection movement willing to help me move forward with the truth before the government silences me? CoryCatLady@aol.com
Just look up the camera man's background and you will see that his previous name does not match his new name, the birth dates. Vijay.
You think activists are violent? They edited the film by an informent and the whole movement looks the other way while an informent had a film edited. I could of hired any personal injury lawyer. I had to represent myself. If anything happens to me please also check out the guy on the plane next to me on my way home from Detroit (Dec. 2007), the white guy. He was trying to get me to go to his place in Texas for "no reason". He knew what I said on a phone that has a tap. I knew I would not be coming out of Texas again, fools.
You are scared of activists? You ought to be afraid of a public univeristy that refuses to debate what they claim is helping human beings funded with our tax money for 20 years now.
Yeah, my arm hurts everyday. My pocket book, peace of mind & future hurts but I will never stop loving America because I believe in freedom of speech, including debates. Any incidentally, I DID offer to drop my lawsuit if UCLA would just debate vivisection and they would not. So I took them to trial all alone.

America? Why won't they debate vivisection? They claim it helps human beings. We are a different species. Wake up.

Many of us are opposed to vivisection both for humans and animals because we realize that since animals and humans ARE different species the results are dangerous, misleading and a waste of time and money. That's why UCLA has not debated vivisection in 20 years.

I think this is a great example of what I'm talking about when I describe ARAs as denialists. This is a statement as extreme in ignorance as one would expect from a evolution denialist. Talk about a fundamental failure to understand the most basic underpinnings of biology, this is ultimately a failure to appreciate the role of evolution in comparative biology. We study different species because despite the differences much of the fundamental biology between organisms is the same.

This is a great example that illuminates the unscientific nature of the ARA attitudes. The paranoia towards the government is also a big red flag, as well as using the rather silly "vivisector" terminology. We're not dealing with rational people who understand science in the ARA movement.

Wow Mark, I am suprised you posted my second post. You have bigger ***** than those vivisectors you call "researchers".

Paranoid? You think questioning authority means being paranoid? A public university funded with tax money refuses to debate animal experimentation for 20 years and you think I am being paranoid?

Yes, I do fear for my life since editing evidence film is a serious crime and I did speak on a phone that is tapped, an activist's. I did say what I would do to myself (only) at UCLA if I am unable to prove the truth about UCLA's cover up.

You see Mark, I really do believe in and respect debating in America. I feel VERY strongly about it. I know that numerous debates over animal experimentation at public universities over years to come will expose the scientific fraud of using animals as a model for the human being. Facts will surface and laws wil change which will lead to abolishment. Killing vivisectors will only cause an increase in their salary and they will be replaced.

Give me a debate or give me death.
Remember Patrick Henry? "Give me liberty or give me death."

Now I would only do that at UCLA in a few years after I have fully exhausted any possiblity of exposing UCLA's cover up. I would never take anyone with me because that's not the message that I would ever want to leave.

Paranoid? Tell that to Vijay and ask him why his birth dates don't match. Tell him my arm hurts like hell and that all he has to do is tell me his REAL name.

Ask him why he answered with "4 minutes" when I asked him how long we were in the buidling for. Why did he time out the inside film footage? Why did he do that? So I could not point out to the jury that there was more time included inside the building which was the time of the FIRST shove into a wall which caused nerve and tissue damage in my left arm. Also, any site of the first guy was removed.

All I was doing was asking why UCLA won't debate animal experimentation. You think they are going to get away with their cover up? Over my dead body.

Give me a debate or give me death.
Remember Patrick Henry? "Give me liberty or give me death."

We don't debate with denialists.

All I was doing was asking why UCLA won't debate animal experimentation. You think they are going to get away with their cover up? Over my dead body.

Contrast with:

You claim that "groups" want vivisectors "dead". Who else besides Jerry Vlasak has ever said that? I would really like to know. One person makes a statement like that and you all think everyone thinks that way. Personally, I think Vlasak's comment has caused repression for demonstrators.

Hmmm. And all one has to do is read the ALF's threats against researchers to see that it's more than just Vlasak. All one has to do is listen to your paranoid ranting and we see it's just a matter of time before you let it slip that you advocate violence and don't understand research.

I think we're done here. Get back on your meds.

Mark,
How truely sad it is that you would advise an American citizen PROUD of the quest and dream of a public university to debate "research" for the sake of what is best for human health should reach for meds and shut up.

Corinne :(

"We don't debate with denialists." ` Mark

There are thousands of doctors opposed to animal experimentation. They are opposed to it. Call them denialists or what ever you choose, they are MDs that believe using an animal as a model for the human being is a HUGE mistake.

Face it. You all are cowards when it comes to debating what you take millions of dollars for and CLAIM is helping human beings.

Who can respect that?

Ah, the cries of a crank, I'm sobbing for you guys.

We have no problem with debates that are honest and meaningful, but debates with denialists are pointless. You demonstrated this with your completely inane statement that animals are too different to teach us about human physiology. The ethics of animals research is one thing, and if people honestly disagree about their use I have no problem with that. What I won't accept is the nonsense from cranks and crackpots that biological science and medical research can be performed without animal research, or that animal research isn't exceedingly valuable. It's not the idea of debate that we attack, but debating people who are cranks and denialists who have nothing honest or valuable to contribute. Because you don't like animal research you are making false and absurd claims about the efficacy of animal research and its utility for the study of biology and physiology. It's dishonest, and stupid, and there is no point arguing about it until ARAs accept the fundamental fact that without animal research advances in biology and medicine would come to a screeching halt. If you want to argue against their use in the face of that fact, that's fine and good and I'm happy for you, but realize that is the starting point of an honest debate. Because no one would accept the loss of human knowledge that entails, you refuse to acknowledge this fact, and instead insist on an absurd and false debate about the utility of animals. I'm having none of it.

Tell me something, how many of the last 10 nobel prizes in physiology/medicine required animals? 9/10, the exception being the award to the guys who figured out MRI (although that was undoubtedly tested on animals before being widely applied to humans, animals were not critical for its discovery).

You people start from a false premise, then presume to tell us everything we know about biology is wrong, despite doing no biology yourselves. Why exactly should we debate with you? You're crackpots, it's a waste of time.

The fact is... UCLA has not debated animal experimentation for 20 years. I am not asking you to debate Mark, how about the Chancellor of UCLA? He likes to conduct experiments on animals himself, Chancellor Block. Does he have the guts to debate an MD opposed to vivisection/animal experimentaion? Hell no.

This whole thing with Edyth London and Philip Morris cigerette company conducting tests on teenagers and monkeys is insane. Why don't they spend time and money on convincing these 14 year old kids NOT to smoke instead of using their brains in tests? This all seems illegal and unethical.

You keep debating me because you know what I am writing is true. People that torture animals hide from the public when it comes to having to prove anything. Will they let the public see what they do in labs? Hell no. Will they debate animal experimenation? Hell no. Will they disclose records? Hell no. Is that legal? Hell no.

It's becoming more and more secret. That's why the movement is moving more underground regardless of how anyone feels about it.

You really think it's science? Then help open up the lab doors if you are so proud of what they do. Let the public see what they do to those animals. It's fucking insane.

Yeah, it can make a person become a crack pot, that's for sure. ha, ha , ha....

It's been nice writing you Mark. Im signing off now.

Since you feel so strongly about using animals for what you consider research for human beings, why not educate the public about it? Why don't you get on the phone and talk to the folks at UCLA. Ask your pal Edyth if she will debate what she is doing. That would be interesting, don't you think? The public deserves to see what she is up to with those children and monkeys.

How about it Edyth? Ready to debate an MD opposed to what you are doing? How about you Chancellor Block? You are perfect for a vivisection debate! You have a solid background in it. Come on, who is it going to be? Wait a minute I am going to flip a coin. Heads goes to Block tails to London. It's heads. It was a silver dollar. I thought it was a quarter and it says, "Liberty" on it. Guess I will live to see a debate. Since the head is of a woman, perhaps both Edyth and Gene will partake in vivisection debates in the future. Maybe sooner than you think if I work my magic. Ya know, my trial was on Halloween, October 31, 2006.
I will be thinking about you all... sweet animal rights dreams and remember... animal experimentation is BOTH an animal rights issue AND a human rights issue.

Corinne Titus
Antivivisection Activist

"Tell me something, how many of the last 10 nobel prizes in physiology/medicine required animals? 9/10, the exception being the award to the guys who figured out MRI (although that was undoubtedly tested on animals before being widely applied to humans, animals were not critical for its discovery)."

Actually it's 10/10. Paul Lauterbur's initial research into the application of NMR/MRI to tissue analysis used animals (rats and at least one clam!), and he later used rats in many studies that refined and extended the uses of MRI.

Corine Titus wrote:

Many of us are opposed to vivisection both for humans and animals because we realize that since animals and humans ARE different species the results are dangerous, misleading and a waste of time and money. That's why UCLA has not debated vivisection in 20 years.

It's always interesting to me when I hear people say that animals are so different from humans that results based on animal studies aren't applicable to humans, because of where the logic takes us: if one really believes this, what is the argument against testing compounds on humans that were rejected because they proved lethal in on animals?

Corine Titus has criticized scientists for not debating animal experimentation with anti-vivisectionists.

I think it's hard to debate matters of faith: you either believe or you do not.

It is not possible to reason a person out of a position they did not reason themselves into.

What facts, what logic, could one offer that would change Pat Robertson's mind about the sinfulness of homosexuality?

And what facts, what logic, could one offer that would change the mind of someone who knows with the same absolute certainty that Pat Robertson feels about homosexuality, that animals are so different from humans that they are unsuitable models for processes that occur in humans?

Corina Titus, animal activist, wants a debate with UCLA scientists between them and anti-vivisectionists.

I'm not from UCLA, but if I were, I'd consider doing so, on two conditions:

1) That her anti-vivisectionist Dr. would either publicly repudiate at the outset the concept of speciesism (the assertion that the life of an animal and that of a human are of equal moral value), or to publicly stipulate, again at the outset, to his/her belief that the life of a human and an animal are of equal moral value.

2) That her anti-vivisectionist Dr. would at the outset publicly deny evolution -- that is, the concept that has as one of its core premises the notion that the similarities between living animal taxa are due to shared common ancestry (that the similarities are not due to "something else"), together with his/her public repudiation, at the outset, of the legitimacy of zoological clades based on that premise.

