Mark,

I checking your profile I could find where you received your Phd in biomedical research. In addition your above meanderings would be meaningful if you presented ALTERNATIVES to animal testing.


JOM

correction "COULD NOT find where you received your Phd in biomedical research"

This rather snarky article exhibits the delusions and the rather hallucinatory self-righteousness of the "animal rights movement" operating at full blast.

First of all, it ignores the long, long record of systematic intimidation of medical researchers and of businesses, organizations, and individuals that can be even faintly linked to them, at least in the puritanical minds of antivivsectionists. It ignores the threats, sabotage, harassment, and occassional direct violence visited on these people for engaging in activities that are fully legal and approved by a substantial popular majority. So much for democracy when it collides with a few hundred fanatics whose bonnets are infused with the same peculiar bees.

The logic of the piece is entirely fractured, offering the opinion that because the British police are occassionally remiss in protecting citizens who have been threatened by gangs, they have no business protecting biomedical researchers threatened by animal rights ultras. This is customarily called a non-sequitur.

It is even more egregious in that it ignores the fact that "animal researchers and vivesectionists", far from being a despicable crew of depraved sadists, are among the most humane and valuable members of our culture--in contrast to bloviating journalists, say. Mr. Manning passes on, without serious argument and with but a glancing reference to a screwball website that itself offers no serious argument, that animal subject research is "unscientific" and "useless". Conceding the obvious, tautological point that non-human animals are physiiologically different from humans, it remains nonethess certain that substantial similarities make animals indispensible for all kinds of medical research, including research from which Mr. Manning and his family have doubtless benefitted enormously. He buys into the the grotesque fallacy that because animal models are imperfect, they are worthless. This is drivel. Animal models are not only absolutely necessary for drug and vaccine development, they are also indispensible to advances in surgical technique, including the training necessary for surgeons to master a new procedure, medical imaging, prosthetics, and an endless list of technical modalities whose evolution would have been difficult if not impossible without the availability of animal subjects.

Why do animal rights supporters continue to make these bombastic, stupid, and mendacious claims about the futility of animal research? Clearly, they haven't the moral courage to accept the full consequences of their sympathies, which would require them to accept a huge toll of human death and suffering for years or centuries into the future in order to spare the lives of lab rats ans rabbits. That's not a dilemma with which animal-rights yahoos are comfortable; therefore they accept and try to promulgate a huge lump of silly and tendentious fictions, as much to soothe their vestigial consciences as to gull the public into the wildly false belief that they have nothing to lose if animal research in biomedicine is halted.

Jails are the right places for such people the instant they cross the line separating mere pontification from personal threats and sabotage.

From the FBI

Officials say this is part of a growing trend that in recent years has included more than 1,200 incidents of arson, bombings, theft, animal releases, vandalism, and office takeovers. Targets of what activists call "direct actions" have included laboratories, mink ranches, SUV dealerships, fast-food outlets, and new housing developments. Damages have totaled hundreds of millions of dollars.

"We have seen an escalation in violent rhetoric and tactics," John Lewis, the FBI's deputy assistant director for counterterrorism, told a Senate hearing recently. "Attacks are also growing in frequency and size. Harassing phone calls and vandalism now coexist with improvised explosive devices and personal threats to employees."

JOM

Here are some alternatives to animal testing: sexual abuse, extortion, murder, armed robbery, and rape. These acts are just as scientific as vivisection (i.e., not at all), and can be equally satisfying to losers who in the 21st century still believe that scientific and medical progress cannot be achieved without abusing, torturing, and "sacrificing" other living beings.

Does one really need to provide alternatives to rape or murder in order to establish that they are wrong? What a load of crap.

Mr. Lewis, who like many other government officials is serving his masters in big pharma and other segments of corporate America, forgot to mention that despite the terrible "escalation in violent rhetoric and tactics", not a single person was killed or hurt in 30 years of actions by the ALF and ELF in the United States. Not one! Is this a coincidence? You'd have to be a total moron to think that.

How fortunate it is for the FBI that the ELF and ALF exist. Without them, they would have to justify their existence in this day and age by finding real terrorists, the kind that really go out there to kill people, y'know? To hide their incompetence in catching real terrorists, the FBI turns the spotlight on nonviolent activists, tagging them "America's number one domestic terrorist threat", raiding their homes with SWAT teams and helicopters, sending agents to spy, eavesdrop, and harass them, and sending them to jail for years and years when they are found guilty breaking some bullshit law that was invented specifically to protect vivisectionists and their supporters.

