 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / General / January 2005Lab Experiments 'Terrifying' For Animals
Lab Experiments 'Terrifying' For Animals Special to World Science 1-22-5 The most harmless-seeming lab experiments spark panic in the creatures going through them, according to a new report. But supporters of animal medical research, who say the work saves lives, questioned the findings. The report, based on a review of past scientific studies, claims that mice, rabbits, rats, beagles, geese, and other animals all show measurable levels of stress in response to routine laboratory procedures. These procedures, including blood draws and use of stomach tubes, are "terrifying" for animals, according to a press release announcing the findings. The statement was issued by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit group. Jonathan Balcombe, a research consultant for the group, authored the report finding that physiological stress levels go up among animals undergoing experiments. Even simple contact with laboratory workers is scary for animals, said Balcombe. "There is no such thing as a humane animal experiment," he said in the statement. "Fear or panic ensues when the animal is touched or stuck with a needle." Balcombe isn't new to the longstanding debate over whether it is right to use animals in scientific research. He has argued against the use of vivisection, the act of operating on live animals. "Vivisection labs cause animals pain, misery and death, and should be actively opposed," though not by violence, as some say, he wrote in an April 29, 2004 letter to the Times of London. But the new findings, according to the committee, are the first time such misery has been shown to befall animals during procedures that have until now been seen as relatively benign. Balcombe's full findings are published in the Autumn 2004 issue of the research journal Contemporary Topics in Laboratory Animal Science. The findings are based on an extensive review of the scientific literature by Balcombe, an ethologist, or scientist who studies animal behavior. A mouse who is picked up and briefly held experiences several physiological reactions, according to the group: As stress-response hormones flood the bloodstream, the mouse exhibits a racing pulse and a spike in blood pressure. These symptoms can persist for up to an hour after each event. Immune response is also affected. "In rats and mice, the growth of tumors is strongly influenced by how much the animals are handled," the group's statement said. Supporters of medical research that uses animals said they don't have much faith in Balcombe's study. "I would be very skeptical of anything that comes out of" Balcombe's group, since it is also already on record as being anti-vivisection, said Barbara Davies, communications director for RDS, a British organization of scientists who support medical research. Barbara Rich, a spokeswoman for Americans for Medical Progress, an Alexandria, Virginia-based group, echoed that. "It may be that they came to the conclusion before they did the study," she warned. Balcombe's group is closely allied with the radical animal-rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, she added. On the other hand, Rich acknowledged, the journal that published the paper is reputable. She said more scientists will have to assess it, especially as it seems to contain some strange conclusions. "One person said to me, 'if handling animals causes tumors, what does this say about our pets?'" Balcombe dismissed that objection. "The difference between my pet rats and a rat in a laboratory is my pet rats don't ever get stuck with needles, have blood drawn or get force-fed a drug," he said. Lab animals learn to expect bad things, and their fear of handling stems from that, he added; this isn't the case with pets. The journal's editors also expressed reservations about the paper. In an editorial in the same issue of the journal, they wrote that the paper is an "opinion piece. The literature discussed... is selective in scope and does not include a rigorous review of current methods and studies concerned with detecting or observing effects of stress in laboratory animals. We caution that it is not correct to conclude that stress is equivalent to distress or fear." Balcombe objected to the portrayal of his study as selective. He said his review of scientific literature included all past papers that he could find meeting certain clear criteria. None that met these conditions was excluded, he asserted: any study was included if it examined animals' stress responses to handling and routine experimental procedures. Balcombe also called the editorial itself highly unusual for a research journal -- evidence of how controversial the subject of animal research is. "One would have to look far and wide among journals to find an editorial disparaging of the research" published in the same journal, he observed. Moreover, Balcombe wrote that while it can be argued that stress and fear are different, evidence shows that in this case, stress does correspond to fear. One clue is the fact that animals try to avoid most of these laboratory procedures, he explained. The paper focused on three routine procedures: handling, blood collection and force-feeding. Independent of the invasive experiments themselves, these daily routines can cause an animal to experience elevated bloodstream concentrations of substances known to indicate stress: corticosterone, prolactin, glucose, and epinephrine, Balcombe wrote. Impaired immune response has also been recorded in animals after anxiety-producing contact with lab personnel, according to the study. Balcombe argued that scared animals don't produce sound scientific findings because their fear leads to distorted experimental results. "Research on tumor development, immune function, endocrine [hormonal] and cardiovascular disorders, neoplasms [tumors], developmental defects, and psychological phenomena are particularly vulnerable to data being contaminated by animals' stress effects," said Balcombe. http://members.aol.com/mlucen/041229_animalexpts.htm >Lab Experiments 'Terrifying' For Animals >Special to World Science [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >going through them, according to a new report. But supporters of animal >medical research, who say the work saves lives, I'm sure it does. [...] >A mouse who is picked up and briefly held experiences several >physiological reactions, according to the group: As stress-response >hormones flood the bloodstream, the mouse exhibits a racing pulse >and a spike in blood pressure. When I used to have some rats and mice, we would discuss how it must feel to be picked up by a human. The experience would be much more intense than riding a ferris wheel, and there would probably be no sense of security or confidence in not being dropped. If there's an "ARA" involved, no doubt there is dishonesty of some type involved here, but also there's not much doubt that animals are afraid of being picked up and stuck with needles or force fed. Do they use mouse size needles? Or do they use something that would scare the hell out of any human? _________________________________________________________ If scientists could replace animal research and testing with methods which did not need to use animals then they would. There are several reasons for this: * Scientists do not like or want to use animals in research. Like the vast majority of people they do not want to see animals suffer unnecessarily. In fact less than 10% of biomedical research uses animals. Unfortunately for much of the work involved in biomedical research there are as yet no working alternative techniques that would allow us to stop using animals. * Biomedical research is producing thousands of new compounds, which may have potential as new drugs. It is much more efficient to screen these compounds using rapid non-animal techniques to test their effectiveness and toxicity. * The very high standards of animal welfare and care required of British research establishments are a contributory factor in making animal research very expensive. If scientists can develop alternatives to using animals it will allow them to divert their limited research funds to other areas of research. [...] http://www.bret.org.uk/noan.htm ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ _________________________________________________________ [...] From the bald eagle to the red wolf, biomedical research has helped bring many species back from the brink of extinction. Conservation and captive breeding programs, often using fertilization techniques developed for humans, have made it possible for these animals to be reintroduced into the wild, and today their numbers are growing. Biologists and wildlife veterinarians rely on the latest research in reproduction, nutrition, toxicology and medicine to build a better future for our wild animals. In vitro fertilization, sperm banks and artificial insemination were all developed to help human couples, but today they also are regularly used to ensure the survival of endangered species. [...] http://fbresearch.org/helpingwildlife.html ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ _________________________________________________________ WITHOUT ANIMAL RESEARCH: Polio would kill or cripple thousands of unvaccinated children and adults this year. Most of the nation's one million insulin-dependent diabetics wouldn't be insulin dependent -- they would be dead. 60 million Americans would risk death from heart attack, stroke or kidney failure from lack of medication to control their high blood pressure. Doctors would have no chemotherapy to save the 70% of children who now survive acute lymphocytic leukemia. More than one million Americans would lose vision in at least one eye this year because cataract surgery would be impossible. Hundreds of thousands of people disabled by strokes or by head or spinal cord injuries would not benefit from rehabilitation techniques. The more than 100,000 people with arthritis who each year receive hip replacements would walk only with great pain and difficulty or be confined to wheelchairs. 