Brian O' Cunto,
You mispelled my name so many times I figured I would mispell yours. lol.

I think it is odd that you bring up homosexuality here. Bam, like out of no where. It's no sin to be gay, it's a sin to not debate "research" at a PUBLIC univeristy for 20 long years.

You and your conditions. Who gives a fuck? Get UCLA to debate what they cliam is helping to cure human diseases (with a loser record of 20 years of NO debates) or get the fuck out of here.

I am sick of this bull shit of not debating. And no, I don't want to debate. I want an MD to debate, not some twisted person for vivisection either. I offered to drop a lawsuit and UCLA would still not debate. It's insane. I just want to puke. Barf....

That was me that wrote that, Corinne Titus. You people that HATE animal rights people have no idea how much people in this world love animals. I find it really sad that you never experience the communication, love and friendship of animals on the level of fulling respecting them and ackwoledging thier existence.

YOU COULD NEVER BE FRIENDS WIH AN ALIEN FROM OUTER SPACE.

YOU ARE TOO FULL OF HATE. You discrimate and hate. Yeah, I guess you could call me an animal rights person because I am a veagan and think animals don't OWE you jack shit nor do children, women or any man to anyone.

But no mater what you say or write ALL OF YOU, animal experimentation will ALWAYS BE A HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE too.

Corinne Titus

"For my part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom of slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the FREEDOM OF DEBATE. It is the only way we can hope to arrive at TRUTH, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and country.

I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

Patrick Henry

"Give me a vivisection debate or give me death."

Corinne Titus

I want to apologize to Corinne Titus for having misspelled her name. It was unintentional. I did not wish to insult.

I also think the readership should understand that Corrine is a completely sincere individual: she honestly and passionately believes in her Animal Rights cause.

Having said that, there are several points worth mentioning.

First (and this is an observation, not a criticism), with her Patrick Henry quote, she acknowledges that she believes that the life of an animal and that of a human are of equal moral value. That is the core principle of Animal Rights, the one from which all else flows, the one which, if repudiated, causes the Animal Rights ideology to collapse.

If you believe that the life of an animal and that of a human are of equal value, then you can understand why Professor Steven Best, if he could save only one, would save his dog from a burning building before he would save a human stranger. To Corrine and Professor Best, both lives are of equal moral value, and Professor Best's dog is more important to him than the life of the human stranger is to him. Why? Because Professor Best's dog pleasures him, and the human stranger does not.

If that human stranger happens to be your child, parent, sib, lover or mate -- that's just too bad. To the committed Animal Rights activist, there is no moral reason to save -- in AR-speak -- a "human person" before one's dog (a "non-human person"), since neither life is more valuable than the other.

If you believe that the life of an animal and a human are morally equally valuable, then you agree with Corinne and Professor Best.

Again, that's not a criticism, it is merely an observation.

(In passing, by quoting Patrick Henry as she does, Corrine assumes as true the very issue that is in dispute: that the life of a human and that of an animal are of equal value.)

Second, note the depth of passion and the commitment to her cause revealed by Corrine's posts. She is not open to the possibility that her cause is false, or that her conscience might be fallible. She is totally dedicated.

Now imagine that you have others who believe as strongly and certainly as she does, but who are more disciplined, more thoughtful, more courageous and more cunning than she is.

And imagine that they are people who feel absolutely compelled not just to abide by the prohibitions of AR ideology (the "thou shalt nots"), but to act according to its obligations (the "thou shalts").

If you are such a person, what is the argument against following Jerry Vlasak's logic (and here)? (Dr. Vlasak has reduced morality to a simple matter of arithmetic: since each animal and human life is of equal value, if by killing 5, 10, 15 or "X" scientists you can prevent the deaths of 6, 11, 16 or "X+1" animals, respectively, you've acted morally.)

I find this chilling, but if you are an AR zealot, you will not.

Third, Corrine either unable or unwilling to understand the parallel I drew between Pat Robertson's absolute belief in the sinfulness of homosexuality (you cannot talk him out of it using facts or logic) and Corrine's absolute belief in her ideology (she cannot be talked out of it using facts or logic). Both are examples of faith. (I don't know which would be worse: being unable or unwilling to understand. How do you carry on a meaningful discussion with someone who plays that game?)

Fourth, I don't understand why the conditions for debate I outlined should be so objectionable to Corrine. What's the argument against simply agreeing to them?

They are, after all, nothing but the truth, and if she's seriously interested in a debate, she should be anxious to place it within a clearly-defined ideological framework.

Brian O'Connor,
Notice how you appologized about mispelling my name and then proceeded to mispell it again, over and over. It's not Corrine, it's Corinne. Spelled and pronounced the same as the singer Corinne Bailey Rae.

Yeah, I suppose the joke about your name was a little harsh.

I don't want to stray away from the TRUTH and subject of how "researchers" avoid debating vivisection, animal experimentation, what you folks call research and what many of us realize its nothing more than torture and fraud. An excuse for grants funded with hard earned American tax dollars. Why can't we hear a scientific debate with an MD opposed to vivisection with a top person over there at UCLA?

Why? Because secrecy is the enemy of democracy.

Yeah, I take the issue of animal experimentation very seriously. I was active in the 80's and then got out in the 90's. When I entered the faculty building at UCLA during a demonstration in 2003, my whole life changed. The door was opened for me and I thought at that moment, 'Yes, I am going inside to ask them face to face why they won't debate vivisection."

What could they possibly say? My emails and calls were ignored so I seriously wondered what they would say since they could not hide from my question.

Instead of getting an answer, I received nerve and tissue in my left arm. My left elbow struck the wall when I was slammed into it. There were 2 shoves. One was removed from the video tape (through an informent who filmed) along with the first man who shoved me. The second guy who shoved me is dead now. He died of a heart attack 3 months after the incident. I took the deposition of the account who was told to, "Watch the door." (That was thier idea of security folks, lol) The accountant admitted he was with Mr Bell when he died. I believe they were having a meeting about my lawsuit since the accountant was at his house. Mr Bell died of a heart attack on the way to the hospital and I feel very bad about it because UCLA's assocites edited and made the film LOOK LIKE Mr Bell shoved me both times but he did not. He did not injure my arm, it was the other guy who was edited out of the film. Mr Bell must of felt the pressure of having ot lie for his job and univeristy. RIP Mr Bell.
I will tell the truth for you. That was thier defense in the trial. They claimed that Mr Bell shoved me both times, just enough to get me out of the way. I was suprised that they admitted thier was an injury. They called contusion to the elbow but my arm is not the same anymore since Dec. 16, 2003, and I will take a lie detector test gladly. I have nothing to hide. I am being honest.

Rather than just debate like I offered to drop my lawsuit early on, and just pay my medical bill, UCLA spent 3 years fighting me. If the film wasnot edited I would of won mycase for sure. If I had a lawyer, I still could of won and that's why on Aug. 4, 2006, when I took UCLA's medical expert's deposition, I told them I finally had a lawyer (he later changed his mind about taking my case). UCLA knew I could win with an attorney. They also don't want thier cover up exposed so what di dthey do? Notice how UCLA vivisector Dario Ringach quit on Aug. 4, 2006. Yeah, the email was first sent to PrimateFredom then it went to the ALF press office by PF.

Oh I got more for my story. My initial witness list has 2 presidents of vivisection groups were going to testify agsainst me for trying put a debate together. ha, ha, ha!!!!
No kidding. It's public record!!! They pulled them off and I tried to subpeopna them but they avoided me. I was soooo looking forward to cross examining them.

See Mr O'Connor, my life is forever changed in many ways. I don't have a college degree but I made it through my lawsuit for 3 years with a trial. I am not a detective but I see that the camera man's names don't match, the birth dates. I don't have the money for a private investigator since I am in debt from representing myself.

Worst off, I had planned on going back to cocktail waitressing but my arm is gong to buckle with a full tray of drinks. I may be able to serve a few at time, I don't know. I have worked as an adult entertainer and model all my life, as well as a waitress. I am getting too old for entertaining and don't khow how I will be able to survive so yes, I take that quote by Partick Henry very seriously.

I think what hurts the most was that no animal rights attorney would at aleast do the 4 day trial for me after I invested so much and I had a fgood case with the all the facts at hand, no security, door was opened for me, no sign on the door on went in, never touched anyone (witnesses all admitted newver seeing that cause I did not), etc, etc, I have an abnormal nerve test, etc.

Will anyone help me now with proving that the camera man has a birth date that does not match. Who the hell is this guy? You would think he would want me to have some peace of mind so I can move on with my life. But there is no way in hell than I will except my injury and not get his real name. Cause I know what he did with the evidence and that's a CRIME. He told me to go to the hospital and have my arm looked at, he knew the film was evidence.

It's better to burn out than fade away. I would rather go out in style and make you peole think about debating vivisection. That would make me very happy. ;)

I must admit that those Terminator movies some how make me come back from my sadness at times. The overwhelmng depression of what "researchers" do to animals in labs and the laws that protect it can make you feel helpless and lost in doom. Especially myself, having my government edit a film where I was peramently injured in my left arm, an injury inflicted simply because I was asking why UCLA won't debate animal experimentation.

Terminator movies. Remember how the woman robot comes back to life and has no emotions? Well, I think that's how us acitvists have to think, just like you vivisectors think with no emotions. Like ok, here I am, right back at ya. Let's go... now, how about that debate? When are you people ever going to debate? That's what I have been programmed to ask.

Why? Why won't UCLA debate vivisection for 20 years?
You can run but you can't hide.

The future is now. Stand up and debate UCLA.

What do you think Gov? Patrick Henry was a Govenor.

Wow, Corinne. Try the meds again. You know, the ones that won't make you as crazy.

MarkH, you are to be congratulated for prompting these little dialogs. The fact that these ARAs are so obviously and, in this case tragically, mentally disturbed should be brought to the attention of all who listen with sympathetic ear to their claims.

B O'C, you may wish to strike a pose of not judging those who would rescue their dog before another human being. sorry but this is not an area to extend moral relativism. There is something wrong with these people. There are times when it is necessary for the civil community to stand up and say "No, your theological beliefs and the actions resulting thereof are not okay with the community".

Here's a question for the lawyers. Reckless actions that cause the unintentional death of another person can be acts of involuntary manslaughter with legal penalties. How should we view an intentional act to save a dog from a fire in full knowledge that one or more humans were going to die?