At the bottom line, it's a win-win, see? The FBI shows "results" in the form of jailed activists, Capitol Hill is happy and secures next year's "anti terrorism" budget, Big Pharma is happy and secures next year's payolas for the corrupt officials, and apart from a few unlucky vegans who don't mean anything to anyone anyway, no one gets hurt!

RightOn: "Here are some alternatives to animal testing: sexual abuse, extortion, murder, armed robbery, and rape. These acts are just as scientific as vivisection (i.e., not at all), and can be equally satisfying to losers who in the 21st century still believe that scientific and medical progress cannot be achieved without abusing, torturing, and 'sacrificing' other living beings ...Does one really need to provide alternatives to rape or murder in order to establish that they are wrong? What a load of crap."

Thank you. Exactly my point. I resent the fact that people make thousands of dollars in salary for torture -- Saddam Hussein and his Ba'athists were all living the high life too -- PLUS they receive no end of protection from the law whereas you or I, because we're not torturing the lesser creatures on behalf of mankind, are considered worthless.

I believe in an egalitarian society, where EVERYBODY has the full, uncompromised protection of the law -- unless, of course, you've done something to compromise that protection like becoming a criminal yourself.

As for the extremism being performed in the name of animal rights, that's wrong. Of course it is. And it certainly goes a long way towards making those who genuinely care about animals look bad. And that's a shame because those who campaign for animals are the compassionate ones.

The animal extremists are loonies, yes, but you get loonies from all quarters of life. People get attached to one ideology -- animal rights, Islam, independence, whatever -- and they go haywire with it ... But in no way does that mean that vivisection is completely outdated, unempirical and just plain wrong. There are alternatives, the scientific community just doesn't want to use and promote them because they're comfortable with animal experiments.

NL: "Clearly, they haven't the moral courage to accept the full consequences of their sympathies, which would require them to accept a huge toll of human death and suffering for years or centuries into the future in order to spare the lives of lab rats ans rabbits."

And cold-blooded creatures like yourself, NL, can't accept something called NATURE. If your time is up, it's up ... and I'd be perfectly willing to apply that sentiment to myself. I don't want any other living thing to suffer just because of me. I'd rather die than suffer the guilt of knowing what made my longevity possible.

You also take the attitude that human beings are the only species with a right to live terror-free lives on this planet. And you want to talk about being bombastic?

RightOn: "How fortunate it is for the FBI that the ELF and ALF exist. Without them, they would have to justify their existence in this day and age by finding real terrorists, the kind that really go out there to kill people, y'know?"

**clap, clap, clap** BRAVO!

Manning and Right On..simple question..

Are you Pro Abortion or Pro Life?

Please answer...


JOM

Consider this: if most sane, decent adults read in their morning newspaper about some kids who'd tortured someone's pet -- cat, dog, hamster, whatever the animal was -- they'd be outraged.

"Oh my God, who could do such a thing? Those kids are sick!," they'd say to themselves.

And yet these same people are perfectly happy to let a "scientist" perform the kind of "techniques" on animals that would otherwise be considered torture if some random thugs were doing the same thing. Because the animal experimenter wears a white coat, has an advanced degree and assures you that what he's doing is for the benefit of you and yours, then suddenly it's not torture, it's vital medical research. (?!?)

It's a confusing world.

Just One Man: I'm pro-life (that is, anti-abortion).

NL ***... it ignores the long, long record of systematic intimidation of medical researchers and of businesses... for engaging in activities that are fully legal and approved by a substantial popular majority...***

For over a century medical professionals who have voiced their opposition to vivisection or refused to tow the party line have been ostracised or denounced as heretics. It has been deliberate policy, ever since the first ALF raids, which gained popular public support at the time, to portray all antivivisectionists as fanatical, misguided extremists. Public debates are usually stage managed in favour of provivisectionists, and resources concentrated on 'propagandising' the media, schools, colleges etc. These efforts are now being stepped up, resulting in draconian measures and restrictions re freedom of speech and sentencing for protestors.

Just because something is legal does not mean it is right. The once legal institution of slavery, for example, is now considered evil.It is easy to go along with contemporary mores, taking vivisection for granted and treating its opponents as trouble-makers. Conformity, apathy and inertia are powerful forces.
The notion that scientists would not indulge in anything unscientific or always have less than altruistic motives is naive. The vested interests involved in the chemical/medical/vivisection combine are of gargantuan proportions. The propaganda is incessant. Throughout history, it is clear that scientists, if left uncurbed, have no regard for welfare, humans, ethics, or morality. It is often activists who have halted their actions or improved laws.