7,500 newborns who contract jaundice each year would develop cerebral palsy, now preventable through phototherapy. There would be no kidney dialysis to extend the lives of thousands of patients with end-stage renal disease. Surgery of any type would be a painful, rare procedure without the development of modern anesthesia allowing artificially induced unconsciousness or local or general insensitivity to pain. Instead of being eradicated, smallpox would continue unchecked and many others would join the two million people already killed by the disease. Millions of dogs, cats, and other pets and farm animals would have died from anthrax, distemper, canine parvovirus, feline leukemia, rabies and more than 200 other diseases now preventable thanks to animal research. http://www.ampef.org/research.htm ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ > >Lab Experiments 'Terrifying' For Animals > >Special to World Science [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I'm sure it does. BMJ 2004;328:514-517 (28 February), doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7438.514 Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans? Pandora Pound, research fellow1, Shah Ebrahim, professor1, Peter Sandercock, professor2, Michael B Bracken, professor3, Ian Roberts, professor4 Reviewing Animal Trials Systematically (RATS) Group 1 Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 2PR, 2 Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Edinburgh, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh .., 3 Center for Perinatal, Pediatric, and Environmental Epidemiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06520 USA, 4 London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1B 3DP .. Clinicians and the public often consider it axiomatic that animal research has contributed to the treatment of human disease, yet little evidence is available to support this view. Few methods exist for evaluating the clinical relevance or importance of basic animal research, and so its clinical (as distinct from scientific) contribution remains uncertain.1 Anecdotal evidence or unsupported claims are often used as justification-for example, statements that the need for animal research is "self evident"2 or that "Animal experimentation is a valuable research method which has proved itself over time."3 Such statements are an inadequate form of evidence for such a controversial area of research. We argue that systematic reviews of existing and future research are needed. Assessing animal research Despite the lack of systematic evidence for its effectiveness, basic animal research in the United Kingdom receives much more funding than clinical research.1 4 5 Given this, and because the public accepts animal research only on the assumption that it benefits humans,6 the clinical relevance of animal experiments needs urgent clarification. .............' http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7438/514 "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message news:ct441u > BMJ 2004;328:514-517 (28 February), doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7438.514 > > Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans? Idiot. You want to be the first to volunteer for testing of new surgical prodedures? moo > "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message news:ct441u > > BMJ 2004;328:514-517 (28 February), doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7438.514 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > moo 'Appendectomy, together with the Caesarean section operation saves a large number of human lives. The appendectomy was pioneered by the brilliant surgeon Lawson Tait... without animal experimentation. ... A glimpse at the overwhelming evidence from medical practitioners reveals the falsity of claims made in Animal Research Saves Lives that life-saving surgical techniques were founded on vivisection. As shown in Clinical Medical Discoveries, Dr M. Beddow Bayly documents the many surgical advances which owing nothing to vivisection but were discovered and pioneered through clinical research. These advances being supremely valuable to the benefit of human beings and animals it is the practice of those who set out to support and defend vivisection, and their jobs, to distort historical facts and thereby create the impression in the minds of the public that such advances were the result of vivisection. Dr Beddow Bayly, in dispelling these claims also outlines the inadequacies and grossly misleading results arising from vivisection. His views are openly shared by hundreds of medical doctors whose opinions are concisely documented in Hans Ruesch's One Thousand Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection. British surgery was developed as the result of experience in human patients. Under the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 it was illegal for experiments on animals to be carried out for the purposes of attaining manual skills. This law operated until the recent introduction of the Scientific Procedures Act which came into operation on January 1 1987, rescinding and setting back the struggle for abolition. Sir W. Heneage Ogilvie, K.B.E., D.M., M.Ch., F.R.C.S., Consulting Surgeon to Guy's Hospital and Royal Masonic Hospital wrote in the British Medical Journal (December 18 1954, page 1438): "British surgery has always stood high because it can be claimed, and not without reason, that every surgical advance of major importance has come from this country." In the discussions during the Royal Commission on Vivisection in 1912 Dr Granville Bantock, well-known pioneer in abdominal surgery made the following statement: "I think Mr Henry Morris maintained that abdominal surgery was very much indebted to experiments on animals. I entirely deny that; abdominal surgery is the result of ovariotomy and to that alone is due the success of abdominal surgery generally." In Vivisection: Science or Sham, Dr Roy Kupsinel wrote in 1988 the following about surgical techniques: "To gain experience, first an aspiring surgeon should practice on human cadavers, then observe experienced surgeons at work on human patients. They can help out with simple operations, then progress to more complex ones as experience permits. Even the vivisection manuals caution medical students about applying surgical techniques from animals to humans." "Though the research community would like the public to believe that the use of animals is responsible for the breakthroughs in surgical methods, what really happens follows this typical pattern: In the effort to overcome heart disease, the heart of a human heart attack victim is studied during autopsy. An operation is then proposed to overcome the coronary artery blockage. Extensive animal experiments are then conducted in hopes of developing the surgical skill and in determining the feasibility of the operation on human patients. If the animal lives a false sense of optimism develops and human trials are begun. Due to the variation in blood clotting and anatomical differences between animals and humans, the initial surgeries on humans result in a high frequency of deaths from the operation. Over time, as the surgeons perfect the operation on actual patients, mortality rates from the operation decrease. Surgeons initially claim that the operation will prolong life, but as time goes on it becomes clear that the operation still kills many patients, and in fact doesn't improve the ultimate survival of coronary artery disease in patients. The operation passes out of vogue and is replaced by another one which passes through the same stages of evolution." In Experimental Surgery, Dr J. Markowitz states: "The operative technique described in these pages is suitable for animals, usually dogs. However, it does not follow that it is equally and always suited for human beings. We refuse to allow the student the pretence that what he is doing is operating on a patient for the cure of an ailment." .. http://www.health.org.nz/surg.html "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message news:ct5n9t >> > Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans? >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > large number of human lives. The appendectomy was pioneered by the > brilliant surgeon Lawson Tait... without animal experimentation. So? > ... > A glimpse at the overwhelming evidence from medical practitioners reveals [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > advances which owing nothing to vivisection but were discovered and > pioneered through clinical research. "many" > "British surgery has always stood high because it can be claimed, and not > without reason, that every surgical advance of major importance has come > from this country." Of course. Idiot. moo > "British surgery has always stood high because it can be claimed, and not > without reason, that every surgical advance of major importance has come > from this country." COMMENT: Starting with surgical anesthesia? Without the yanks, you Brits would probably still be strapping them down. Take a look at the Mayo brothers, and also at the history of vascular surgery. Not to mention transplantation and heart surgery. You'd have to be strapping them down pretty tight, too. > > "British surgery has always stood high because it can be claimed, and not > > without reason, that every surgical advance of major importance has come [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Starting with surgical anesthesia? "Just as the introduction of asepsis, antisepsis, ether, opium, curare, cocaine, morphine, chloroform, and other forms of anaesthesia, all of determinant importance for the rebirth of surgery, owe nothing to vivisection, so the thermometer, microscope, bacteriology, stethoscope, opthalmoscope, X-rays, percussion, auscultation and electronic microscope, all of capital importance for diagnostics, owe nothing to animal experimentation either. The same applies to the development of vaccination1 and all the fundamental drugs like digitalis, strophantin, atropine, iodine, quinine, nitro-glycerine, radium, penicillin. Not one single important therapeutic discovery is due to vivisection, whereas books can be filled with the cases where animal experimentation has indisputably spelled disaster for humanity, besides misleading or retarding clinical research." (Hans Ruesch, Slaughter of the Innocent, page 198, also M. Beddow Bayly, M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., Clinical Medical Discoveries.) http://www.health.org.nz/surg.html .. > Take a look at the Mayo brothers, and also at the history of vascular "The principal cause of coronary heart disease is bad nutrition and lack of exercise." (Prof. Beaglehole, Prof. of Community Health at the Auckland Medical School on Morning Report, Radio N.Z., February 27 1991.) [U.S 2001 heart disease deaths - 699,697] > surgery. Not to mention transplantation and heart surgery. 