You people always bring up this dog over person idea. The truth is... what's safe your dog may kill your baby. Drugs react differently on animals. When are people going to realize how ridiculous it is to use dogs, cats, monkeys, and other animals as models for the human being?

Yeah, I am worn out, all beat up physically, mentally, finacially and spiritually from the incident at UCLA, Dec. 2003. If you want to call me crazy than so be it. I am telling the truth here folks and can prove evrything with court documents, etc.

Can you people prove anything? You all hide your torture and call people who want to open up lab doors to show the public crazy. It's a real horror movie and you all support it.

People use to think women were withes and burned them at the stake. You people torture animals and think that's science.

Corinne: "Terminator movies. Remember how the woman robot comes back to life and has no emotions? Well, I think that's how us acitvists have to think, just like you vivisectors think with no emotions. Like ok, here I am, right back at ya. Let's go... now, how about that debate? When are you people ever going to debate? That's what I have been programmed to ask."

It's good to care, Corinne, but this is burning you out. If you feel robotic and programmed, then that should be a warning sign.

Let me tell you what your friends should be telling you (but definitely won't): your health is more important than a room full of rats. If you aren't taking medication because of animal rights you could be putting your own life at risk. This is why you should think it through a bit more. Otherwise you could be risking your job, your health and your happiness for nothing. Not to mention your criminal record. You must be so invested by now it seems unthinkable to start questioning it. But think about it. You could write a book about your experiences in animal rights organisations. It will pay for all legal and medical fees. Plus shelters for lost kittens.

Start with asking yourself this question: Why do the drugs work on humans if there is no similarity between humans and animals?

The only time animal experimentation is required by law is by the FDA with drug testing.

The fact is, many drugs that work for rats don't work for human beings. Human cancer patients are not always told about experimentatal drugs available to them. And then there are lists of drugs that work fine in animals but kill people like arsenic which sheep can safely eat.

Burning me out? You really don't get my messages. I am way past burned out. My life has been permanently changed, ever since the incident on Dec. 16, 2003, where I was smashed into a faculty wall for asking why UCLA won't debate vivisection (one shove was edited out of the film through an informent).

This obstruction to my life fell on my lap and I am not the type of person to not stand up for myself, not at my age after all the bs I have been through. No fucking way.

If you were in my position where you were injured and someone edited the evidence film, you would want to know the real name of that person as well.

Those films that animal rights people sell to one another have thier place in the world but I am not interested in preaching to my own choir. Only a few of those people ever helped me with my lawsuit. Why would they give a shit about me now?

My health is already shot because of the overwheming experinece of having to represent myself, pay for it all by working extra shifts, etc. Having to deal with a messed up left arm and constantly wonder who the hell this camera man is when his birth dates don't match and he resembles an informent from a 1991 magazine.

Think what through? There is nothing that would make me happier that to get some peace of mind by finding out what the camera man's real name is and expose and consequently reveal UCLA's cover up. You think I am going to let it go? ha, ha, ha ha.. keep dreamin honey.

What's this about my criminal record? Who said I would do anything criminal?

UCLA is the one who did something very criminal to me, they edited evidence film. You are scared shitless that I am telling the truth and will expose even more truth about torture and fraud.

Drugs tht pass safety tests on animals often harm or kill people. Don't you pay attention to all the drug recalls seen constantly? Doctors like to wait on giving new drugs to thier family members. They like to wait until new drugs have been out ont he market for awhile. Humans are the guinea pigs.

You probably don't see any problem with a public univeristy not deabting what they claim helps human beings, for 20 years. My goal is to witness a debate at UCLA before I die.

Corinne Titus wrote:

Drugs tht pass safety tests on animals often harm or kill people. Don't you pay attention to all the drug recalls seen constantly? Doctors like to wait on giving new drugs to thier family members. They like to wait until new drugs have been out ont he market for awhile. Humans are the guinea pigs.

I've spoken directly to this point, at some length.

Please read it and either refute the logic, or show me facts that falsify what I say.

Corinne Titus wrote:

Humans are the guinea pigs.

How would abandoning the use of animal in biomedical research make this less true?

If new medicines and treatments are to be developed for humans, how would you propose to do so without, well, testing on humans?

(For anyone not aware of how new drugs are brought to market, here's an excellent schematic of how the process works. You can click on any of its parts and see a layman's explanation of what's going on.)

And again I ask this question: if you really believe that animals and humans are so different as to invalidate animal-based results, what is the argument of taking all those compounds that were found lethal in animals, and beginning clinical trials of them?

Or, taking all those compounds that caused abnormal pregnancies in animals (reduced numbers of offspring, fetal resorption, birth defects, etc.) and testing them on pregnant humans?

I think it's important not to let the "fantasy of perfection" that one might imagine to imagine in an unachievable utopian world kill the "imperfect but very good" that we have to live with in the real world.

I'm not sure what's going on with the link I tried to post above, the one to illustrate how drugs are brought to market, but this one gets you to the page I'd intended to recommend (in case the original doesn't).

Sorry about that.

You're absolutely right Corinne, I don't believe in debate with people like you. It's not because we are emotionless monsters who torture animals. It's not because we are afraid to defend science against the claims of ARAs.

It's because such a debate is pointless. You are clearly insane. Your claims of torture and abuse are insane. Your perception of biology is so skewed as to be laughable. Only an idiot would enter into a debate with you and think they would gain anything or change your mind.

What is the point of debating someone with no hold on reality? Every single time you have been held up on a substantive point you just jump to the next crazy rant. Every single time we point out the fundamental flaws in your logic, reasoning, and basic understanding of science you just ignore it and keep blathering on about how you've been persecuted. What exactly would be accomplished by such a debate? You are a textbook crank. On the top of this website's banner is a specific prohibition on the idea that discussions with people like you are fruitful. There is nothing to debate with you. And further there is no right to debate, there is nothing that compels us to engage in pointless discussions with crazy people, and that includes the comments of this site.

This is not a venue for you to express your craziness, and it's a total waste of time for my readers to argue with you. Further posts will be disemvowelled and ultimately get you banned. This isn't because I don't believe in debate, but because I have standards for debate. Also, it's because I think I'd be doing you a favor. Your comments make ARAs look so bad I'm sure they'd thank me for putting an end to this nonsense.

I wrote that I want to WITNESS a debate, not participate in one. That I offered to drop a lawsuit if UCLA would just debate vivisection and pay my medical bill. I was injured at a demonstration at UCLA on Dec. 16, 2003.

I would like to see UCLA debate vivisection with an MD opposed to it. What good would that do? It may trigger more debates. Numerous debates will help expose the facts which will lead to laws being changed and eventually abolishment in the future.

Mark,
Thanks again for letting me post.

Good-by,
Corinne "crazy for a UCLA vivisection debate" Titus

Find the MD first and then contact UCLA.

Don't set the bar too low weing. It's easy to find MDs with cranky ideas. It would be a lot harder to find a PhD who works in the relevant field of research to challenge it. You can find MDs who will say almost anything, hell Vlasak is an MD.

Evidently people don't want to stop writing me Mark.

I just want to say that I did specify the name of the MD that I wanted UCLA to debate at my mediation conference. Dr Ray Greek. www.curedisease.com

There are others I could ask.

If the Chancelor of UCLA, Gene Block, would debate I am sure that some excellent antivivisection doctors from other countries would fly in for a debate.

Vlasak knew all along that UCLA vivisector Dario Ringach quit on the same day I told UCLA that I had a lawyer (who changed mind later). I told UCLA at a deposition on Aug. 4, 2006. Ringach quit on Aug. 4, 2006. But notice how he never metnions any possibility of it being related to my lawsuit ever in all his articles about it. Niether does UCLA Prijmate Freedom, they have it boasted on thier website.

Vlasak also defends an informent that had my evidence film edited. Admitted that the guy resmebles an informent photo but said that the camera guy was in the military before, as if that excludes any possibility. Meanwhile the camera man's birth dates don't match, of his 2 names. He had his naem changed.

His wife would not let me talk to her lawyers. I don't feel they are for real. There are definatly informents in this movement and they have to be someone. What better than to have them at the top and have them speak of killing vivisectors while they don't do it themselves.
depp=true
notiz=[this is not a venue for you to air your delusions of persecution]

On Feb. 14, 2007, I saw Jerry Vlasak at a demonstration. That's when I approached him (he ignored my calls) and showed him the photo of an informent photo/text from a 1991 Animal Rights magazine. Vlasak agreed that he looks like the camera man wh filmed at the demonstration I was injured at. But what does he do? He DEFENDED the guy and said that the camera man was in the miitary before, whatever the hell that means-because it means nothng but an excuse if you really think about it.

What really creeped me out was when he said, "You will never be able to prove it."

I could tell he does not want to prove it.

Mark, there are many MDs out there that will debate and are not to ignored. A univeristy that turns down an offer to drop a lawsuit in order to avoid a debate has some serious issues. Call me crazy but I think 20 years is to long fro a public university NOT to deabte what they claimis helping human beings, funded with tax money.

Corinne
depp=true
notiz=[crank ranting not appropriate for this venue]

Vlasak, "You will never be able to prove it."

He was referring to the fact about UCLA vivisector Dario Ringach quitting on the same day that I told UCLA I had a lawyer (who later changed his mind about taking my case).

Both dates, Aug. 4, 2006. That's what I meant. But yeah, he does not give a shit about any facts I have about UCLA. Like I wrote, only a few helped me. My point is that Vlasak seemed to have evil in his eye when he said, "You will never be able to prove it."

All I have to do is show my deposition copy with the exact same dates of AUG. 4, 2006, the contract from that lawyer, and the fact is... the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act passed 3 months after Ringach quit. I am sure his departure from UCLA vivisection was brought up in front of legislatures.

No, Vlasak would not be my choice for a debate at UCLA. But UCLA would not debate to avoid a lawsuit. They have not debated vivisection in 20 years. I don't see it happening any time soon, that's for sure.

Bye Now,
Corinne Titus
depp=true
notiz=[this is not a venue for you to air your delusions of persecution]

"But UCLA would not debate to avoid a lawsuit."

1). A lawsuit brought by a whackadoodle with no attorney to represent her.

2). Why won't they kneel before my BLACKMAIL terms? They are so dishonest.

trog00,
Blackmail? Excuse me, I was trying to save the university a lot of money and time. Only one of 100 cases go to trial, mine did.