Just because animals are used in experiments does not mean that they are indispensible or that the same or better results could not have been reached without them.Our most effective and safe medicines are the result of prolonged usage in humans. Surgery techniques are the result of observing surgeons in practice and working under their close supervision on patients. Surgeons who had to practise on animals often complain of having to to relearn everything again re humans.

The only way to settle the matter is through an independent and transparent scientific evaluation. The burden of proof is on pro-vivisectionists to convince sceptics.

The burden of proof is on pro-vivisectionists to convince sceptics.

Wrong.

If you want to change what IS, it is up to you to convince society to do so.

The law is the law, whether you think it's right or not. The burden is on you to convince enough voters that it is wrong, and get it changed.

Clavos, I agree with you partly. Society should try to change things. But society can only go so far. You had about 70% of the population opposing the War in Iraq before the invasion even happened and it did not change the course of things. Public opposition and the state of things as they are/they happen/they come don't necessarily always go hand-in-hand.

The scientific community doesn't want to change because they fear losing government support if they dare to suggest alternatives, and the government doesn't want to change because they're only too happy to keep the support of the financially loaded biomedical community by defending the status quo. It's a real catch-22 situation. Vocal opposition, even rock-solid proof of viable alternatives to vivisection, will not necessarily change things. Though, I do think people need to see what goes in in these labs, then that just might be the catalyst needed to change hearts and minds.

Even so, even if you get more than 50% clamoring for an end to vivisection, I still wonder if the two parties involved -- the pharmaceuticals/biomedical companies and the government will listen.

A large proportion of the public seems to be aware that technologies are available today that render biomedical research on animals obsolete, or at least, not as indispensable as we are often led to believe. The biggest poll on animal testing ever conducted was a Sky News survey in May 2006, in which 51% of almost one million voters said they were not in favour of animal testing. Another Sky News poll, in March, asked 'Do we need animal testing?' to which 78% of nearly 56,000 people voted no.

In the UK , EDM (Early Day Motion) 92 'Animal Testing of Drugs' has attracted 248 MPs (almost half of those eligible) to sign in support of a scientific evaluation of the use of animals as surrogate humans in drug safety testing and medical research. As a result, the RDS ( Research Defence Society) has asked MPs not to sign or to remove their signature! The Government freely admits that it has not commissioned or evaluated any formal research on the efficacy of animal experiments and has no plans to do so.
In the light of recent drug catastrophes, such an evaluation is surely the only responsible course of action. Attempting to sabotage such a vital evaluation begs the question of the motivation behind such sabotage.
Proponents of vivisection are apparently so desperate to conceal the rational, scientific case against animal testing that they are increasingly demonising scientists who dispute their dogma.

Mark,

Though I'm not an anti-vivisectionist (too ponderous that; we need better descriptions), I understand what you are saying.

My comment was in reply to BCE, who said the burden was on the Vs to convince the A-Vs of their position.

I disagreed with BCE simply on the grounds that the V is the law and what is going on; thus why would the Vs have to convince the A-Vs? We're not trying to CHANGE anything; the A-Vs are. Therefore, they have the burden of convincing us, since they are the advocates for change.

NL: "Animal models are not only absolutely necessary for drug and vaccine development, they are also indispensible to advances in surgical technique"
Some quick facts you should be aware of so you don't embarrass yourself with such ignorant comments again. 95% of drugs passed by animal tests are immediately discarded as useless or dangerous to humans.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'.Lemon juice is a deadly poison, but arsenic, hemlock and botulin are safe according to animal tests.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.

NL: "Clearly, they haven't the moral courage to accept the full consequences of their sympathies, which would require them to accept a huge toll of human death and suffering for years or centuries into the future in order to spare the lives of lab rats ans rabbits"
You got this round the wrong way. There already HAS been centuries of human death and suffering BECAUSE of animal research. Blood transfusions were delayed 200 years by animal studies, corneal transplants were delayed 90 years.The lifesaving operation for ectopic pregnancies was delayed 40 years due to vivisection.The Director of Research Defence Society, (which exists to defend vivisection) was asked if medical progress could have been achieved without animal use. His written reply was 'I am sure it could be'.