'The writer's first witness is Dr Moneim A. Fadali, for 25 years one of America's leading cardiovascular surgeons. This highly respected doctor is also: Diplomate to the American Board of Surgery; Diplomate to the American Board of Thoracic Surgery; Certified with the Canadian Board of Surgeons; Certified with the Royal College of Surgeons, Canada; twenty-five years on the clinical staff of the University of California where he currently practises. The statements of Dr Fadali, are confirmed and supported by doctors equally impressive and prestigious in many fields of medicine who are vociferous in their agreement that abolitionists are correct in their claim that vivisection is fraudulent and that those engaged in it are scoundrels and charlatans who should be imprisoned. Of the use of the dogs for coronary by-pass and open-heart surgery Dr Fadali writes: "Animal research was NOT responsible for the development of coronary bypass surgery. In 1961 in France, Kunlin first used a portion of a person's own vein to replace obstructed arterial segments. This gave birth to arterial bypass surgery for different parts of the body, the heart included. By contrast, Beck of Ohio and Vineburg of Canada took their theories to the animal laboratory in search of surgical answer to the complications of coronary artery disease. Each devised more than one procedure, envisioning success from their findings in animals. Not long after, their recommended operations were performed on thousands of human patients. What were the results? To say the least, unworthy. To put it bluntly; a fiasco, a total failure. I am witness to this event and the least I can do is speak out. Animal experimentation inevitably leads to human experimentation. That is the final verdict, sad as it is. And the toll mounts on both sides." "Dogs have been extensively used in heart research, but their coronary arteries differ from those of humans - they have smaller connections with one another and the left coronary artery dominates, while in humans the right does so. In addition, the conduction system has a different pattern of blood supply, and consequently, researchers have had difficulty in producing ischemic heart blocks in dogs, which occurs frequently in humans. The blood coagulation mechanism is unlike ours, therefore using dogs to test prosthetic devices and valves is unreliable. A dog's reaction to shock is also very different to that of humans. After massive blood loss a dog's intestines are congested, while in humans we see pallor and ischemia. No wonder conclusions from dog experiments extrapolated to human beings frequently brings about catastrophic results and regrettable failures, which occurred with the earlier models of heart valves and in the first several years of using the heart-lung machine. For the benefit of medical science vivisection should be stopped. We must put an end to the medical fraud of vivisection." ...' http://www.health.org.nz/heart.html >>Just as the introduction of asepsis, antisepsis, ether, opium, curare, cocaine, morphine, chloroform, and other forms of anaesthesia, all of determinant importance for the rebirth of surgery, owe nothing to vivisection, << Let's just stop right there, as I know something about the history of anesthesia. Don't go quoting Reusch, because he knows almost nothing of medical history. Technically "vivisection" refers to disecting living organisms, but people like Reusch use it thoughout the book to refer to all animal experimentation, including the testing of drugs. Verify that for yourself. And in fact, the anesthetic powers of nitrous oxide and ether were both tested on animals before humans. Dogs specifically were etherized before first use of ether in humans at Hopkins. For spinal/regional anesthesia, dogs were also used to test the technique before anybody dared inject the first local anesthetic into spines (they actually used cocaine). Reusch simply is making this stuff up. SBH > >>Just as the introduction of asepsis, antisepsis, ether, opium, curare, > cocaine, morphine, chloroform, and other forms of anaesthesia, all > of determinant importance for the rebirth of surgery, owe nothing > to vivisection, << .. > Technically "vivisection" refers to disecting living organisms, but > people like Reusch use it thoughout the book to refer to all animal > experimentation, including the testing of drugs. Verify that for > yourself. viv?i?sec?tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (vv-skshn, vv-sk-) n. The act or practice of cutting into or otherwise injuring living animals, especially for the purpose of scientific research. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vivisection > And in fact, the anesthetic powers of nitrous oxide and ether were both > tested on animals before humans. Dogs specifically were etherized [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > technique before anybody dared inject the first local anesthetic into > spines (they actually used cocaine). .. 'In 1800 English physician Thomas Beddoes published research on the therapeutic uses of nitrous oxide; in a closing paragraph his research assistant Humphry Davy put out the observation that "As nitrous oxide in its extensive operation appears capable of destroying physical pain, it may probably be used with advantage during surgical operations in which no great effusion of blood takes place."2 Davy's suggestion was not taken up by the medical community and for the next four decades surgery was unanestheticized and painful while nitrous oxide -- "laughing gas" -- and ether were used only for recreation. The Initially Uncredited First Use of an Anesthetic in Surgery : Dr. Crawford Williamson Long of Jefferson, Georgia on March 30, 1 842 removed two tumors from the neck of a patient unconsious under Ether's influence. However, it was not until 1848, two years after credit of the discovery was given to W.T.G Morton, that Long stepped forward to publish the results of his operation in a medical journal. ...' http://www.student.carleton.edu/T/TumasA/anethesia/history.html 'In 1803 morphine was derived from opium by a German chemist, who would have been able to introduce it to surgery had he not tried it on dogs. In dogs it caused excitement, so it was discarded for several decades. .. Chloroform was not properly understood until in 1847 Professor James Simpson tried it on himself, Dr Matthews Duncan and other volunteers. Soon afterwards it was successfully used in an operation. French doctors did not use chloroform due to the experiments by Flourens on animals which suggested it was unsuitable. Luckily for the British, Sir Lauder Brunton's experiments were not so trusted. Around 500 rabbits, cats, dogs, goats, horses and monkeys were subjected to chloroform tests which were published in The Lancet in February 1890. Respected anaesthetists were unanimous in their derision, and Brunton himself was forced to admit that Professor Simpson had made the definitive discoveries, and the animal experiments were irrelevant. In 1899, August Bier, developed lumbar anaesthesia. He was trained on, and initially supported vivisection, but eventually concluded that it was wrong to. Sigerist wrote of his views: 'true medical art has declined, having been overshadowed by laboratory research. The sense and understanding of the whole has been lost, the result of experiments is being extrapolated to man without any critical sense....Frog and rabbit say nothing...'. In 1912 the UK government held a Royal Commission into vivisection. Page 26 makes a clear-cut statement: 'The discovery of anaesthetics owes nothing to vivisection'. Dr Hadwen wrote of the discoveries of anaesthetics: 'Animals had nothing to do with the discovery of any of them. In fact, I am credibly informed that, had animal experiments been relied upon in any of these cases, we should have been so misled that probably humanity would have been robbed of this great blessing of anaesthesia - one of the greatest blessings, I suppose, ever conferred on mankind'. In other words, vivisection had the potential to keep us all conscious, strapped to tables while routine operations caused us the sort of pain usually only experienced by torture victims and lab animals. Relatively recently, the story was repeated when the modern anaesthetic fluroxene (based on ether) was discovered. M J Halsey, an enthusiastic vivisector himself admitted it was: 'One of the most dramatic examples of misleading evidence from animal data' after it failed animal tested conclusively following a decade of safe human use. Dogs cats and rabbits suffered from effects including ataxia, hypotension and seizures. He concluded: 'If these particular experiments had been carried out 20 years earlier, the agent would never have been released'. Some people never learn. Similarly, Midazolam and other benzodiazepines are commonly used in humans, but do not render cats and dogs unconscious, and can even cause agitation and excitement when given by injection. Results are proved not even transferable between different species of lab animals. Propofol is effective for dogs cats, pigs, sheep, and some rodents (rats and mice), but rabbits (also rodents) are given severe respiratory problems. The laboratory method is further scorned by clinical experience which shows human women and men are not treated the same by Propofol, with women recovering about twice as fast as men. http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/vin05.html Apparently you're quoting from Ruesch or somebody, because every paragraph, indeed every sentence is filled with errors. And you're doing what antivivisectionists typically do, which is to simply ignore rebuttal and quote more junk. >>Relatively recently, the story was repeated when the modern anaesthetic fluroxene (based on ether) was discovered. M J Halsey, an enthusiastic vivisector himself admitted it was: 'One of the most dramatic examples of misleading evidence from animal data' after it failed animal tested conclusively following a decade of safe human use. Dogs cats and rabbits suffered from effects including ataxia, hypotension and seizures. He concluded: 'If these particular experiments had been carried out 20 years earlier, the agent would never have been released'. Some people never learn.<< I've never heard of fluroxene, and neither have GOOGLE or MEDLARS. I guess it never was released. Want to try again? >>Similarly, Midazolam and other benzodiazepines are commonly used in humans, but do not render cats and dogs unconscious, and can even cause agitation and excitement when given by injection. << COMMENT They don't render humans unconscious in normal amounts, either, so the premise of the sentence is wrong. As for producing "aggitation" in animals, any rapid anesthetic induction can produce a panic response in onset, in ANY conscious being who isn't prepared for it. That includes demented people, children, unprepared adults, mentally handicapped persons, etc. All human. This is not a difference between animals and humans so much as a difference between prepared and unprepared minds. >>Results are proved not even transferable between different species of lab animals. Propofol is effective for dogs cats, pigs, sheep, and some rodents (rats and mice), but rabbits (also rodents) are given severe respiratory problems.<< COMMENT: Complete nonsense. In fact propofol is one of many useful anesthetics in rabbit anesthesia, as a routine google search will verify (google "rabbit propofol"). I've seen it used in rabbits myself. Propofol is universal, and is a very, very bad example for your side. Unless you simply lie or print things that are erroneous. >> The laboratory method is further scorned by clinical experience which shows human women and men are not treated the same by Propofol, with women recovering about twice as fast as men.<< COMMENT: No, this has nothing to do with propofol and really nothing to do with humans vs animals. It is true that women are 20-30% more sensitive to anesthetics of all kinds by body weight, but this is simply due to their having roughly 20-30% less lean body mass and body water, per pound body weight. This rule, as I've seen in dogs, applies equally well to fat and thin animals. Anesthetics are properly best dosed by lean body weight for a given species, end of story. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2003 Mar;47(3):241-59. Gender differences in drug effects: implications for anesthesiologists. Pleym H, Spigset O, Kharasch ED, Dale O. Departments of Anesthesia & Intensive Care, St Olav's University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway. BACKGROUND: The gender aspect in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of anesthetics has attracted little attention. Knowledge of previous work is required to decide if gender-based differences in clinical practice is justified, and to determine the need for research. METHODS: Basis for this paper was obtained by Medline searches using the key words 'human' and 'gender' or 'sex,' combined with individual drug names. The reference lists of these papers were further checked for other relevant studies. RESULTS: Females have 20-30% greater sensitivity to the muscle relaxant effects of vecuronium, pancuronium and rocuronium. When rapid onset of or short duration of action is very important, gender-modified dosing may be considered. Males are more sensitive than females to propofol. It may therefore be necessary to decrease the propofol dose by 30-40% in males compared with females in order to achieve similar recovery times. Females are more sensitive than males to opioid receptor agonists, as shown for morphine as well as for a number of kappa (OP2) receptor agonists. On this basis, males will be expected to require 30-40% higher doses of opioid analgesics than females to achieve similar pain relief. On the other hand, females may experience respiratory depression and other adverse effects more easily if they are given the same doses as males. CONCLUSION: These examples illustrate that gender should be taken into account as a factor that may be predictive for the dosage of several anesthetic drugs. Moreover, there is an obvious need for more research in this area in order to further optimize drug treatment in anesthesia. Publication Types: Review PMID: 12648189 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] > Apparently you're quoting from Ruesch or somebody, because every > paragraph, indeed every sentence is filled with errors. And you're > doing what antivivisectionists typically do, which is to simply ignore > rebuttal and quote more junk. Ipse dixit ad hominem, and false. > >>Relatively recently, the story was repeated when the modern anaesthetic > fluroxene (based on ether) was discovered. M J Halsey, an enthusiastic [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I've never heard of fluroxene, and neither have GOOGLE or MEDLARS. I > guess it never was released. Want to try again? Mutat Res. 1978 Nov;58(2-3):183-91. Fluroxene mutagenicity. Baden JM, Kelley M, Simmon VF, Rice SA, Mazze RI. The commercially available volatile anesthetic fluroxene (2,2,2-trifluoroethyl vinyl ether) which contains the stabilizer N-phenyl-1-napthylamine, was tested for mutagenicity using four strains of S. typhimurium, TA1535, TA1537, TA98 and TA100, and one strain of E. coli, WP2. In addition, purified fluroxene; N-phenyl-1-napthylamine; trifluoroethanol, a major metabolite of fluoroxene; and urine from rats anesthetized with fluroxene were tested. Several procedures were utilized including exposure of bacteria to vapor in desiccators and in liquid suspension. Results indicate that fluroxene, but not its stabilizer, was mutagenic to strains TA1535, TA100 and WP2 only in liquid suspension and only in the presence of a rat-liver enzyme system. Trifluoroethanol and urine from fluroxene-treated rat were not mutagenic to any strain of bacteria. These findings indicate that fluroxene is a promutagen which requires preincubation before it is recognized. Further experiments were performed with enzymes prepared from mouse, hamster and human liver. Fluroxene was mutagenic only in the presence of enzymes prepared from Aroclor 1254 pretreated rodents. Since fluroxene was not mutagenic in the presence of enzymes prepared from three human livers, the significance of these findings to man are unclear. PMID: 34096 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3 4096&dopt=Abstract > >>Similarly, Midazolam and other benzodiazepines are commonly used in > humans, but do not render cats and dogs unconscious, and can even > cause agitation and excitement when given by injection. << > > COMMENT > They don't render humans unconscious in normal amounts, 'Main effects are:- 1) CNS Depression - decreased anxiety, tranquility, sedation, anterograde amnesia, ultimately unconsciousness and respiratory depression. http://www.usyd.edu.au/su/anaes/lectures/anaes_basics_clt/anaesthesia_basics.html > either, so the premise of the sentence is wrong. Apparently not. > As for producing "aggitation" in > animals, any rapid anesthetic induction can produce a panic response in > onset, in ANY conscious being who isn't prepared for it. That includes > demented people, children, unprepared adults, mentally handicapped > persons, etc. All human. This is not a difference between animals and > humans so much as a difference between prepared and unprepared minds. 'Midazolam is ranged among the benzodiazepines. .. Instead of sedative activity in dogs and cats it may cause a state of agitation (13). More large doses achieve the state of unconsciousness as a rule only, when animal's health is poor (14). http://www.vf.uni-lj.si/veterina/zbornik/69_lukanc_e.pdf. > >>Results are > proved not even transferable between different species of lab animals. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > universal, and is a very, very bad example for your side. Unless you > simply lie or print things that are erroneous. It does cause severe respiratory depression, but not only in rabbits. 'Results are proved not even transferable between different species of lab animals.' .... 'Xylazine produces sedation/hypnosis, good muscle relaxation, variable analgesia especially in rats and rabbits Propofol analgesia in rat and rabbit poor; depth of analgesia variable, but often not sufficient for even minor surgery in these species .. Telazol is contraindicated for use in rabbits because of its nephrotoxic effects and lack of analgesia. .. Halothane shown to be hepatoxic with repeated use in rabbits and rodents; rabbits and guinea pigs are more susceptible to these effects than are mice and rats .... http://dlar.wayne.edu/hbk3.htm > >> The laboratory method is further scorned by clinical experience > which shows human women and men are not treated the same by Propofol, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > well to fat and thin animals. Anesthetics are properly best dosed by > lean body weight for a given species, end of story. Re-read what you posted.. --excerpt-- > Males are more sensitive than females to propofol. It may therefore > be necessary to decrease the propofol dose by 30-40% in males [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > respiratory depression and other adverse effects more easily if they > are given the same doses as males. > Technically "vivisection" refers to disecting living organisms, but > people like Reusch use it thoughout the book to refer to all animal > experimentation, including the testing of drugs. Verify that for > yourself. viv·i·sec·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (vv-skshn, vv-sk-) n. The act or practice of cutting into or otherwise injuring living animals, especially for the purpose of scientific research. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vivisection COMMENT: Yes, that's the Steadman, one of 5 entries at dictionary.com. Others from other dictionaries (like Mirriam-Webster) make no mention of anything but surgery. So you picked the definition you like, but not the most common one. SBH >>> Technically "vivisection" refers to disecting living organisms, but >>> people like Reusch use it thoughout the book to refer to all animal [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>The act or practice of cutting into or otherwise injuring living >>animals, especially for the purpose of scientific research. Source: The American Heritage? Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition >> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vivisection > >COMMENT: > >Yes, that's the Steadman, one of 5 entries at dictionary.com. (#2) viv?i?sec?tion (vv-skshn, vv-sk-) n. The act or practice of cutting into or otherwise injuring living animals, especially for the purpose of scientific research. vivi?section?ist n. Source: The American Heritage? Stedman's Medical Dictionary http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vivisection > Others >from other dictionaries (like Mirriam-Webster) make no mention of >anything but surgery. So you picked the definition you like, but not >the most common one. (#3) Main Entry: vivi?sec?tion Pronunciation: "viv-&-'sek-sh&n, 'viv-&-" Function: noun : the cutting of or operation on a living animal usually for physiological or pathological investigation -vivi?sect /-'sekt/ verb -vivi?sec?tion?al / "viv-&-'sek-shn&l, -sh&n-&l/ adjective Source: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, ? 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vivisection Invasive experiments which may involve, for example, the taking of tissue samples (biopsies), the implantation of catheters, or other procedures which necessitate cutting into living flesh are, by any definition, vivisection. >>"Dogs have been extensively used in heart research, but their coronary arteries differ from those of humans - they have smaller connections with one another and the left coronary artery dominates, while in humans the right does so.<< COMMENT: The right coronary dominates in humans? You're joking, right? Or quoting a joker. SBH > >>"Dogs have been extensively used in heart research, but their coronary > arteries differ from those of humans - they have smaller connections [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > The right coronary dominates in humans? 'right coronary artery branches ... posterior descending artery (PDA, 90%) hence, right coronary a. is usually dominant .. http://chorus.rad.mcw.edu/doc/00462.html You're joking, right? Or > quoting a joker. > > SBH >>'The writer's first witness is Dr Moneim A. Fadali, for 25 years one of America's leading cardiovascular surgeons. This highly respected doctor is also: Diplomate to the American Board of Surgery; Diplomate to the American Board of Thoracic Surgery; Certified with the Canadian Board of Surgeons; Certified with the Royal College of Surgeons, Canada; twenty-five years on the clinical staff of the University of California where he currently practises. The statements of Dr Fadali, are confirmed and supported by doctors equally impressive and prestigious in many fields of medicine who are vociferous in their agreement that abolitionists are correct in their claim that vivisection is fraudulent and that those engaged in it are scoundrels and charlatans who should be imprisoned. COMMENT: Excuse me? I've never heard of this guy except that he's telling us that the right coronary is dominant in humans, according to Ruesch. As for how many eminant people agree with him, I'll just post a historical link by the John E. Connally, who did the first modern coronary bypass, which this Fadali guy says wasn't developed by animal research. Connally, however, says differently. >> Of the use of the dogs for coronary by-pass and open-heart surgery Dr Fadali writes: "Animal research was NOT responsible for the development of coronary bypass surgery. In 1961 in France, Kunlin first used a portion of a person's own vein to replace obstructed arterial segments. This gave birth to arterial bypass surgery for different parts of the body, the heart included. << COMMENT: "Gave birth to" is short for "after a lot of years of dog research." Here's the rest of the story, by Dr. Connally. It's complicated, but then all history is. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=101261 SBH Wups, that's Dr. Connolly, not Connally. But the link seems to work. > >>'The writer's first witness is Dr Moneim A. Fadali, for 25 years one > of [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Excuse me? I've never heard of this guy except that he's telling us > that the right coronary is dominant in humans, according to Ruesch. 'right coronary artery branches .. posterior descending artery (PDA, 90%) hence, right coronary a. is usually dominant http://chorus.rad.mcw.edu/doc/00462.html > As for how many eminant people agree with him, I'll just post a > historical link by the John E. Connally, who did the first modern [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > "Gave birth to" is short for "after a lot of years of dog research." And you attribute advances to messing about with dogs, or were they due to studying and operating on humans? From your link; "I tried a saphenous vein as the conduit after learning of Kunlin's 1 use of a reversed saphenous vein for femoral-popliteal bypass." [1. Kunlin J. Le traitement de l'ischaemia arteritique par la graffe veineose longe. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 1951;70:206.] "I was trying to develop a method of occlusion of the vein bypass external to the chest when my year of animal research ended and I was re-immersed into a busy residency." 'In 1967, we reported animal experiments that used this technique, which we called myocardial boring. 10 We learned at that time that Sen 11 had performed similar experiments and had called his acupunctured animal hearts "snake hearts" because the snake does not have coronary arteries. I never did the procedure on human beings because of our work on coronary artery bypass, but others 12 revived myocardial boring 35 years later, using a CO2 laser. I do not expect it to be any more successful in supplying increased coronary flow than was the Vineberg procedure. ..' {Meanwhile, let's not forget.. "The principal cause of coronary heart disease is bad nutrition and lack of exercise." (Prof. Beaglehole, Prof. of Community Health at the Auckland Medical School on Morning Report, Radio N.Z., February 27 1991.) [U.S 2001 heart disease deaths - 699,697]} > Here's the rest of the story, by Dr. Connally. It's complicated, but > then all history is. > http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=101261 'One feature of the animal experimental method is its drama - it is so much more dramatic than clinical discoveries that animal researchers get credit for virtually every discovery ever made in the history of medicine. A clinician will make the discovery, then an animal researcher will perform a dramatic, showy, sometimes bloody experiment and will plagiarize credit for the discovery which had already been made. A very famous experimental surgeon named Alexis Carrel won the Nobel Prize in 1912, ostensibly for discovering organ transplantation and techniques of blood vessel repair. It is quite clear historically that Carrel was actually dramatizing discoveries already made by leading figures in abdominal surgery in the latter part of the 19th century. Even his technique of connecting the two severed ends of the blood vessel, which underlies modern organ transplantation, was plagiarized from the clinical surgeon Robert Tuttle Morris. Carrel also received credit for performing the first bypass surgery using segments of the patient's own vein to bypass obstructed arteries. He is credited with all the modern breakthroughs in vascular surgery. In actuality, vascular and bypass surgery began to evolve in the 1700's under the influence of William Hunter, a very famous British anatomist. Hunter found that in certain anomalous human cases, there is a shunting of blood from the artery into the vein. This situation can occur from injury, or, as in former times, when a patient was purposely bled, and an artificial connection between artery and vein was created. William Hunter was able to demonstrate that the person's own veins can withstand this very high blood pressure normally found in the arterial system. This finding is actually the bedrock of the bypass principle, because all modern leg and coronary artery bypasses rely on segments of the patient's own vein to bypass arteries obstructed by atherosclerotic plaques. Dr. Jean Kunlin is the surgeon who, in the late 1040's, actually discovered modern bypass surgery. His work relied on the earlier discoveries of William Hunter and others who had shown that in human beings, the vein could withstand very, very high blood pressures, and, therefore, could be used for bypass. To demonstrate how disastrously far off track animal experimentation can throw the entire community of medicine, in 1952 some researchers performed animal experiments using vein as bypass material to determine whether segments of the animal's own vein would withstand the very high blood pressure in the arterial system. This experiment was presented in 1952 at the annual conference of the American College of Surgeons. The researchers concluded, on the basis of their animal experiments, that it was not possible to accomplish bypass grafting with segments of the patient's own vein. Instead, the patient's artery should be used. This is because in dog experiments, when the segment of vein was inserted into the arterial tree, it ballooned out into an aneurism. The researchers were, therefore, afraid that if they placed these segments of vein into patients' arterial trees in the leg or coronary arteries, they would kill people because the vein segment simply would not hold up. Because of these misleading animal experiments, most surgeons declined to use patients' own veins to bypass obstructed arteries for about ten years, at least until the early 1960's. Finally, a few surgeons began to believe the clinical data - 200 years of evidence showing that very high blood pressure did not burst veins in human beings. This evidence came from cases of arterio-venous aneurism, in which veins were used to bridge obstructions in arteries during war surgery and in other clinical contexts. It was shown very clearly that vein bypass would work. Clearly, misleading animal experiments retarded the development of modern bypass surgery by about 10 years. ...' http://www.chai-online.org/reines.htm >>On the other hand, Rich acknowledged, the journal that published the paper is reputable. She said more scientists will have to assess it, especially as it seems to contain some strange conclusions. "One person said to me, 'if handling animals causes tumors, what does this say about our pets?'" Balcombe dismissed that objection. he said. Lab animals learn to expect bad things, and their fear of handling stems from that, he added; this isn't the case with pets.<< COMMENT: We're hearing a certain amount of fuzzy thinking and B.S. from both sides here. There's truth here, but it's somewhere in the middle. As a physician and biomedical researcher who's published scientific work using both rodent and dog models, let me put my two cents in. First of all, Balcombe's objection is disingenuous because he's talking about rodents, which may be the only lab animals he thinks about. "The difference between my pet rats and a rat in a laboratory is my pet rats don't ever get stuck with needles, have blood drawn or get force-fed a drug," Yeah, that may be true, but what about Balcombe's pet cats and dogs? How does he get his cats tested for FeLV and FIV if they don't get poked with needles to draw blood? How do his animals get vaccinated? Does he not neuter or spay his pets? How does that go? The truth is that any pet animal which has had many invasive procedures at a vet will exhibit the very same stress responses as we're talking about, as soon as it gets a whiff of the office smell on the 3rd or 4th or 10th visit. If you own a pet, you've seen that. All the issues brought up with animal research also occur in veterinary practice, and in human practice too, particularly in pediatric oncology and anesthesia. There are ways to deal with all of them. One of the ways is simple desensitization, or exposure therapy. To do this, you simply do a lot of handling of the animals in situations where they're not hurt. At my institution the dogs (which are all bred in-house) are only semi-socialized, but they're exposed to humans every day when they're sent to the exercise yard, and even more intimately when they are brought into the clinical space for monthly health exams and checkups. All this makes them quite handle-able. The second way you can deal with anxiety in animals is pre-medicate it away. All dogs at my institution get acepromazine before being taken out of their housing for invasive procedures, and after that, more tranquilizers in scaled fashion (ketamine/valium, or even if necessary propofol/gas full anesthesia) when they need it. And also pre and post procedure narcotics for pain. The result of all of this is that these animals are no more anxious after many minor invasive procedures than they are before the first one. Apparently, they have no memory, as your pets do of the vet's office. As illustration, we work with 60 lb animals with all their teeth, but never use muzzles, nor ever need to. Rodents are at risk to be mistreated. One of the difficulties is their size-- they are so easy to control by hand using neck/back scruff techniques, that often they can be handled without fear of bite, even without medication. Researchers therefore often omit the medication. This is probably not a good thing, and from the humanitarian point of view there's just as much justification for premedicating rats and mice for major invasive procedures (ie those that are more invasive than the premedication shot), as there is for cats or dogs. A similar thing happens with husbandry and routine human contact. Rats and mice don't need to be exercised in separate facilities, so they usually aren't. That leaves them to be left alone entirely. Nor are they often handled by hand except when being invaded. This also is a mistake. As anybody who has owned a pet rat or mouse can tell you, rodents also can be semi-socialized with a little bit of handling and human contact. The rodent stress