The judege asked if both sides had tried to work things out. I told the judge that I had been very fair and offered to drop my lawsuit and pay only my medical bll. The judge looked at UCLA's attorney like it was a fair offer. UCLA's attorney said that UCLA does not want to debate under those trms, the terms you label as blackmail.

What terms will they ever debate under?

I am willing to take a lie detector test about what happened to me the night of Dec. 16, 2003, how my arm was damgaged that night at th demonstration.

trog, i was not blackmailing. I was only trying to work things out. You just don't like the idea of debatng animal experimentation in univerities. You hate activists like me even more than underground activists. I bet you are a vivisector like many on this board.
depp=true
notiz=[this is not a venue for you to air your delusions of persecution]

I did not want to take up court time unless I had to. I wanted something good to come out of the injury I am stuck with. Is that so bad?

You people wonder why activists get so violent and yet you put down activists like me that just try to encourage debates non violently and get injured doing so.

I am sure you would like to smash my other arm don't you while you put a piece of tape over my mouth and the whole movement. Sorry, this is America. Home of Free Speech, it's suppose to be.

I stood up and asked a question, got injured and offered to try tand make both sides happiest with the circumstances. A concern over an avoided debate was the whole reason I got injured in the first place.

You have the nerve to call that blackmail. You can't stop debating fovever. People should be afraid of people like you.
depp=true
notiz=[this is not a venue for you to air your delusions of persecution]

What is it that bothers you more corinne? The fact that hundred of animals are being experimented on, or the fact that you hurt your arm whilst trying to BREAK IN to a laboratory.
Are you looking for UCLA to debate on animal rights, or to debate about the overzealousness of security guards ?
It seems here that you seem more pre-occupied with your own injury than any aspect of animal welfare.
Quit moaning about your arm, and stop waiting for someone to give you a handout and get on with your life.

jjbang,
Actually it was my left elbow that was struck at UCLA. The pain from it is a constant reminder of how the camera person that night had the evidence edited, that's a crime.

I would love to get on with my life. If only I could get the REAL name of the camera person. He would not reveal it during his deposition. He won't tell it to me now either. I looked it up under searhes on the Internet you pay for. His so called previous name has a birth name that does not match his legally changed name and he resembles an informent from a 1991 magazine.

If film evidence was edited because of an injury you were inflicted with, you would want that person's REAL name too.

I am getting the truth out one way or another. You people keep asking me questions and making comments about me so I keep repsonding. No one is holding a gun to your head to read my comments.

Honestly, it is the animals that you people torture that makes me sacrfice everything I have in my life to stand up to you people. I think people think lawyers just show up to trial. They have no idea how much work is involved in sueing somene vs being arrested and representing yourself. All of it took it's toll on me and I don't give a shit what you say, I will moan until I get that informents REAL name.

I also care a lot about human beings not getting real research while you people lie to them about what you are doing. You won't show people what you do in those labs, admit it.

I never broke into a lab. The door t the faculty center at UCLA was OPENED for me. I was invited in by someone inside the building. There were no signs on that door ajacent to the street where I was coming from. I never touched anyone. I did not dserve to be slammed TWICE, or even once.

My case was about unreasonable force.

Am I looking to expose the fact thatthere were NO SECURITY guards? Yes.

Do I want anethical debate over animal rights, no. I offered to drop a lawsuit if UCLA would debate a SCIENTIFIC DEBATE.

Maybe you can help me get this guy's real name if you are so concerned that you wrote me.
depp=true
notiz=[this is not a venue for you to air your delusions of persecution]

That was me, Corinne Titus that just wrote that.
Seriously, I will pay anyone who will help me to get this guy's REAL name. The camera man who had film evidence edited. All of you only care about money, how about it?

There must be away to find it.
depp=true
notiz=[this is not a venue for you to air your delusions of persecution]

I will reiterate that debating with cranks and denialists is pointless and I am not going to let our comments be overrun by them.

Our rationale is explained in full here.

WTF?

That last comment must of really got you. Cause you see how determined I am and will get his name eventually.
depp=true
notiz=[free speech doesn't mean you get to rant endlessly in my venue, it means you can go create your own]

It was NOT my wrists, it was my left elbow. You probably beat your wife and that's why you distorted that explanation of my injury.
depp=true
notiz=[toys in the attic]

Why don't you distort the questions these people asked me?
Or just remove all of them and block me? You let them leave thier questions and then distort my answers. That makes a lot of sense Mark.
depp=true
notiz=[don't feed the crank people]

You need to remove the questions asked after I said good-by if you want to be fair. That's the only reason I kept posting because they kept asking me questions and commenting. Watch them leave more comments and you will not distort them while you distort me. Where is the fairness in that?
depp=true
notiz=[life isn't fair]

Brian O'Connor,

I have read your arguments. I think you make a couple of good points - who wouldn't when the chosen target is the most extreme one can conjure up? - but for the rest it seems you're peddling pure sophistry. This may be due to the inherently low level of debate this forum invites. So if you'd care to choose a forum where we could go through your arguments in a systematic manner, I would be prepared to revise my present opinion of your understanding of topics such as moral philosophy, applied ethics and dissident action.

Let me start by saying with regard to your linked answer to Tatchell, why do you pretend there is only one conceivable way of advancing in biological sciences, namely through animal experimentation? Why do you pretend that even within your favored way it is an absolute question of either using animals for experiments or not using them?

In your challenge to the morality of according animals the same moral status as humans, you pretend you're unfamiliar with any other moral system than the straight forward utilitarian calculus you claim is applied by Vlasak. Why, Mr. O'Connor, there's a multitude of moral philosophies AND practical systems that are quite different from Vlasak's approach. Are you incapable of looking them up and applying them to the AR issue?

Lise

This may be due to the inherently low level of debate this forum invites.

Why is my forum being criticized? I did my best to kick out the crackpot advocating terminator-like violence and saying the other commenters beat their wives, I think that's the sign of a pretty civil forum.

Let me start by saying with regard to your linked answer to Tatchell, why do you pretend there is only one conceivable way of advancing in biological sciences, namely through animal experimentation?

To give an early answer before Brian notices an update, I'll ask how exactly you expect us to do biological research without animals? I actually don't challenge animal rights advocates on their moral system. If you disagree with the use of animals, that is fine. The issue is this nonsense that they can be replaced.

Clearly right now animal research is critical to the process. As I mentioned before 9/10 of the last ten Nobel Prizes in Physiology/Medicine went to research that was critically dependent on animals. You propose to replace it. How exactly shall this be done?

Where will we obtain primary cell lines for tissue culture? All TC can't be done with immortalized cancer lines you know.

Where will we obtain serum to feed these cells? Most cell lines can not function in artificial serums which is unfortunate since they tend to be more consistent when they do.

How will we generate antibodies and other biological agents that require animals for their generation?

Tissue culture is ultimately grossly inadequate for understanding physiology as culture itself is highly variable and artificial. How will we understand the function of the tens of thousands of genes we've discovered without studying them in mice? This usually requires knock-out, knock-in and promoter transgenic systems to even begin to figure out what all these damn proteins are doing and how they're regulated during differentiation, development and the adult life of an organism.

How will we understand the physiologic effects of drugs, chemicals, potential carcinogens, etc., without animals? How will we assess safety of pharmaceuticals without screening multiple animals for potential side effects before throwing them at humans?

If you have a way to address the basic questions of biological science without animals, please tell us. I'm curious to hear them.

Mark H,

Your forum has one purpose: lump together everybody outside the mainstream, label them as "cranks" and feel righteous about it. This is obvious from the poor representation of the opposition's view... Eh? No the opposite view is not, "let's break in and put dirty bombs in every biology lab and drive airplanes into Pentagon".

If I had revealed myself as a known denialist, my Comments likely would be missing the vowels by now regardless of the quality of my argument: "We don't debate denialists", right?

Brian O'Connor actually dealt with the arguments, although he also chose the extremes and demanded that ARs defend those views. But he invited real debate nevertheless which is why I addressed him.
-----------------

You are quite right: animal research is needed in our present way of doing biological science. Isn't it wonderful to get an opportunity to take a fresh look at what we're doing when somebody comes along and says, "There's another way". Why not explore his position instead of dismissing it wholesale because you can find examples of people who theorize that killing scientists might achieve a certain aim?

You ask me if I have a different way of doing research. I could tell you a different way, but you would demand to be shown its results - on your terms. You would trot out the successes of your way and claim that the countless wasteful failures of that way, regrettable though they may be, are part of "The Process". You would point out that I can show very little that would be up to your standards. And you would be right because those are your standards: yours is the research that gets the funding and the ink in Science and Nature.

But even on your terms I bet the number of animals used in research could be decimated. Even on your terms I bet we could learn a very different attitude to the world we exploit. Even on your terms I bet we could learn a lot about other ways, under-funded ways, of preventing and curing diseases merely by entering into dialogue with the best of the "opposition". Here's something of decent quality picked at random :

http://www.uncaged.co.uk/declarat.htm

I bet you prefer your witch hunt on "cranks" regardless.

But most of all I bet I'd strip down O'Connor if he doesn't up the game I've seen so far.

Lise

I like the pre-persecution Lise. Actually I disemvowelled the crank after she made a comment that another commenter probably beats their wife yada yada. It's not about dismissing debate it's about having standards for debate which should be pretty clear.

As far as what you've said I have no problems. You have a moral argument against using animals in research, that's great. In the initial post I made it clear I have no problem with this. What I do have a problem with is the dishonest misrepresentation of animal research as unnecessary. This was a post about how that particular view, combined with language from people like Newkirk, Vlasak and Best comparing scientists to Nazis results in violence. It is the inevitable outcome of dehumanizing scientists, dismissing animal research as unnecessary and pointlessly barbaric, and generally being lying scum. I have very little tolerance for that. Then look at what the crank started saying, that she needs to be like a terminator, just like the vivisectors. Why am I not surprised?

So by all means comment away. But yes, if you do start using the tactics of denialism I won't tolerate it. If you start suggesting my other commenters beat their wives because they disagree with you I won't tolerate it. If you think those tactics are ok or use them routinely, I have no use for debate with you, this is true. But that isn't dismissal of debate, not by a long shot. It's just having standards for debate which are higher, not lower.