Here is more examples of how primitive, obsolete and dangerous animal testing is.
"Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud and that the major cancer research organisations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them." - Linus Pauling PhD (Two-time Nobel Prize winner).
Despite the billions of dollars spent on cancer research over many decades, and the constant promise of a cure which is forever "just around the corner", cancer continues to increase.
A large portion of money donated to cancer research by the public is spent on animal research which has, since its inception, been widely condemned as a WASTE OF TIME and RESOURCES.
For instance, consider the 1981 Congressional Testimony by Dr. Irwin Bross, former director of the Sloan-Kettering, the largest cancer research institute in the world, and then Director of Biostatistics at Roswell Park Memorial Institute for Cancer Research, Bufallo, NY: The uselessness of most of the animal model studies is less well known.
For example, the discovery of chemotherapeutic agents for the treatment of human cancer is widely-heralded as a triumph due to use of animal model systems.
However, here again, these EXAGGERATED claims are coming from or are endorsed by the same people who get the federal dollars for animal research.
There is little, if any, factual evidence that would support these claims.

Indeed, while conflicting animal results have often DELAYED and HAMPERED advances in the war on cancer, they have NEVER produced a single substantial advance either in the prevention or treatment of human cancer.

For instance, practically all of the chemotherapeutic agents which are of value in the treatment of human cancer were found in a CLINICAL CONTEXT rather than in animal studies."
In fact, many substances which cause cancer in humans are marketed as "safe" on the basis of animal tests.
Constant consumption of cancer-causing products of the pharmaceutical industry is legalised on the basis of misleading animal experiments which seduce the consumer into a false sense of security.
So let us start using our own reason and stop blindly following pharmaceutical propaganda.

Clavos,

In 1984 the New Zealand Anti-Vivisection Society took a petition to Parliament seeking abolition of the notorious LD50 toxicity test, presenting evidence that the procedure is not only illogical and unsound, but that it is carried out solely as an alibi for legal and commercial purposes ( as are animal experiments in general). In 1989, a further petition was presented, signed by 100,640 New Zealanders demanding the abolition of all experiments on animals after obtaining affidavits from doctors all over the world who claim vivisection is medically and scientifically invalid (see also '1000 Doctors and many more Against Vivisection' by Hans Ruesch).

The NZAVS fourteen years' continuous struggle for justice through the legal system revealed every legitimate channel systematically closed against them.
Similarly in the UK, the 1980s saw thousands marching in the streets against vivisection, yet today, it is on the increase. Uncaged Campaigns recently uncovered documents revealing cruelty and falsifying of data ( see Diaries of Despair website ) which the UK government and Imutran tried to supress and which case is still ongoing.Is it any wonder such injustice is being challenged through civil disobedience?

The reasons vivisection prevails are many- 'tradition', the flexibility of animal experiments, whereby anything can be proved or disproved, the peer review system- animal experimenters make their own laws and regulate their own activities, sluggish regulatory systems which still require drugs to be tested on animals, and the colossal profits and academic advantages being made from the industry.

Despite these massive barriers and obstacles to change, inroads are being made. The public is wising up and researchers are having to come out of their secret chambers of horror and explain themselves, especially in the light of the many drug disasters, such as Vioxx and TGN1412.An increasing number of medical professionals are also speaking out against vivisection, which is why the provivisection lobby is making such a concerted effort to vilify AVs rather than engage in rational debate and support a scientific evaluation.You'd suppose that anyone engaged in medical research would welcome this - unless they fear the outcome.

JOM,

Science already has a wealth of superior (not 'alternative'!) human-based methods at its disposal. They are responsible for the medical care we enjoy today and are the only way to prevent, cure and treat human illness - yet many are starved of funds while animal experimentation is highly funded ( the UK government invests just a few thousand pounds into devleoping 'alternatives'). The animal experiment lobby maintains that animal experimentation is an expensive business - it is. But it is not just costing society enormous sums of money, it is costing us far more in terms of human health.

As animal tests are currently our chief safety screen before new drugs are tested on people, it is only reasonable to compare them against a battery of new technologies that are now available, including microdosing, microfluidics,and human DNA chips. A new technology called the 'Smart Petri Dish' can detect subtle changes in the size & shape of human cells which help to predict responses to drugs, particulary human liver responses without patient exposure. (The enzymes that metabolise drugs are very different in animals and humans- one of the reasons many drugs clear animal testing but end up toxic in patients.)

Asterand plc is a leading supplier of high quality human tissue and tissue-based services. Dr Robert Coleman of Asterand explains," An enthusiasm for established, available animal models in the face of evidence of their unsuitability for purpose is commonplace." According to Asterand's founder, with the mapping of the human genome, everyone needs different kinds of tissue to develop the therapies that will cure the 4,000 genetic diseases that afflict mankind.


Society need not fear that abandoning animal experimentation would mean giving up medical progress. On the contrary, it would ensure greater safety for patients and volunteers in clinical trials and a higher probability of finding cures for human illness. (See What Will We Do If We Don't Experiment on Animals? Medical Research for the 21st Century (Greek & Greek).

NL: ...***vivesectionists (sic), far from being a despicable crew of depraved sadists, are among the most humane and valuable members of our culture...***

Vivisectors are supported generously and the details and results published in scientific journals. The following are just a few examples of many included in 'Slaughter of the Innocent' by Hans Ruesch in the chapter 'The Evidence':

One researcher found that dogs shut up in a box in complete isolation for the first 8 months of life do not react to pain as dogs raised normally. When such abnormally raised dogs are fianlly releasedinto a normal environment they fear almost everything. When they are given a painful electric shock they sometimes 'freeze' on the grid and make no effort to escape.The pseudoscientist tested this reaction time after time by holding flaming matches near them, jabbing them with dissecting needles and pursuing the terror stricken animals with an electrically charged toy car, which delivered a shock of 1500 volts. This was not a mentally retarded person (?) playing a cruel game but done officially in the name of 'science' at McGill University.

In 1969, the British Journal of Opthalmology reported experiments by H. Zauberman, which measured the actual grams of force needed to strip the retina from cats' eyes. This 'researcher' didn't even remotely try to explain to anybody how this, or similar or subsequent experiments, could possibly aid in the treatment of detached retinas in humans.

8 monkeys were asphyxiated at birth for 7-10 minutes, then tested for visual responses at 8-10 months 0f age. Experimenters concluded that monkeys asphyxiated at birth are more sensitive to visual stimualtion than unasphyxiated ones. (MA thesis- study paid for by the National Institute of Child Health & Human development)

Dr Colin Blakemore sewed up the eyes of kittens, allegedly to find a way to cure squints. The kittens were 'humanely' destroyed after 16 weeks. " I would have liked to keep them alive for further study, as they do in America," Dr Blakemore added ruefully, " but they had to be destroyed under a Home Office ruling."

Peter A. Anton is a primate vivisector at UCLA who forces toxins up the rectums and into the colons of primates for a living. He claims it's to find microcides to be used by future AIDS patients - but of course everyone knows that sticking toxins up the rectums of terrified primates who are stuck in a device and unable to move isn't only morally and ethically unacceptable, but doing this will never cure AIDS or any AIDS-related rectal disorder. But Anton gets paid to satisfy his fetish to sodomize unconsenting, panic-stricken monkeys.

A quick search of 'human experimentation' results in many examples of 'researchers'- not content with being able to torture the non human animal species ( maybe because they know the results hold no relevance for the human species) -refining their skills and furthering their scientific knowledge on the weak, the poor, the uneducated and the already afflicted.

When it is eventually proven that animal research has resulted in pain , misery, and death to both animals and humans and that the researchers knew along that it was a fraudulent methodology, even spent billions promoting its supposed benefits,ARAs and AVs will be vindicated.

Clavos: "I disagreed with BCE simply on the grounds that the V is the law and what is going on; thus why would the Vs have to convince the A-Vs? We're not trying to CHANGE anything; the A-Vs are. Therefore, they have the burden of convincing us, since they are the advocates for change."

Ah. Sounds legit to me. Understood.

What these animal right nuts fail to admit is that 99.9% of all testing is on genetically engineered mice!

So Mark if you had to choose between curing you mothers cancer and killing a genetically engineered mouse you would choose the mouse. Real nice guy!

JOM

How ironic are the comments of NL who refers to Mark's article as 'snarky'.

'The Snark' was written by Lewis Caroll (of 'Alice's Adventures in Wonderland' fame )in the nineteeth century. Caroll (real name Charles Dodgson), was a staunch anti-vivisectionist and wrote many pamphlets on the subject.

The snark was a chimerical animal - intimations of Wells' 'Island of Dr Moreau'? whose inhabitants are the macabre result of experimental vivisections, the work of the 'visionary' Dr Moreau. In the interests of scientific advancement, the doctor has transformed various beasts into strange looking chimeras.Prohibitions have been "woven into the texture of the beast's minds beyond any possibility of disobedience or dispute." These creatures have deemed these prohibitions as "the Law," which are repeated ad nauseam...(reminiscent of provivisectors who proclaim we are all doomed without animal experiments!).
When the novel was written in the late 19th century, England's scientific community was engulfed by debates on animal vivisection. Interest groups were even formed to tackle the issue: the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection was formed two years after the publication of the novel.

Science fiction then, but rapidly in danger of becoming scientific fact.

JOM,
***What these animal right nuts fail to admit is that 99.9% of all testing is on genetically engineered mice!***

Animal right 'nuts' probably make up less than .0001% of activists and people opposed to vivisection.

Just because the bulk of testing involves rodents does not make it either right or scientific.

The UK Government annual statistics 2005 reveal that over 2.8 million animals suffer and die in British laboratories in experiments that "may cause pain, suffering, distress and lasting harm" (experiments that are considered unlikely to cause pain do not need to be licensed and are therefore not included in the annual statistics). An estimated additional 8 million animals are bred and then destroyed as surplus to requirements. As well as mice, rats, hamsters, gerbils and guinea pigs other animals such as rabbits, dogs, cats, monkeys, horses, cows, pigs, sheep, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and even insects are used - in fact there's hardly a species that are not experimented on.
The scenario is a lot worse in the rest of the world.
In the UK experiments on great apes are not allowed, but in the rest of the world they are in danger of becoming extinct as they are captured in the wild for vivisection labs.

Ah! the provivisectionists last resort - the false dilemma- the lab rat or your mother's life?
your dog or your baby?

we've been curing cancer in mice for years, but despite billions of dollars worth of resources wasted on animal experiments, still no cure, giving false hope to patients and directing precious funds away from preventive medicine (most cancers are down to diet, smoking, poor lifestyle choices and chemicals ( 'safety' tested on animals of course!) and human based research.

"2.8 million animals" 2.7 million are mice!

So you would let your mom die to save a mouse. Gee what a nice boy she raised!

Please stay with the facts...99.9% are mice!

jom

Mice are animals. If it makes any difference, they are actually very sensitive, smart, and resourceful creatures. The fact that some people don't like mice very much does not exclude mice from the animal kingdom, nor does it mean that mice should not be given equal consideration when evaluating moral issues that invariably involve causing them endless amounts of pain, suffering, and of course death. Unless you can establish that nonhumans don't feel pain, don't value their own lives and can't suffer no matter what we do to them (good luck with that), your repeated emphasis on the fact that they are mice is irrelevant at best.

Your story was noted on the http://www.care2.com/news/member/785741862/328072Care2 News Network.

You have many supporters, especially when the atrocities of vivisection and their alternatives are exposed and promoted (see links in some of the comments).

My personal opinion? It's all about the billions of dollars stake holders stand to lose when vivisection is finally outlawed... when tired, antiquated arguments are finally seen for the shams that they are... when millions of sick people will finally be healed, fed, and prosperous... when the paradigm finally shifts away from animals as "property". All that money will be redirected to more meaningful, useful, valuable, modern, and compassionate research. AND many greedy corporate execs and politicians will finally lose their jobs and influence.

JOM,

The fact is, the results have no predictive value for humans, therefore are unscientific.

Maybe you are talking about global/US percentages, but the figure is about 84% in the UK. But cold statistics ( very Cartesian- resulting in the vivisection mindset) mask the fear & suffering of the following sentient creatures:

Experiments by Species (Great Britain, 2005)

Mice: 1,961,049
Rats: 424,527
Guinea Pigs: 29,019
Hamsters: 4,232
Gerbils: 5,057
Other Rodents: 3,159
Rabbits: 22,818
Cats: 500
Dogs: 7,670
Ferrets: 970
Other Carnivores: 946
Horses/Donkeys/Cross-Bred Equids: 9,002
Pigs: 3,574
Goats: 330
Sheep: 29,329
Cattle: 19,110
Deer: 56
Birds: 113156
Reptiles: 878
Amphibians: 20,970
Fish: 232,854
Marmoset/Tamarin Monkeys: 910
Squirrel/Owl/Spider Monkeys: 24
Macaque Monkeys: 3,718
Other Mammals: 2,333
GM Animals: 957,451

It comes as no surprise that provivs can dismiss the suffering of millions of non human animals in this way. With the same callous attitude, provivisectionists write off the thousands of drug and vaccine damaged & other human casualties of vivisection-based medicine by arguing that the majority are OK.

"results have no predictive value for humans"

Please provide specific evidence
JOM

I worked at a research facility and saw one cat with part of its skull removed. I cannot look at pictures anymore but one sight of that poor cat in pain made
a believer out of me. STOP ANIMAL TESTING.
Use white collar criminals who make multi multi millions on insider trading, sex offenders who kill children. Use anyone but a poor animal that cannot defend itself.
Keep blogging-

Re #29

Jeff, if I was Prime Minister, I'd outlaw vivisection. Probably wouldn't pass through either chamber of government (House of Commons or Lords), but I'd rally Parliament to the best of my ability.

And if it caused a dip in my party's war chest, so what? Better than winning seats with blood money.

And as for JOM's ridiculous comment about my mother or the mouse? Well, my own mother would rather die as well. In fact, I would have no choice but to see my mom die because she would forbid any procedure that involved torture of animals to save her life. And I would respect that, much as I love her. Want some other members of my family as well, JOM? OK, my wife and sister feel the same way as well! We all feel that when our number is up, it's up, and if our lives can't be saved through alternative means, then so be it.

In fact, I think every single person, the likes of JOM and NL especially, should be exposed to a lengthy film about what goes on in these labs and if, by the end of the video, they've cried their eyeballs dry or fainted or have to be dragged out of the room because they're paralyzed by the cruelty they witnessed, then so be it. People like JOM just blindly support animal research because they don't want to know about it. They know damn well that torture goes on, but they're moral cowards for not wanting to witness what they defend.

So how about it JOM or NL? There's plenty of footage of experiments on animals on the 'net. Will you look it up and educate yourselves about what really goes on or will you just do the typical "nah, I don't need to see it to know I agree with it" bullshit? You don't want to see it because you know you'll find it agonizing. And if you DON'T find it distressing, then you have no right to be calling me the cruel one!

JOM,
In March 2006 the spotlight was thrown on the business of clinical trials, and the transition from animal to human tests, when a phase 1 drug trial in the UK went horribly wrong( the 'elephant man' trials )leaving 6 young men in intensive care with multiple organ failure. The drug TGN1412 had been shown to tbe safe in animals (cynomologus maqaque monkeys).
Most of the victims are showing early signs of lymphatic cancer and are likely to suffer a range of premature autoimmmune disorders. Many experts in the field concur with the headline in The Times: " Tests on animals create a false sense of security" and could never have predicted the catastrophe, while tests in human tissue could have done.

There is a long long list of catastrophes - from thalidomide to Vioxx - adverse drug reactions are the 4th leading cause of illness & death in the west- all are tested on animals- adverse results may not show up for years in humans, which is why we are always the real guinea pigs.
Sometimes the results of animal tests coincide with results in humans, but sometimes they don't. Even If the tests gave incomplete, but correct indications most of the time they might be of use, but they are misleading and therefore dangerous, because the researcher has no way of forseeing whether a fortunate coincidence can be verified or not- hence the many disasters. This 'flexibility' however, works in favour of the drug companies who claim that the required animal tests were done , & that anyway, animal tests cannot accurately be extrapolated to humans, to escape liability when things go wrong.

Interesting that 'volunteers' for Phase 1 clinical trials ( right after the animal tests) have to be enticed with substantial payments and their ranks are usually from the umemployed, cashstrapped or uneducatted, many of whom do not fully understand what is about to be done to them, if indeed it is fully explained at all.
Some are so desperate for the money they probably wouldn't care anyway.

It would be far more ethical, and cheaper, if the researchers themselves, and all provivisectionists had to sign up for the trials, being fully informed and having so much faith in the preceding animal tests.

The UK is reputed to have the best vivisection legislation in the world. April 2007 is the 21st anniversary of the Animals (Scientific Procedures)Act- the law governing animal experiments. The facts suggest otherwise:

Number of prosecutions under the Act.....nil

Number of experimenters who have had their licences to carry out animal research withdrawn...nil

Number of labs that have had their licence withdrawn.....nil

Number of Home Office inspectors to monitor the Act....30

Number of premises with a licence for inspectors to monitor.... 227

Number of animal experiments for inspectors to monitor...2.8 million and rising

Proven offences against the Act that have not resulted in prosecution include brain-damaged monkeys left unattended after surgical procedures, dogs punched in the stomach, fabricated results, and researchers laughing as they killed live mice by smashing them against bench tops.

If this is representative of the 'best vivisection legislation in the world', it's god help the animals ( & of course the humans who suffer from the results of these horrors [devine retribution?]) elsewhere.

And since many countries do not keep records of vivisection procedures, where does JOM get his 'factual' figure of 99.9% mice from?

And let's not forget the really privileged class of vivisectors.


Perhaps the most inexcusable recent research trend is the doubling over the past 5 years in the number of animals used in British military experiments, including biological and chemical warfare tests(heaven knows what the US & world figures must be).

More than 21,000 animals, including monkeys, ferrets and pigs were experimented on in 2005 - a rise of 76% since 2007. Details are hard to come by, but it is known that monkeys have been exposed to anthrax and pigs have had 40% of their blood drained before injection with E coli. Others have been exposed to poison gas and lethal nerve agents.

Historically there are also many examples of experiments on servicemen, without their knowledge or consent.

It is just coming to light, after a cynical American cover up, the depths of depravity the Japanese sank to in WW2, turning their Chinese prisoners into human guinea pigs.
The Americans took the view that all this research data ( medical & biological warfare experimentation) was so valuable, Japan was let off the hook.

So fine, if all the gullible and starry eyed provivisectionists out there want to believe scientists are all beavering away ethically for the good of mankind, in tandem with moralistic governments, that medical progress will collapse without vivisection and that it is mostly mice which suffer, it's up to you. But you're all going to look pretty silly when it's abolished and the game is finally up.

'Animal Farm' ( a recent UK TV program). If you want to see some of the most mind-boggling -- and alarming -- examples of science fiction flourishing right now, this is the programme to watch.

The presenters witness genetically modified cows infected with anthrax and turned into human antibody factories. A human liver is grown in an antigravity machine. Animals are used to grow and harvest human organs and there is even the possibility that, one day, we will be genetically modified to regenerate damaged organs.

Dr Judson says farms have always existed to feed, clothe and keep us healthy, and biotechnology is simply an extension of that. "Would you prefer to die?" she asks. Frankly, yes.

The moral debate was recently ignited over interspecies cloning. Scientists claim the goal is to eliminate the need for women to donate eggs for the cloning of human embryos - to be used for better understanding of genetic causes of diseases and the design of personalised medicines. The plan is to take the DNA from from patients with Alzheimer's, for instance, and fuse it with cow eggs that have had all their genetic material removed.The cloned embryos would be destroyed and the stem cells extracted.Scientists have vowed never to create a living animals through interspecies mixing!?!

The request for a government licence to use cow eggs instead of women's to generate human embryonic stem cells stirred significant controversy in the UK last year.(UK researchers must obtain government licences to work with human embryonic stem cells.)But the work is still viewed as immoral by 'social conservatives'.it has been called 'a violation of human dignity' and ' treating a human being at his or her earliest stages as a mere tool'.

Clearly, both human and non human animals are fair game in the mind of the researcher.

If these people cared so much about the human race, children would take priority ( research into childhood diseases gets comparatively little funding) and less would be spent on research into lifestyle diseases. More would be spent on preventative medicine, primary health care and education, and resources directed to third world countries where millions die from malaria, diarroehea and HIV for want of clean water & cheap drugs.

Two Wesleyan Professors Receive Funding For Their Work With Epileptic Mice March 26, 2007

By DANIELA ALTIMARI, Courant Staff Writer MIDDLETOWN -- Wedged between UConn and Yale, the powerhouses of stem cell research in the state, two Wesleyan University professors are working to determine whether these building blocks of life can be used to treat epilepsy.

Full story Hartford Courant: Stem Cell Research Niche

PETA BLASTS UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO FOR DEADLY NICOTINE EXPERIMENTS ON
MONKEYS

Cruel, Redundant Tests for U.S. Government Aimed at "Proving" What Millions Have Known for Decades: Nicotine Is Addictive
For Immediate Release:
March 27, 2007
Contact: Alka Chandna, Ph.D.

Toronto - PETA, the world´s largest animal rights organization, is calling on University of Toronto (U of T) President David Naylor to immediately implement a policy requiring that U of T´s animal care committee be allowed to exercise oversight in all animal experiments performed by U of T faculty-no matter where the experiments take place. PETA´s request comes in light of the cruel and deadly nicotine experiments that a U of T animal experimenter recently performed on squirrel monkeys. Because the tests were conducted at a U.S.
government facility in Baltimore, they bypassed U of T´s animal care
committee. In a letter fired off to Naylor today, PETA points out that if the consent of the committee had been required, these wasteful and cruel tests may have been stopped.

PETA´s letter to University of Toronto President David Naylor is available on request. For more information, please visit StopAnimalTests.com

Full article here

[BCE: Please STOP pasting full articles from other sites into the comments. An intro plus the link to the work will suffice. Thanks. Comments Editor]

I've wondered about the root motivations of vivisectors for quite a while. Money is part of it, of course; but other factors must contribute to their eagerness to hurt others.

A recent paper suggests at the willingness to sacrifice others in the name of some perceived need -- referred to as an "abnormal utilitarian pattern of judgement" in the paper -- may be due to focal bilateral damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex.

It might all come down to brain damage. For more on this.