problem is partly just bad luck for rodents due to their small size, easy care, relative lack of "cuteness," easy controllability, and cheapness. Some of the blame for the mistreatment of rodents rests on researchers, who can be lazy, and may well not have the empathic connection for rodents that they naturally do for more common companion animals like dogs and cats. But the rest of the story is that some of the blame for the mistreatment of rodents rests on PETA and the animal rights activists, who have managed to get federal law to place non rodent mammal research under a set of very onerous and expensive USDA restrictions which are far worse than apply to the food industry, or to pet owners. With the result that most non-rodent research has disappeared, because it's been priced out of the market due to the artificial PETA-generated expenses. In turn, loss of large animal experience with its necessity for premedication and desensitization-handing that it brings as a habit, has given us more generations of researchers who simply don't have those habits. When these researchers get hold of rodents, they tend to mistreat them because they don't know any other way. Putting it in other words, research which runs on only rodent experience is bound to run into problems if inadequate prevention of suffering and stress. Large animals teach stress management by experience and direct observation. Panicked and stressed dogs put their tails between their legs, urinate, and make piteous facial expressions. Cats in similar situations yowl and hiss. Pigs may squeal almost ultrasonically, and at astonishing intensity. Cats, dogs, and pigs all can produce vicious bites. Rabbits may simply collapse and die. All these things provoke automatic responses in researchers to see that stress and fear are reduced. But the researcher who, unlike the veterinarian, has no set of reflexes for dealing with a wide spectrum of animal handling, and who thinks of rodents as wild squirmy animals which are naturally panicked anyway, is less likely to do anything about it. In fact, a certain amount of "rodent-bigotry" is one reason why rodent-research has so far successfully resisted being put under USDA control (of course there are also other reasons involving logistics). The large scale research move to "rodents-only" has not only been bad for rodents, but bad for science. One of the problems is that stress in mishandled rodents may indeed result in scattered and poor data, particularly in research which involves the immune system (the hormone corticosterone, generated in large amounts in rodents during stress, is immunosuppressive in a similar way to cortisol in humans). This can be avoided with proper handling (as some of my own research in mice demonstrates). But a far worse problem is that the loss of non-rodent animal models in science has meant the loss of a large number of models which are far more appropriate to human problems than anything possible in rodents. To pick two examples: there is a growing amount of blood lipid and diet "research" in rats, even though rats are extremely resistant to atherosclerosis. This research is more and more replacing the older research in a more appropriate rabbit model, largely because rabbits are now under USDA inspection control, and as a result have become very expensive to house and use in research (far more expensive than housing rabbits bred for food!). In a field I'm familiar with, liquid ventilation research, a great deal of time and money has been wasted using rats, which model humans very poorly due to far faster metabolisms and CO2 productions, and tiny lungs which behave very differently from those of man. By contrast, the larger breed corsairial canine, which is a far better model for human lung research, has nearly been banished from the field. (But try doing a stethoscope exam on a *rat* with chemical asthma.) I don't have much hope for the future. We need animals for research, but the "animal advocates," who have long argued that animals are poor models for humans, have succeeded in getting ridiculously expensive laws passed which have destroyed many animal research models, and thus made their own arguments partially self-fulfilling. (I wonder if that wasn't their real purpose). True enough, large animals are now better protected from mistreatment by researchers than in the past---- but the huge overkill and hypocrisy in these laws (which, as again as noted, apply to research animal housing, for example, but not food-animal housing) has made large animal research rare. Therefore, what social good did it do to protect large animals in research, if that made the research too expensive to do at all? The point was supposedly actually to do some research, not just outlaw it by the back door. The win-win situation that makes for good politics didn't happen in this field. As a result, trust has disappeared and science has now drawn the line at extending similar laws to rodent husbandry and handling. And now the huge irony: because of the intrinsic vulnerability of rodents to abuse by researchers, probably rodents need the oversight of at least veterinary pain and stress management more than any other research species, and they always have. And yet, as of now, due to the animal research wars, rodents are probably farther away from getting it than they ever have been. Go figure. SBH >>>On the other hand, Rich acknowledged, the journal that published >the paper is reputable. She said more scientists will have to assess [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >COMMENT: [...] >Some of the blame for the mistreatment >of rodents rests on researchers, who can be lazy, and may well not have >the empathic connection for rodents that they naturally do for more >common companion animals like dogs and cats. That's probably the biggest factor both in research, and the treatment of animals raised for food. People just don't care, and it's hard to make them care. Even if people cared by their own nature it would be *much* different, in that the first priority would be to make it as easy on--and whenever possible pleasant for--the animals. But instead it is the complete opposite, and it's very hard to make people care. By nature we don't care, and we have to actually learn just to have basic consideration for others. Another example of this is with animals raised for food. I point out that we should give their lives as much consideration as their deaths. Of course people who don't want them to exist like veg*ns and "ARAs" are very much opposed to people thinking about that. If they did, then people who want to see farm animals have decent lives would try to contribute to them, instead of to no lives at all as veg*nism does. "ARAs" want to get farm animals eliminated instead of for people to provide them with decent lives. That should always be kept in mind, but due to the amount of money they take in, plus things I've heard other people say, I believe most people think "ARAs" want to help animals, and aren't aware that they want to do away with them. >But the rest of the story >is that some of the blame for the mistreatment of rodents rests on PETA >and the animal rights activists, I've known kids who worked in chicken houses, and they would often kill a chick "for" the "AR" people. People who try to force their beliefs on others as PeTA does, create resentment which is often taken out on animals. >who have managed to get federal law to >place non rodent mammal research under a set of very onerous and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >these researchers get hold of rodents, they tend to mistreat them >because they don't know any other way. Again the actions of "ARAs" cause more suffering, not less. If they tried to help make things better for the animals instead of trying to get them eliminated, it could be better for the animals, better for overall general human feelings toward animals imo, and better for those who are doing the research, which would make it better for the medical care available to humans and other animals. But no. They don't. They make it worse, not better, and people are willingly sending them money to do it. >Putting it in other words, research which runs on only rodent >experience is bound to run into problems if inadequate prevention of [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] >made their own arguments partially self-fulfilling. (I wonder if that >wasn't their real purpose). Remember that "ARAs" don't want to improve life for domestic animals, they want to eliminate them. When they act as if they're trying to promote better lives for domestic animals, they're really just exploiting AW issues in order the get more funding from people who care about animals, to assist them in their efforts to eliminate the very animals people are sending them money in the hopes of helping. They spend the money trying to get laws passed which will make it illegal or at least impractical for people to continue raising certain animals. They have apparently successfully gotten you stuck using animals who are poor models for humans, and will continue to succeed with tricks like that and improve at doing so, unless something stops them. We can easily see that already. >True enough, large animals are now better >protected from mistreatment by researchers than in the past---- but the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >SBH What else can we expect? These are the same people who commit terrorist acts which destroy research. When they do that, not only does it delay the time when humans and other animals can benefit from the research, causing more suffering not less, but the research they destroy must be done again, causing even more suffering not less. "ARAs" are really the enemies of the animals they pretend to be trying to help, as well as of the people who send them donations, and of everyone else who does not. Fuckwit wrote: > [...] > >Some of the blame for the mistreatment [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > we don't care, and we have to actually learn just to have basic > consideration for others. That's a load of sh.t. By nature, people DO care. > Another example of this is with animals raised for food. I point out > that we should give their lives as much consideration as their deaths. And ALL you mean by that is that people "ought" to want the animals to exist. Your attempt to tie these two issues together is fuckwitted. "Caring" about farm animals lives does not mean one "ought" to want farm animals to exist. You are not ever going to persuade "vegans" that they "ought" to eat meat, Fuckwit. It just isn't going to happen. > >But the rest of the story > >is that some of the blame for the mistreatment of rodents rests on PETA > >and the animal rights activists, > > I've known kids who worked in chicken houses, and they would > often kill a chick "for" the "AR" people. Bullshit. > >[...] > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Remember that "ARAs" don't want to improve life for domestic animals, > they want to eliminate them. Right - that is what they want. What YOU