Now as far as your assertion that it's all a conspiracy against using less animals by the dominant paradigm etc., I have very little use for that argument as well. It's all fine and good to have read Kuhn, but the point that is missing is that if you really want to prove something can be done that is different you have to do the goddamn work to demonstrate that to the scientific community. This is hard, and yes, they can be stodgy, but it isn't some conspiracy to maintain the status quo. If you can tell me how the things I mentioned can be replaced without using animals, I'd be very impressed. If you feel so passionately about it you are welcome to enter into research, and work tirelessly at replacing animal-based methods. What you can't do is just blithely say, "there is another way", and expect everyone to do your work for you.

Some of the problems I listed represent critical tools that are used at all levels of biological science from basic research to clinical diagnostic labs. Further, it is a very small sampling of how animals are critical for scientific research. If you want to replace these methods with others that don't depend on animals please, do so. You'll probably win a Nobel Prize. But I don't have any ideas at the moment on how to do this. If you do, please share, and do better than suggesting science is some big evil monolith or that there are "other ways of knowing". I don't have time for such nonsense.

Mark,

You have a list of "denialist tactics"; Well, I have a list of "crank hunter tactics".

The first is to label those who don't agree with you "denialists".

The second is to introduce the word "conspiracy theory" into the debate as quickly as possible.

The third is to keep taking shots at a Commenter and caricaturing her position while effectively preventing her from defending herself.

The fourth, which I hoped I had preempted, is to tell me to "go and do the work", or to show you the proof. Obviously "the work" hasn't been done, otherwise I would be the one representing the mainstream and able to enjoy the cheap luxury of labeling you a denalist and a conspiracy theorist. Your argument is borrowed from politics and economics and is inextricably linked with politics and economics. To tell me "go and do the work" is like saying, "if you don't like Coca Cola, the only way to argue your point is by starting your own soft drink company and taking over Coke's market. Or, "if you don't like the Iraq War, run for president on an alternative to our present political system; I'll to talk to you once you get elected".

The website I linked comes up with different suggestions to reduce animal experimentation, maybe eventually phase it out altogether. Has "the work" been done on that? Of course not; that point is conceded in advance because that IS the very point ARs bring up.

What you're claiming is that we cannot have biological science without animal research. I agreed with that: We cannot have biological science the way it's done now without animal experiments - per definition. What responsible ARs do is first look at what can be done to reduce use of animals to a minimum. But to get that implemented in practice they have to begin by delivering a moral argument strong enough to establish animal rights legally.

When we afford animals more rights, a higher moral status, and a higher level of legal protection, we inevitably give up some of our own privileges. That is one definition of moral action. But it also gives us an opportunity to look into new ways of getting things done,go down roads we haven't realy tried, just as now finally seems to be done regards fossil fuels. To that end we need, debate about to which extent animals would always be needed in biological science. It is not an answer to simply keep saying we can't teach anatomy if we aren't allowed to dissect a frog now and then.

The UK website I linked has a great debate opener about different ways to minmize animal (ab)use. It touches on what the animal testing mindset has meant for human experiments and the progress of medicine as such. It shows examples of legal inertia translating into ethical inertia in science - and possibly even stagnation in the process of scientific innovation. In short, the topic is put into context.

http://www.uncaged.co.uk/vivisect.htm

Lise said: "You have a list of "denialist tactics"; Well, I have a list of "crank hunter tactics".

The first is to label those who don't agree with you "denialists"."

My goodness the man is a scientist. He makes his living criticising and getting criticised - in the pursuit of progress, not just to annoy you. Just because he can see a good argument and yours in not one of them doesn't mean he is out to oppress you.

"The third is to keep taking shots at a Commenter and caricaturing her position while effectively preventing her from defending herself. "

Give examples. If you've been shut down, how come we can still hear you?

"The fourth, which I hoped I had preempted, is to tell me to "go and do the work", or to show you the proof. Obviously "the work" hasn't been done"

If the work hasn't been done, what exactly are you promoting? What are these mysterious other ways?

"To tell me "go and do the work" is like saying, "if you don't like Coca Cola, the only way to argue your point is by starting your own soft drink company and taking over Coke's market. Or, "if you don't like the Iraq War, run for president on an alternative to our present political system; I'll to talk to you once you get elected"."

I couldn't think of a worse analogy if I tried. If you don't like Coca Cola, then there are plenty of other soft drinks to choose from. If you don't like the Iraq war, don't vote for the president who started it. Protest. Write letter to congress. Join a political party. If you want a new way of researching medical science and no one else is doing it (as you say), then you must go and get yourself a medical science degree and get to work. Alternatively, you can refuse to take any medication that's been tested on animals.Which pretty well covers all modern medicine.

"But most of all I bet I'd strip down O'Connor if he doesn't up the game I've seen so far."

A perfect good illustration of one of wiki's descriptions of cranks: "Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts."

"...to get that implemented in practice they have to begin by delivering a moral argument strong enough to establish animal rights legally."

Giving animals (which animals? Just mammals?) the same rights as humans means they would be able to vote, get arrested for crimes, go to war, marry - basically, all the things we are afforded. Sounds like la-la land to me.

As a matter of interest - do you really think your arguments are a match for Brian O'Connor's?

www.myspace.com/antivivisectionactivist

I assume Corrine's adult entertainment wasn't an animal act. This lady scares me.

Hi Mark,
I am having trouble contacting your email. Please remove the information about Vijay by removing my posts to ensure they all are removed. Vijay, who was a witness in a trial, does not want it posted and is taking legal steps.

Thank-you,
Corinne Titus

If you read through the messages you all can see that I tried to leave this blog an a polite note but then people kept asking me quetions or made comments about me so I answered them. Notice that Mark distorted my responses but left thier questions.

Now I have a person taking legal steps since they don't like what I posted and Mark is ignoring my request to take my messages off.

He must want "everything" to remain.

So I went to court with Vijay the camera man "activist". He was NOT granted a restraining order. I only tired to contact him to ask him what his true birth name is since he resembles an informent/agent from a 1991 magaizine and he did have his name changed in 1993. His current and previous birth names do not match. I think it's a real no brainer here what happened. He had the evidence film edited removing the first shove and the first man who gave me nerve and tissue damgae in my left arm. I am posting THIS message to point out somehting very important to protect myself... I am NOT going to commit suicide. Let that be known because there is a cover up at UCLA. I was injured at a demonstration and they had the film edited through the informent/agent "activist". No matter what you believe about animal experimentation, no one would want thier evidence film edited by the government and I would hope that you would all feel that if my rights are taken away, so could yours.

Thanks,
Corinne Titus www.myspace.com/CorinneTitus

I think animal rights must stand alone in the number of pseudo intellects and armchair "experts" it attracts. They smugly critique from the sidelines and congratulate themselves on their intellectual prowess and common sense, while lapping up every bit of spoon fed propaganda spewed out from industry shills like CCF and National Animal Interest Alliance. The one hallmark of them all is an astounding lack of imagination, curiosity and independent thought. If nothing else works, simple shriek "terrorists!" http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/media_coverage/2007-03-19_vi…

Yet, with all of their accusations and hyperbole, they are virtually blind to their own narcissism. Theirs is nothing more than an indefensible defense of a typical sociopathic response to primal rage, which takes out its frustrations on children, animals and anyone else who cannot fight back or has no legal protection. Like most religions, the High Priests of Science (doctors and scientists) are protected at any costs, certainly the cost of reason and transparency, not to mention the lives and health of millions of both animals and people.

Medical psychopathy. Sadism is a very ugly word, which serves to define a very ugly psychopathy - a mental disease. Vivisectors have been known to accept with equanimity the allegation of being money grubbers - of doing cruel experiments only to gain money or a professorship. But we have never known a vivisector who bore with equanimity the allegation of being a sadist. They always reacted to all such allegations with frothing, like other psychopaths when they are confronted with the nature of their disorder. If it is a mistake to believe that all vivisectors are sadists, it would be another mistake to believe that sadism is not rampant in the animal laboratories. It is. In fact, for men and women (more men, as a rule) who are affected by this grave psychopathy (mental malady), and on top of it are animal haters, what kind of remunerated occupation could be more gratifying than a job in a vivisection laboratory? In the same vein, the most cruel experiments on animals are foisted today on the credulous public as a blessing not only for humanity but for the animals themselves. And this because the belief in the benefit of vivisection as a corollary to the excellence of modern medicine has been inculcated into the dense population like a religious dogma, and with the same methods religions use to proselytize: continuous, systematic repetition of dogmatic claims unburdened by proofs, beginning in infancy, to the accompaniment of dark threats to any unbeliever, until the belief becomes a deeply radicated conviction - a blind faith, unfettered by thought. Freedom from thought is indeed the inderogable requisite of any faith. Once a faith has been implanted without the aid of reason, it is very difficult to eradicate it by reasoning: it has become a superstition. Hans Ruesch, Slaughter of the Innocent http://www.whale.to/b/psychopathy_med_q.html

Most of the posters (and certainly the authors) sound like they get their information from Animalrights.net, who (like these industry fronts) invariably ignore, misrepresent, downplay or simply delete important health, diet, medical or other information which may be (and usually is) also favorable to animal advocacy. These include: vegetarianism, environmentalism, holistic health, alternative medicine and important (but derogatory) information on the dangers of animal products, chemicals in animal products due to factory farming and pesticides, the dangers of animal experimentation, the control of medicine by the pharmaceutical industry, etc. Like Berman and Company and National Animal Interest Alliance, Animalrights.net engages in excessive hyperbole and frantic demands for censorship may serve to deflect public attention from campaigns and investigations; while serving to discredit and marginalize those who may expose sponsors and associates to public scrutiny; accountability and/or legal action.

Like many third party industry lobbies, it quotes corporate lobbyists like Berman & Company and National Animal Interest Alliance as "sources" and "experts" on the animal rights & advocacy movement. It is indeed a "forum for opposing views", as serious counter views, particularly those that expose industry mouthpieces like NAIA and Berman & Co. are promptly deleted and contributors blocked from further entries. Animalrights.net is a highly censored forum with the predictable agenda of presenting views favorable to the food, drug, medical industrial complex, vivisection, pharmaceutical and other industries. Like industry mouth pieces like Patti Strand, Wesley J. Smith and Debra J. Saunders, Animalrights.net predictably relies heavily on hyperbole and stereotypes to make points or to obfuscate specific issues, opposition, contradictory evidence and/or views. It does not appear that either the owner or contributors have any background or current involvement in animal welfare or advocacy.

Human health, diet, the medical industry and so closely and unfavorably linked to animal exploitation (and there for ethics and advocacy), it is virtually impossible to comment and one without exposing unfavorable and detrimental industry information on the other. Naturally, this fact is ridiculously exploited and manipulated by industry fronts like Center for Consumer Freedom and its family of attack websites including:

Activist CashActivistCash.com
Animal ScamAnimalScam.com
CSPI ScamCSPIScam.com
Mercury FactsMercuryFacts.org
Obesity MythsObesityMyths.com
PETA Kills AnimalsPetaKillsAnimals.com
Physician ScamPhysicianScam.com
Trans-fat FactsTrans-FatFacts.com

Wasteful, unreliable & duplicate studies involving sadistic animal experimentation.

At the University of California, Davis, Dr. Kenneth Britten annually receives $220,000 to anchor restraining devices to the heads of rhesus monkeys and graft coils into their eyes. In 2001, Emory University acquired about $118,185,010 for researchers such as Garret Alexander to route electrodes into the brains of macaque monkeys. Locked in restraint chairs, the fluid-deprived monkeys execute behavioral drills to earn juice rewards and are later embalmed alive. Dr. Madeleine Schlag-Rey of UCLA and Dr. Richard Andersen of the California Institute of Technology also install devices into primates' brains. Since 1985 Dr. William Newsome has steadily replicated Dr. Britten's primate tests, in one of many ongoing studies that earned Stanford University around $107,272,736 in 2001 alone. At Yale University Charles Bruce has collected a near $3.4 million in endowments, to perform remarkably similar primate tests. http://www.kinshipcircle.org/columns_articles/0029.html

During fiscal 2001 the National Institutes of Health (NIH) bankroll roughly 29,441 separate tests on primates, dogs, cats, rats, mice, hamsters, and guinea pigs for an estimated $8.5 billion. Animal research is an extravagantly unregulated business more often in search of a profit than a cure. As the nation's major funding apparatus, NIH awards each university or private lab over $100,000,000 in any given year, asserts Michael Budkie, founder of the Ohio-based Stop Animal Exploitation NOW! (SAEN). http://www.all-creatures.org/saen/index.html

Budkie obsessively tracks federal databases to expose an industry "shrouded in secrecy. We cannot just walk into most laboratories and start asking questions." The list of carbon-copy experiments is endless. Presently, over 60 NIH grants repeat drug addiction studies in primates; 70 grants finance eyesight tests in macaque monkeys; 170 projects examine neural data in macaque monkeys and 90 others rehash the same study in cats. In 2000 the USDA's Animal Welfare Enforcement Report listed 1,416,643 animals as research subjects. This tally doesn't include rats, mice, birds and other non-mammals currently omitted from the Animal Welfare Act. It also doesn't itemize animals confined for breeding or offset under-reported facilities. Budkie compares CRISP (Computer Retrieved Information on Scientific Projects) numbers with other records and undeclared-animal estimates to up the yearly toll to 20,000,000 animals in laboratories.

The animals caught in this thicket of bureaucratic apathy are invariably dosed with toxic substances, radiation, and addictive drugs. They endure electric shock, food/water deprivation, bone destruction, invasive surgeries, and intensive confinement for often immaterial studies. For example, Arizona State University cut funds for Michael Berens brain cancer experiments after 470 dog deaths and a 95% failure rate. Berens relocated to new environs, (where he continues to inject cancer cells into beagle fetuses and replant the tumors into the brains of puppies. Blind and collapsing dogs suffer unremitting cycles of radiation and chemotherapy. "When it can't take it anymore," Berens' has claimed, one puppy is killed to move on to the next. (see also [[TGen Foundation]] Pain is warranted as long as animals fulfill the intent of the research grant. "The goal is to insure that the experiment proceeds--at any cost," Budkie says. Humans lose more than cash when they pay for futile science. Behaviorist psychologist Dr. Roger E. Ulrich attests to the long history long history of animal-to-human error: "We create false data which, combined with the differences among species, make our efforts to apply the results to man, useless." http://www.kinshipcircle.org/columns_articles/0029.html

Animal Experimentation Scandal. An Audit of the National Institutes of Health. Funding of Animal Experimentation, Animal experimentation is an issue that raises controversy whenever it is discussed. It has been the center of controversy for almost two decades. Animal rights activists have held hundreds of protests on this issue. The pro-experimentation lobby opposes any new regulation of the field. However, one of the most controversial issues about animal experimentation is the direction in which it is going. No one seems to know if animal experimentation is increasing or decreasing. Are more animals being experimented on today than five years ago, or are fewer animals imprisoned in laboratories? Definitive answers to these questions are difficult to obtain. Accuracy is difficult because reporting requirements do not currently cover many of the most commonly used species. Therefore, we are left with a very incomplete picture. http://www.all-creatures.org/wlalw/report-anexp-intro.html

"We have a multi-billion dollar industry that is killing people, right and left, just for financial gain. Their idea of research is to see whether two doses of this poison is better than three doses of that poison."�Glen Warner, M.D. oncologist. http://www.whale.to/a/warner_h.html

The New England Journal of Medicine reports that the war on cancer is a failure. "Despite $30 billion spent on research since 1970, cancer remains "undefeated," with a death rate not lower but actually higher than when they started. The effect of new treatments for cancer has been largely disappointing. The failure of chemotherapy to control cancer has become apparent even to the oncology establishment." John C. Bailar III, M.D., Ph.D., Chairman of the Dept;. of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at McGill University. http://www.tuberose.com/Cancer.html

The Journal of American Medicine reported in 1998 106,000 people a year die from adverse reactions to drugs tested on animals. Researchers from Harvard and Boston Universites concluded that medical measures (drugs and vaccines) accounted for between 1 and 3.5 % of the total decline in mortality rate since 1900. Scores of animals were killed in the quest to find cures for tuberculosis, scarlet fever, small pox and diptheria. Dr. Edward Kass of Harvard Medical School, asserts that the primary credit for the virtual eradication of these diseases must go to improvements in public health, sanitation and general standard of living. Approximately 106 http://www.vivisectioninfo.org/. Animal data is misleading; animals cannot convey (nausea, dizziness, etc) often serious indicators and because of differences in physiology. Approximately 6,000 children die every year in the US from adverse effects of vaccinations; many more are disabled for life. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2502546838698762400&q=Prescrip…

Less than 2% of human illnesses (1.16%) are ever seen in animals. 95% of drugs passed by animal tests are immediately discarded as useless or dangerous to humans. At least 50 drugs on the market cause cancer in laboratory animals. (33 Reasons not to Test on Animals) http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/33facts.html

Animal Product Testing Industry. Huntington Life Sciences kills approximately 180,000 dogs, cats rats, rabbits, pigs, and primates (marmosets, macaques, and wild-caught baboons) every year in tests for household cleaners, pesticides, weedkillers, cosmetics, food additives and industrial chemicals. Proctor & Gamble, its subsidiary IAMS pet products and many other corporations contract out to laboratories in Arkansas, New Jersey and England. HLS kills an average of 500 animals a day for tests "only reliable 5 to 25% of the time" as one HLS record contends. In one $50,000.00 settlement with the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, HLS was charged with 20+ counts of violating anti-cruelty laws. At the New Jersey Lab, snickering technicians were observed to be squirting ECG lubricant down the throat of a chained monkey. Other animals were observed dangling from slings or cowering in cages left to seize, vomit and collapse with no veterinary care. http://www.kinshipcircle.org/columns_articles/diary_of_madness.pdf

Proctor & Gamble. Lab animals die horrifying, painful deaths although there is no law requiring cosmetics and detergents to be animal tested. P&G is estimated to use up to 50,000 animals per year to test their products. http://www.mcspotlight.org/beyond/companies/proctor.html

=== Ten top Leading causes of death in the US. ===

Heart Disease, (fats/cholesterol: meat/dairy)
Malignant Neoplasms (cancer: toxins/milk/dairy)
Medical system (drugs/medical mishaps/incompetence)
Cerebro-vascular (milk/dairy)
Bronchitis Emphysema Asthma (toxins/milk/dairy)
Unintentional Injuries
Pneumonia & Influenza (immune systems/mucus)
Diabetes (dairy)
Highway Accidents
Suicide
Nephritis (inflammation of kidneys)
Liver Disease (alcohol/toxins)
http://www.rense.com/general26/milk.htm

Furthermore,

(1) Less than 2% of human illnesses (1.16%) are ever seen in animals.
(2) According to the former scientific executive of Huntingdon Life Sciences, animal tests and human results agree only '5%-25% of the time'.
(3) 95% of drugs passed by animal tests are immediately discarded as useless or dangerous to humans.
(4) At least 50 drugs on the market cause cancer in laboratory animals. They are allowed because it is admitted the animal tests are not relevant.
(5) Procter & Gamble used an artificial musk despite it failing the animal tests, i.e., causing tumours in mice. They said the animal test results were 'of little relevance for humans'.
(6) When asked if they agreed that animal experiments can be misleading 'because of anatomical and physiological differences between animals and humans', 88% of doctors agreed.
(7) Rats are only 37% effective in identifying what causes cancer to humans. Flipping a coin would be more accurate.
The pharmaceutical industry funds many groups and organisations, so...
(8) Rodents are the animals almost always used in cancer research. They never get carcinomas, the human form of cancer, which affects membranes (e.g lung cancer). Their sarcomas affect bone and connecting tissue: the two cannot be compared.
(9) Up to 90% of animal test results are discarded as they are inapplicable to man.
(10) The results from animal experiments can be altered by factors such as diet and bedding. Bedding has been identified as giving cancer rates of over 90% and almost nil in the same strain of mice at different locations.
(11) Sex differences among laboratory animals can cause contradictory results. This does not correspond with humans.
(12) 9% of anaesthetised animals, intended to recover, die.
(13) An estimated 83% of substances are metabolised by rats in a different way to humans.
(14) Attempts to sue the manufacturers of the drug Surgam failed due to the testimony of medical experts that: 'data from animals could not be extrapolated safely to patients'.
(15) Lemon juice is a deadly poison, but arsenic, hemlock and botulin are safe according to animal tests.
(16) Genetically modified animals are not models for human illness. The mdx mouse is supposed to represent muscular dystrophy, but the muscles regenerate without treatment.
(17) 88% of stillbirths are caused by drugs which are passed as being safe in animal tests, according to a study in Germany.
(18) 61% of birth defects are caused by drugs passed safe in animal tests, according to the same study. Defect rates are 200 times post war levels.
(19) One in six patients in hospital are there because of a treatment they have taken.
(20) In America, 100,000 deaths a year are attributed to medical treatment. In one year 1.5 million people were hospitalised by medical treatment.
(21) A World Health Organisation study showed children were 14 times more likely to develop measles if they had been vaccinated.
(22) 40% of patients suffer side effects as a result of prescription treatment.
(23) Over 200,000 medicines have been released, most of which are now withdrawn. According to the World Health Organisation, only 240 are 'essential'.
(24) A German doctors' congress concluded that 6% of fatal illnesses and 25% of organic illness are caused by medicines. All have been animal tested.
(25) The lifesaving operation for ectopic pregnancies was delayed 40 years due to vivisection.
(26) According to the Royal Commission into vivisection (1912), 'The discovery of anaesthetics owes nothing to experiments on animals'. The great Dr Hadwen noted that 'had animal experiments been relied upon...humanity would have been robbed of this great blessing of anaesthesia'. The vivisector Halsey described the discovery of Fluroxene as 'one of the most dramatic examples of misleading evidence from animal data'.
(27) Aspirin fails animal tests, as does digitalis (a heart drug), cancer treatments, insulin (causes animal birth defects), penicillin and other safe medicines. They would have been banned if vivisection were heeded.
(28) In the court case when the manufacturers of Thalidomide were being tried, they were acquitted after numerous experts agreed that animal tests could not be relied on for human medicine.
(29) Blood transfusions were delayed 200 years by animal studies, corneal transplants were delayed 90 years.
(30) Despite many Nobel prizes being awarded to vivisectors, only 45% agree that animal experiments are crucial.
(31) At least 450 methods exist with which we can replace animal experiments.
(32) At least thirty-three animals die in laboratories each second worldwide; in the UK, one every four seconds.
(33) The Director of Research Defence Society, (which exists to defend vivisection) was asked if medical prgress could have been acheived without animal use. His written reply was 'I am sure it could be'.

references & sources can be found at

http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/33facts.html

Then, there is also the question of profitable vaccines, another financial mainstay of the medical industrial complex.

HISTORICAL FACTS EXPOSING THE DANGERS AND INEFFECTIVENESS OF VACCINES
- In 1871-2, England, with 98% of the population aged between 2 and 50 vaccinated against smallpox, it experienced its worst ever smallpox outbreak with 45,000 deaths. During the same period in Germany, with a vaccination rate of 96%, there were over 125,000 deaths from smallpox. (The Hadwen Documents)

- In Germany, compulsory mass vaccination against diphtheria commenced in 1940 and by 1945 diphtheria cases were up from 40,000 to 250,000. (Don't Get Stuck, Hannah Allen)

- In the USA in 1960, two virologists discovered that both polio vaccines were contaminated with the SV 40 virus which causes cancer in animals as well as changes in human cell tissue cultures. Millions of children had been injected with these vaccines. (Med Jnl of Australia 17/3/1973 p555)

- In 1967, Ghana was declared measles free by the World Health Organisation after 96% of its population was vaccinated. In 1972, Ghana experienced one of its worst measles outbreaks with its highest ever mortality rate. (Dr H Albonico, MMR Vaccine Campaign in Switzerland, March 1990)

- In the UK between 1970 and 1990, over 200,000 cases of whooping cough occurred in fully vaccinated children. (Community Disease Surveillance Centre, UK)

- In the 1970's a tuberculosis vaccine trial in India involving 260,000 people revealed that more cases of TB occurred in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated. (The Lancet 12/1/80 p73)

- In 1977, Dr Jonas Salk who developed the first polio vaccine, testified along with other scientists, that mass inoculation against polio was the cause of most polio cases throughout the USA since 1961. (Science 4/4/77 "Abstracts" )

- In 1978, a survey of 30 States in the US revealed that more than half of the children who contracted measles had been adequately vaccinated. (The People's Doctor, Dr R Mendelsohn)

- In 1979, Sweden abandoned the whooping cough vaccine due to its ineffectiveness. Out of 5,140 cases in 1978, it was found that 84% had been vaccinated three times! (BMJ 283:696-697, 1981)

-The February 1981 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association found that 90% of obstetricians and 66% of pediatricians refused to take the rubella vaccine.

- In the USA, the cost of a single DPT shot had risen from 11 cents in 1982 to $11.40 in 1987. The manufacturers of the vaccine were putting aside $8 per shot to cover legal costs and damages they were paying out to parents

- In the USA, the cost of a single DPT shot had risen from 11 cents in 1982 to $11.40 in 1987. The manufacturers of the vaccine were putting aside $8 per shot to cover legal costs and damages they were paying out to parents of brain damaged children and children who died after vaccination. (The Vine, Issue 7, January 1994, Nambour, Qld)

- In Oman between 1988 and 1989, a polio outbreak occurred amongst thousands of fully vaccinated children. The region with the highest attack rate had the highest vaccine coverage. The region with the lowest attack rate had the lowest vaccine coverage. (The Lancet, 21/9/91)

- In 1990, a UK survey involving 598 doctors revealed that over 50% of them refused to have the Hepatitis B vaccine despite belonging to the high risk group urged to be vaccinated. (British Med Jnl, 27/1/1990)

- In 1990, the Journal of the American Medical Association had an article on measles which stated " Although more than 95% of school-aged children in the US are vaccinated against measles, large measles outbreaks continue to occur in schools and most cases in this setting occur among previously vaccinated children." (JAMA, 21/11/90)

- In the USA, from July 1990 to November 1993, the US Food and Drug Administration counted a total of 54,072 adverse reactions following vaccination. The FDA admitted that this number represented only 10% of the real total, because most doctors were refusing to report vaccine injuries. In other words, adverse reactions for this period exceeded half a million! (National Vaccine Information Centre, March 2, 1994)

- In the New England Journal of Medicine July 1994 issue a study found that over 80% of children under 5 years of age who had contracted whooping cough had been fully vaccinated.

- On November 2nd, 2000, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) announced that its members voted at their 57th annual meeting in St Louis to pass a resolution calling for an end to mandatory childhood vaccines. The resolution passed without a single "no" vote. (Report by Michael Devitt)

http://www.alternativehealth.co.nz/vacines/historicalfacts.htm

Au Revoir,

Lisette

I think animal rights must stand alone in the number of pseudo intellects and armchair "experts" it attracts. They smugly critique from the sidelines and congratulate themselves on their intellectual prowess and common sense, while lapping up every bit of spoon fed propaganda spewed out from industry shills like CCF and National Animal Interest Alliance.

Or, you know, we're actual scientists who use animal models in our daily lives, crazypants.

Of course, from your second paragraph, you think we're all in it because we just LUUUUUUV hurting th' ickle aminals, and torture is the only end unto itself.

Yeah, that's really going to encourage us to read a wall of cut-n-pasted crazy.

Now go crawl back in your hole.

AAAAHHHH! The stupid! It burns my eyes!

"We have a multi-billion dollar industry that is killing people, right and left, just for financial gain. Their idea of research is to see whether two doses of this poison is better than three doses of that poison."�Glen Warner, M.D. oncologist. http://www.whale.to/a/warner_h.html

Fail!

BTW, I think I just filled out a bingo card.

I guess Lisette just trolls with a google search for blogs to post and run with her cut and paste... she does invoke Scopie's Law ( http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Scopie%27s_Law ):

In any discussion involving science or medicine, citing Whale.to as a credible source loses you the argument immediately ...and gets you laughed out of the room.

By the way, is there a name for Lisette's type of troll behavior?

I'd just like to interject that what we're discussing is terrorism and violent, radical extremism in the name of animal rights. While PETA and ALF are both animal rights groups so are the Humane Society and the Vegan Society. You're all being pretty free with the Animal Rights = Violent Sociopaths brush, and it just ain't so.

"In any discussion involving science or medicine, citing Whale.to as a credible source loses you the argument immediately ...and gets you laughed out of the room."

Oh, is that what this is (a credible source?) You must be kidding. I guess Da Nile ain't just a river in Egypt... Really, next thing you'll be referring to it as a "discussion involving science and medicine."

"By the way, is there a name for Lisette's type of troll behavior?"

Yes, it's called presentation of data pertaining to the subject, as opposed to:

"Or, you know, we're actual scientists who use animal models in our daily lives, crazypants."

A SCIENTISTS, oh weally? ('scuse me!) I'll just slink off to my dark little corner ... (Didn't mean to be so uppity!} I don't care if your a scientists or a bathroom attendant. However, it does somewhat explain this blog (you know what side your bread is buttered on). Since you brought it up I think its very obvious that some scientists enjoy tormenting animals. Others are simply apathetic and indifferent, hence the harsh and depressing living conditions of most lab animals. Conditions, I might add, which would shut most shelters and non-labs down permanently. I'm sorry, I don't consider shoving chemicals, detergents, cosmetics, radiating dogs and performing sick "addiction" and "curiosity" driven experiments, to be essential for mine or anyone else's life. The ineffectiveness of animal testing has been documented and verified by for years. It persists due to greed and sociopathy. If you really look at "scientific evidence" (like yours), it invariably amounts to pithy platitudes from "scientists" profiting off big pharma while greedily lapping up 12 billion U.S dollars a year in vivisection grants for ridiculous, duplicated experiments of dubious value.

"A landmark article was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association on April 15, 1998, entitled, "Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospitalized Patients." In this study, researchers evaluated serious and fatal adverse drug reactions in U.S. hospitals during 1994. The study revealed that in 1994, adverse drug reactions accounted for 2,216,000 serious events, and 106,000 deaths in this country. (David Perlmutter, M.D., Perlmutter Health Center} http://www.perlhealth.com/letters/vol3no3.php Pharmaceutical Drugs - A Prescription for Danger, A Quarterly Health Update, Summer 1998; Vol. 3 No. 3) http://www.breathing.com/articles/prescription-drugs.htm Researchers from Harvard and Boston Universities concluded that medical measures (drugs and vaccines) accounted for between 1 and 3.5 % of the total decline in mortality rate since 1900. Scores of animals were killed in the quest to find cures for tuberculosis, scarlet fever, small pox and diphtheria. Dr. Edward Kass of Harvard Medical School, asserts that the primary credit for the virtual eradication of these diseases must go to improvements in public health, sanitation and general standard of living. http://www.vivisectioninfo.org/faq.html "Animal data can be misleading; 88% of doctors queried agreed that animal experiments can be misleading "because of anatomical and physiological differences between animals and humans." Tony Page http://www.amazon.co.uk/Vivisection-Unveiled-Medical-Futility-Experimen… Vivisection Unveiled: An Expose of the Medical Futility of Animal Experimentation], John Carpenter Books, 1997. 160 pp at p.106.

Therefore, it was a bit shocking (but not surprising) when Allen Roses a CEO of one of the largest drug companies in the world, GlaxoSmithKline; announced that "The vast majority of drugs -- more than 90 percent -- only work in 30 percent or 50 percent of the people." http://www.drug-companies.net/index.htm, GlaxoSmithKline Chief: Our Drugs Do Not Work On Most Patients by Steve Connor, Independent Science Editor, (December 8, 2003) Thirty five to 60% is considered http://www.skepdic.com/placebo.html placebo effect.

BTW, Berman & Co. (a "animal testing" supporter, no doubt on highly moral grounds!)... runs Center for Consumer Freedom. They also run anti-AR, anti-Labor-Union, anti-environmentalism and health advocacy sites. Their clients include Monsanto, Phillip Morris, Tyson Foods and Pepsico, all of whom have been subjects of AR campaigns for animal testing and gross welfare violations. Like "Denialism", industry front sites portray a cartoonish image of "extremism". Due to their aggressive, wealthy (yet simple minded) propaganda, important animal welfare, human health and environmental issues are effectively censured. For example; Premarin is a a drug manufactured by Wyeth. It has been classified as a "dangerous drug" and directly linked to cancer, heart disease, stroke and blood clots. http://www.injuryboard.com/topic/Premarin.aspx , http://www.iguard.org/drugs/Premarin.html Premarin production involves the extreme abuse of horses and and feeds into the horse slaughter industry. In a stunning triumph of censorship and apathy; "one of the worlds largest drug companies with a 2006 net revenue of $20.3 billion and profit of $4.2 billion"; (whose board includes heads of some of the wealthiest financial institutions and colleges in the country) is not criticized in mainstream media. (In spite of a very active anti-horse slaughter lobby.) In fact, it is humane societies and private rescue groups who foot the bill to rescue some of these horses and their foals. Despite health risks and humane alternatives, Premarin is among the most widely prescribed and profitable drugs in America." http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer?pagename=pro_horsepremarin http://www.hsus.org/press_and_publications/press_releases/the_hsus_dema…

"Vivisectors have been known to accept with equanimity the allegation of being money grubbers - of doing cruel experiments only to gain money or a professorship. But we have never known a vivisector who bore with equanimity the allegation of being a sadist. They always reacted to all such allegations with frothing, like other psychopaths when they are confronted with the nature of their disorder. If it is a mistake to believe that all vivisectors are sadists, it would be another mistake to believe that sadism is not rampant in the animal laboratories. It is. In fact, for men and women (more men, as a rule) who are affected by this grave psychopathy (mental malady), and on top of it are animal haters, what kind of remunerated occupation could be more gratifying than a job in a vivisection laboratory?" http://www.whale.to/a/ruesch4.html The Psychopathic Aspect, Preface to 1000 Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection by Hans Ruesh

"A particularly obscene series of experiments by Professor Michael Stryker examines the effects of "monocular deprivation" on kittens' brains. Stryker sews the eyes of newborn kittens shut so that their brains develop without visual stimulation. In some variations, he implants chemical pumps and access ports into the kittens' heads in order to inject drugs. After varying periods of time, Stryker reopens their eyes, cuts off the tops of their skulls, and measures brain activity as the kittens are presented with images on TV screens. Stryker's government-funded deprivation studies on cats have been going on since the 1970s, but they have only managed to show that kittens' brains fail to develop normally if their eyes are sewn shut!" http://www.stopanimaltests.com/f-worstlabs_03.asp University of California at San Francisco

"Abysmal planning and failed contingency preparations have resulted in a tragedy of nightmarish proportions at Louisiana State University (LSU). All 8,000 animals imprisoned in LSU's laboratories, including mice, rats, dogs, and monkeys, have died. Thousands of animals were abandoned in their cages and left to perish, terrified as floodwaters rose and electrical systems failed. Many drowned. Others starved without food or water. Some of them were euthanized, according to Dr. Larry Hollier, dean of the LSU Health Sciences Center School of Medicine. In news reports of the tragedy, animal experimenters lamented the loss of their "data," saying nothing about the horrors endured by the animals trapped in their cages." http://www.stopanimaltests.com/f-lsulab.asp PETA to USDA: Do Not Rebuild Animal Labs at Louisiana State University

Now, does humane concern for these animals fall under the category of "animal rights" (because you are questioning "medical science") or "animal welfare" (since ceasing absurd and pointless "research" is not an option)? Does it matter? Of course, actual rescue or direct interference enters into the dangerous realms of "extremism" or even "terrorism". Such alarming code words are not applied to those who kill millions of animals every year in diabolically slow and painful ways. Corporations kill millions of animals including dogs, cats, monkeys, baboons, rabbits, hamsters, birds, farm animals, rats and mice every year animal testing everything from dubiously safe drugs to food additives, detergents and cosmetics. http://www.hsus.org/animals_in_research/general_information_on_animal_r… HSUS Animal Research Facilities by state, http://www.all-creatures.org/saen/res-fr.html USDA-APHIS reports by state.

Such is the extreme censorship and apathy of mainstream media; that documenting, criticizing or questioning "doctors" or "scientists" is arguably be viewed as "extremism".

Au revoir,

Lisette

Oh, I found a few things on David H. Gorski, MD, PhD, Skeptics' Circle aka Orac & Mr. Woo. Apparently, yet another recipient of government welfare.

"Dr Gorski's main argument against whale documents is an ad hominem logical fallacy called Appeal to incredulity, that he calls Scopie's Law, named after a Pharma gang member Rich Scopi: In any discussion involving science or medicine, citing Whale.to as a credible source loses you the argument immediately.....and gets you laughed out of the room. Pharma boys have to laugh at medical truth, or it would send them mad, just like Don Juan advised to laugh at the Unknown for the same reason. A good example of the weakness in academic intelligence. The word sophomoric fits the bill here and (to paraphrase Shaw) he is well suited to a career in medical politics."

Blogs: Respectful Insolence http://skepticscircle.blogspot.com/ Science-Based Medicine

Dr. Jay Gordon Responds to Dr. David Gorski, M.D. and the
anonsE WORLDWIDE WANKER OF "WOO" By J.B. Handley, May 2008

"Haven't read this piece, but wanted to add that David Gorski (who for years hid behind "Orac" ... is a very active participant on Wikipedia, the Healthfraud List, the Snake oil Vigilante Brigade ... while being a recipient of money from the DOD. He has several pro-vacccination industry blogs ... and haunted Usenet for years though he prefers arenas where their is censorship in his favour."---Ilena Rosenthal

Furthermore; "According to 2006 data, the infant mortality rate in the United States was ranked twenty-first in the world, worse than South Korea and Greece and only slightly better than Poland. Data from 2006 also showed that the life expectancy rate in the United States was ranked seventeenth in the world, tied with Cyprus and only slightly ahead of Albania. Now primarily a marketing machine to sell drugs of dubious benefit, this industry uses its wealth and power to co-opt every institution that might stand in its way, including the US Congress, the FDA, academic medical centers, and the medical profession itself. (Most of its marketing efforts are focused on influencing doctors, since they must write the prescriptions.)" http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17244 The Truth About the Drug Companies NY Review of Books, Volume 51, Number 12, by Marcia Angell, 2004

"The claim that drugs are a $200 billion industry is an understatement. According to government sources, that is roughly how much Americans spent on prescription drugs in 2002. That figure refers to direct consumer purchases at drugstores and mail-order pharmacies (whether paid for out of pocket or not), and it includes the nearly 25 percent markup for wholesalers, pharmacists, and other middlemen and retailers. But it does not include the large amounts spent for drugs administered in hospitals, nursing homes, or doctors' offices (as is the case for many cancer drugs). In most analyses, they are allocated to costs for those facilities. Drug company revenues (or sales) are a little different, at least as they are reported in summaries of corporate annual reports. They usually refer to a company's worldwide sales, including those to health facilities. But they do not include the revenues of middlemen and retailers. Perhaps the most quoted source of statistics on the pharmaceutical industry, IMS Health, estimated total worldwide sales for prescription drugs to be about $400 billion in 2002. About half were in the United States. So the $200 billion colossus is really a $400 billion megacolossus." http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17244 The Truth About the Drug Companies NY Review of Books, Volume 51, Number 12, by Marcia Angell, 2004

"Conventional medicine adherents have consistently asserted that its methods are scientifically verified, and they have ridiculed other methods that are suggested to have therapeutic or curative effects. In fact, conventional physicians have consistently worked to disallow competitors, even viciously attacking those in their own profession who have questioned conventional treatments or provided alternative modalities... The fact that only a handful of conventional drugs have survived thirty or more years is strong testament to the fact that conventional medicine is honorable enough to acknowledge its mistakes. Medical history uncovers an obvious pattern in the discovery and application of drug treatments. Initially, there is great excitement about a new drug's discovery. Research has seemingly proven its safety and efficacy and leads to widespread appreciation for the drug's ability to provide relief. Over time, there are minor concerns about the drug's side effects, until more research and clinical practice uncover more serious concerns about its side effects. Then, more research and clinical experience lead to more serious questions about the drug's real safety and efficacy, until there is general acknowledgment that the drug doesn't work as well as previously assumed, and there is recognition of an increasingly long list of serious side effects over time. However, these problems are not really problems because a new drug emerges, with short-term research that suggests it is a better drug after all. ... And the cycle has continued like this for a century or more. Like the fashion industry with its regular changes in style, the drug industry makes its profits on the newest drugs rather than on the older ones -- and not just any profits, but sickeningly high profits." http://www.fountainoflight.net/publish/article_3292.shtml How Scientific is Modern Medicine? by Dana Ullman, The Homeopathic Revolution, 2007

Au revoir,

Lisette

Ooh! I'm (un)impressed! The classic ad hominem/outing a pseudonym/Big Pharma rant! And it's completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand! Bingo!

What do I win?