want is to ensure that farm animals exist. You stupidly believe that making farm animals exist confers some kind of "benefit" on them. It doesn't. On 24 Jan 2005 13:18:55 -0800, the Gonad wrote: >> On 23 Jan 2005 21:06:22 -0800, "Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" ><sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >That's a load of sh.t. By nature, people DO care. No they don't, otherwise they would. >> Another example of this is with animals raised for food. I point >out [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >And ALL you mean by that is that people "ought" to want the animals to >exist. I don't even know which "the animals" you are referring to. >Your attempt to tie these two issues together is fuckwitted. "Caring" >about farm animals lives does not mean one "ought" to want farm animals >to exist. > >You are not ever going to persuade "vegans" that they "ought" to eat >meat, Fuckwit. It just isn't going to happen. What you're afraid of is that people could decide to contribute to decent lives for farm animals, instead of contributing to nothing. >> >But the rest of the story >> >is that some of the blame for the mistreatment of rodents rests on [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Bullshit. It shows your extreme ignorance that you can't believe something as common as that. >> >[...] >> > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >believe that making farm animals exist confers some kind of "benefit" >on them. It doesn't. Some farm animals benefit from farming. Some do not. We know you "ARAs" want people to falsely believe that all do not. Fuckwit David Harrison the goosefucker wrote: > >> On 23 Jan 2005 21:06:22 -0800, "Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" > ><sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > No they don't Yes, they do, Fuckwit. > >>Another example of this is with animals raised for food. I point out > >>that we should give their lives as much consideration as their > >deaths. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I don't even know which "the animals" you are referring to. Yes, you most certainly do. Stop LYING, Fuckwit. The animals that will be raised for us to eat are more than just "nothing", because they *will* be born unless something stops their lives from happening. Since that is the case, if something stops their lives from happening, whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying" them of the life they otherwise would have had. Fuckwit - 12/09/1999 Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be born if nothing prevents that from happening, that would experience the loss if their lives are prevented. Fuckwit - 08/01/2000 [note to Skunky: Fuckwit says this voluntary statement, which he had WEEKS to think over, was some kind of "mistake", i.e., that it doesn't reflect his thinking. He is LYING - this statement ABSOLUTELY reflects his thinking. Fuckwit believes there are unborn farm animals in some kind of 'pre-born' state.] Then I guess raising billions of animals for food provides billions of beings with a place in eternity. I'm happy to contribute to at least some of it. Fuckwit - 04/12/2002 THOSE animals, Fuckwit: the ones you stupidly imagine will suffer a "loss", or suffer some "unfairness", if "vegans" somehow prevent them from being born. THIS is where it stands, Fuckwit, and is why you lost. The CORRECT public perception is that you believe ALLLLLLLLL this crapola. You DO believe it: you wrote it, and it is not a "mistake" in any sense, except that it may have been STUPID of you to let us see the depths of your STUPIDITY in such blatant language. You lost, Fuckwit. > >Your attempt to tie these two issues together is fuckwitted. "Caring" > >about farm animals lives does not mean one "ought" to want farm animals [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > What you're afraid of is Nothing, Fuckwit. I'm not afraid of anything where your fuckwittery is concerned. I WANT people to consider the lives of farm animals, but ONLY if the animals live. Considering the lives of farm animals does NOT mean any farm animals *ought* to live, as you STUPIDLY believe should be the case. > >> >But the rest of the story > >> >is that some of the blame for the mistreatment of rodents rests on [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > It BULLSHIT, Fuckwit. You lied. Stop LYING. > >> >[...] > >> > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Some farm animals benefit from farming. NO farm animals benefit from coming into existence, Fuckwit, which is what you mean when you write your pathetic homo bullshit "Some farm animals benefit from farming." You are wrong, Fuckwit: no animals benefit from farming. On 25 Jan 2005 10:32:49 -0800, the Gonad wrote: >[note to Skunky: Fuckwit says this voluntary statement, which >he had WEEKS to think over, was some kind of "mistake", i.e., >that it doesn't reflect his thinking. He is LYING - this >statement ABSOLUTELY reflects his thinking. Fuckwit believes >there are unborn farm animals in some kind of 'pre-born' >state.] That's another lie. Though I consider it to be a possibility, as does the Gonad himself: _________________________________________________________ From: Jonathan Ball <jonball@whitehouse.not> Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian Subject: Re: Livestock gain nothing from life. Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 19:00:58 GMT The rational person realizes: 1. He *cannot* know if the animals exist in a 'pre-born' state. 2. Even if they do, he knows nothing of that state ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ _________________________________________________________ From: Jonathan Ball <jonball@whitehouse.not> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals Subject: The Illogic of the Larder, just for FUCKWIT Message-ID: <gPsXb.3743$tL3.2859@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 17:22:20 GMT Either farm animals "exist" in some kind of pre-conceived, pre-born state, or they do not. ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ at this time I'll just prove that he's a liar when he says I do believe it, first by showing he's aware I said otherwise in the sentence following his pathetic "prize" quote: _________________________________________________________ Path: mindspring!news.mindspring.net!not-for-mail From: Jonathan Ball <jonball@earthlink.NS.net> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals Subject: Re: Appreciate some help to understand. Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 09:14:41 -0700 in the very next sentence, you claim that you don't believe the animals exist before conception; ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ and now by his own words denying it, again proving him a liar: _________________________________________________________ From: Jonathan Ball <jonball@mindspring.NS.com> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals Subject: Fuckwit's big problem Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 20:54:36 GMT This view of them as being morally considerable doesn't mean you think they "exist" in some kind of tangible sense - no one ever suggested it did ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ Here is more of the quote from which the Gonad snipped his pathetic "prize",which is a mistake I made in terminology and he has proudly been parading around for several years: _________________________________________________________ From: David (dh_ld@yahoo.com) Subject: Re: animal welfare poem Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals Date: 2000/08/01 [...] Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be born if nothing prevents that from happening, that would experience the loss if their lives are prevented. I don't believe that the individual animals exist in any way before they are conceived, but I am also aware that billions more animals *will* exist as a result of the farming industry if nothing (like ARAs) prevents it from happening. To me that is a major aspect to take into consideration. ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ Fuckwit David Harrison wrote: > On 25 Jan 2005 10:32:49 -0800, the Gonad wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > That's another lie. That's NOT a lie, Fuckwit. It was NOT a mistake. You had SIX f.cking weeks to come up with your answer, and that's what you wrote after all that time. It reflects your DEEPLY HELD beliefs on the issue, which is why it is a lie for you to say I have lied about your beliefs. I have not: I have correctly interpreted your beliefs based on what YOU have written. Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be born if nothing prevents that from happening, that would experience the loss if their lives are prevented. Fuckwit - 08/01/2000 You wrote it, Fuckwit, and it was NOT a mistake, except to let us see the depths of your stupidity. > >>On the other hand, Rich acknowledged, the journal that published > the paper is reputable. She said more scientists will have to assess [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > to draw blood? How do his animals get vaccinated? Does he not neuter or > spay his pets? How does that go? How often are pets subjected to the above? Rats in laboratories? > The truth is that any pet animal which has had many invasive procedures Ah. > at a vet will exhibit the very same stress responses as we're talking > about, as soon as it gets a whiff of the office smell on the 3rd or 4th [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > this, you simply do a lot of handling of the animals in situations > where they're not hurt. The norm in lab's? > At my institution the dogs (which are all bred > in-house) are only semi-socialized, but they're exposed to humans every [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > desensitization-handing that it brings as a habit, has given us more > generations of researchers who simply don't have those habits. 'Medical students (41) initially felt moral uneasiness towards performing terminal procedures on live dogs, but they eventually were able to neutralize any feelings of moral guilt by learning absolutions (e.g., the staff killed the dogs) that permit denial of responsibility and wrongdoing. - Arluke A, Hafferty F. From apprehension to fascination with "Dog Lab:" The use of absolutions by medical students. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 1996;25(2):201-225. > When > these researchers get hold of rodents, they tend to mistreat them > because they don't know any other way. You're not trained to treat all animals in a humane manner? > Putting it in other words, research which runs on only rodent > experience is bound to run into problems if inadequate prevention of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ultrasonically, and at astonishing intensity. Cats, dogs, and pigs all > can produce vicious bites. Rabbits may simply collapse and die. Shocking!! > All > these things provoke automatic responses in researchers to see that [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > lipid and diet "research" in rats, even though rats are extremely > resistant to atherosclerosis. And therefore misleading! Study humans!! > This research is more and more replacing > the older research in a more appropriate rabbit model, largely because [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > has nearly been banished from the field. (But try doing a stethoscope > exam on a *rat* with chemical asthma.) No. > I don't have much hope for the future. We need animals for research, "I cannot name one single case in which experiments on animals may have led to a useful result." Dr med. Philippe Grin, G.P., Video Interview with CIVIS, July 1 1986. "I am of the opinion that all experiments on animals should be abolished because they only lead us to error." Dr Marie-Louise Griboval, April 1987. "As a physician, I am definitely opposed to animal experiments. They are totally useless, they don't contribute in any way to progress of medicine." Dr med. Jurg Kym, Physicians Have the Word, ATRA, December 1986. "My own conviction is that the study of human physiology by way of experiments on animals is the most grotesque and fantastic error ever committed in the whole range of human intellectual activity." Dr G. F. Walker, Medical World, December 1933. "Are there alternatives to vivisection? Of course not. There are no alternatives to vivisection because any method intended to replace it should have the same qualities; but it is hard to find anything in biomedical research that is, and always was, more deceptive and misleading than vivisection. So the methods we propose for medical research should be called 'scientific methods'... they are NOT 'alternatives'." Prof. Croce, Vivisection or Science - a choice to make, page 21. "I am fully in agreement with the bills against vivisection, for the abolition of vivisection can only be seen as an advance in public education" Dr Josef Drobny, District Physician, Morashitz, Bohemia, October 6 1909. http://www.health.org.nz/contents.html > but the "animal advocates," who have long argued that animals are poor > models for humans, 'In a NEJM study an alarming one-in-four patients suffered observable side effects from the more than 3.34 billion prescription drugs filled in 2002.41 http://www.nutritioninstituteofamerica.net/research/DeathByMedicine/DeathByMedic ine3.htm#DRUG%20IATROGENESIS 'The number of people having in-hospital, adverse drug reactions (ADR) to prescribed medicine is 2.2 million.1 ........... http://www.nutritioninstituteofamerica.net/research/DeathByMedicine/DeathByMedic ine2.htm > have succeeded in getting ridiculously expensive > laws passed which have destroyed many animal research models, and thus [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > research wars, rodents are probably farther away from getting it than > they ever have been. Go figure. Looks like PETA have more work to do.. > One of the ways is simple desensitization, or exposure therapy. To do > this, you simply do a lot of handling of the animals in situations > where they're not hurt. >>The norm in lab's? COMMENT: No, but it should be. > When > these researchers get hold of rodents, they tend to mistreat them > because they don't know any other way. >>You're not trained to treat all animals in a humane manner? COMMENT: No, and most people aren't. People rarely care about what happens to mice and rats. Let me give you an example closer to home. In Britain about 4 years ago, a survey of the kills of a number of cats resulted in an estimate that Britain's 7.5 million cats kill 275 million wild mammals and birds each year, and most of them in a far slower and more painful manner than any lab mouse dies (if you haven't seen what cats routinely do with mice, you probably are a city person or don't own cats. It's a little like what a human feels being eaten by a lion, with the exception that the lion is not likely to play with a wounded human for half an hour). There has been some controversy about whether the Brit cat kill number should be decreased by 30% or so to take care of all the cats that don't hunt, but even if the number is 100 million mice, rats, voles, birds slowly eaten alive, it dwarfs by a factor of 5 or 10 the number of animals used in all of biomedical research (which is a few tens of millions of rodents per year). For this reason, when the Brits talk about pet cat kills, they have to compare it with the much larger number of wild small-animals killed by farming or deforestation. They are also very inventive at coming up with reasons why these animals need to die. http://www.messybeast.com/cat-wildlife.htm So why don't all these British antivivisectionists like to talk about their cat kills vs research rodent kills, in the same breath? Well, because it would make them look really silly, is why. All that need be done is keep the cats indoors. The 100's of millions of small animals per year are slowly and painfully killed, because Brits like their cats to be stimulated by being outdoors, is all. It's not even a matter of saving human lives, but rather a matter of killing 10 times more small animals than research does, very painfully, for the purpose of *British cat entertainment.* Which Brits refuse to give up. Being a more advanced people, you see. "I cannot name one single case in which experiments on animals may have led to a useful result." Dr med. Philippe Grin, G.P., Video Interview with CIVIS, July 1 1986. COMMENT: I'm not responsible for Dr. Grin's ignorance. SBH > cats kill 275 > million wild mammals and birds each year, and most of them in a far > slower and more painful manner than any lab mouse dies Isn't it about time you stopped comparing dissimilar things? Cats are programmed by nature to kill. They don't eat their prey alive (that's what dogs do - dogs kill by eviscerating their prey, cats kill by cervical dislocation). Cats do not make a conscious choice about killing or when and how to kill. Humans are not controlled by instinct in the same way. Humans are capable of making choices and make the conscious decision to maim, burn, poison etc animals in the name of science (or culinary enhancement). Humans build facilities so they can cage, farm, maim, poison and burn other creatures in factory-style conditions. Cats are opportunists and not all hunts are successful. The figures quoted came from a survey conducted by kids, using kids' arithmetic. The Mammal Society has its own agenda so their survey was only conducted on cats already known to hunt so the data set was skewed from the outset. http://www.messybeast.com/cp-cat-wildlife.htm If you want to discover just how nasty death can be for a lab mouse, look into the practice of parabiosis. It's far more unpleasant than being killed by a cat, dog, ferret etc. Humans are very inventive at finding new ways to kill animals and inventing new reasons to justify their methods. > Brits like their cats > to be stimulated by being outdoors, is all. Back to the usual flame-starter fodder. Brits have not lost sight of the fact that cats evolved as outdoor animals, period. In many parts of Britain cats are still kept as working animals. Unless you are prepared to expend a great deal of effort in environmental enrichment and interaction, keeping cats unnaturally incarcerated indoors leads to stress, stereotypical behaviour and destructiveness (hence many USAnians get their cats cruelly declawed and many are medicating their cats). The indoor-only lifestyle has led to an increased need for animal behaviourists. It's gotten to the stage where many zoo animals have more enriched environments and less stressfulconditions than many indoor-only cats. Cats with outdoor access have far fewer behaviour problems. http://www.messybeast.com/indooroutdoor.htm <moggycat@aol.com> wrote in message Harris wrote:>> cats kill 275 >> million wild mammals and birds each year, and most of them in a far >> slower and more painful manner than any lab mouse dies [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > cervical dislocation). Cats do not make a conscious choice about > killing or when and how to kill. So that makes it OK? Cats are controlled by humans. Idiot. > If you want to discover just how nasty death can be for a lab mouse, > look into the practice of parabiosis. It's far more unpleasant than > being killed by a cat, dog, ferret etc. Humans are very inventive at > finding new ways to kill animals and inventing new reasons to justify > their methods. Like torture is the goal. >> Brits like their cats >> to be stimulated by being outdoors, is all. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > indoor-only cats. Cats with outdoor access have far fewer behaviour > problems. http://www.messybeast.com/indooroutdoor.htm And far more diseases. moo > Cats are programmed by nature to kill. .. Cats do not make > a conscious choice about killing or when and how to kill. Check this out.. http://www.iol.ie/~creature/tiger.html :). > ... PETA and the animal rights activists, who have managed to get > federal law to place non rodent mammal research under a set of very > onerous and expensive USDA restrictions ... > But a far worse problem is that the loss of non-rodent animal models > in science has meant the loss of a large number of models which are far > more appropriate to human problems than anything possible in rodents. Modest proposal: Use spammers. They may be slightly more similar in some ways to human beings than rodents are. And neither the USDA nor PETA nor anyone else has the slightest empathy for them. I could be mistaken about the former. While spammers look vaguely human, there is evidence that they're more akin to a sort of especially vile cockroach than to anything in the mammalian lineage. The big difficulty is getting researchers to not stress or mishandle them. Maybe only use researchers who have never had an email address?  SignatureKeith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/ Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me. The idea has merit. Spammers as subjects for the Army Burn Lab. Spammers as auto crash test dummies.... Seriously, I fail to see why spamming hasn't been made as illegal as making random advertising phone calls at 2 AM. It's a kind of pollution like obscene phone calls or pouring nasty chemicals down your drain, and It's not like it's untrackable. And spamcasts have such different characteristics than normal web traffic, by definition, that I can't see why the www system hasn't developed a way to kill them. Sure, there will be some overlap between very small spam-ad casts and subscribed-to newletters and so on, but a human can tell the difference at the rate of 1 every 5 seconds or less. If every spammer was tracked down and heavily fined at that rate, with just one dedicated human doing the discrimination, I think it wouldn't be long until there were nothing but beginning spammers. Countries like China could be told to police themselves or get cut off from US nodes. I'll bet if that happened, there really would be some fixes THERE to resemble the ones I describe above. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile |