Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
AIDS Activist adds another voice to the SHAC Campaign
Peter Tatchell is a leading gay and human rights campaigner (in England). Peter Tatchell says that animal experiments have undermined HIV research and hindered new treatments. Here is an article he wrote for SHAC:
The development of life-saving protease inhibitor treatments for HIV was delayed for four years by the pharmaceutical company Merck, after the first trials of protease drugs killed laboratory dogs and rats. During those four years, tens of thousands of people with AIDS died, perhaps needlessly. Many might have benefited from the new drugs, including my dear friend, the filmmaker Derek Jarman. He and many others could now be alive if Merck had not submitted its protease research programme to the "Russian roulette" of animal testing.
Merck made the false, unscientific assumption that animal experiments provide an accurate model of how anti-HIV drugs interact with humans. The result? Research on a promising protease inhibitor was halted by Merck in 1989 and clinical trials of a new protease drug (crixivan) did not start until 1993. This disastrous setback in protease research is one of the greatest scandals of the AIDS epidemic, possibly contributing to the premature deaths of up to 50,000 people worldwide.
The way animal research stalled the availability of protease inhibitor treatments was exposed several years ago in Washington Post magazine, and has since been conceded - in part - by the Vice-President of Merck, Bennett M.Shapiro. He acknowledges that trials of a promising protease drug were halted in 1989, after it was tested on lab rats and dogs and they all died. Merck assumed this treatment would have the same deadly effect on humans.
It is, however, questionable whether the abandoned protease inhibitor would have caused similar damaging consequences to people. This is because there are huge physiological differences between humans and animals. Research findings in other species cannot, therefore, be generalized to people. Indeed, protease drugs - which may be lethal to dogs and rats - have nevertheless dramatically saved the lives of those with HIV.
Merck admits that animal studies were not used in the primary research that led to the invention of protease inhibitors as a treatment for HIV. An animal-free breakthrough, the inhibitor drugs were designed on computers and safety-tested using human cell cultures and biochemical assays. It was only when Merck decided to further test the new drugs on laboratory animals that they ran into trouble, with the dogs and rats dying of liver failure. Protease inhibitors do not, of course, have these same fatal consequences for people. On the contrary, they are lifesavers.
This demonstrates the scientific flaws of animal-based medical research. Animal tests can produce inaccurate data that is totally inapplicable too humans. The results are often tragic: as evidenced by all the people with HIV who died during the lost four years. 1989 to 1993.
Further info on Peter Tatchell's campaigns: http://www.petertatchell.net
50 Deadly Consequences of Lab Animal Experiments : http://www.curedisease.com/Harms.html
Merck made the false, unscientific assumption that animal experiments provide an accurate model of how anti-HIV drugs interact with humans. The result? Research on a promising protease inhibitor was halted by Merck in 1989 and clinical trials of a new protease drug (crixivan) did not start until 1993. This disastrous setback in protease research is one of the greatest scandals of the AIDS epidemic, possibly contributing to the premature deaths of up to 50,000 people worldwide.
The way animal research stalled the availability of protease inhibitor treatments was exposed several years ago in Washington Post magazine, and has since been conceded - in part - by the Vice-President of Merck, Bennett M.Shapiro. He acknowledges that trials of a promising protease drug were halted in 1989, after it was tested on lab rats and dogs and they all died. Merck assumed this treatment would have the same deadly effect on humans.
It is, however, questionable whether the abandoned protease inhibitor would have caused similar damaging consequences to people. This is because there are huge physiological differences between humans and animals. Research findings in other species cannot, therefore, be generalized to people. Indeed, protease drugs - which may be lethal to dogs and rats - have nevertheless dramatically saved the lives of those with HIV.
Merck admits that animal studies were not used in the primary research that led to the invention of protease inhibitors as a treatment for HIV. An animal-free breakthrough, the inhibitor drugs were designed on computers and safety-tested using human cell cultures and biochemical assays. It was only when Merck decided to further test the new drugs on laboratory animals that they ran into trouble, with the dogs and rats dying of liver failure. Protease inhibitors do not, of course, have these same fatal consequences for people. On the contrary, they are lifesavers.
This demonstrates the scientific flaws of animal-based medical research. Animal tests can produce inaccurate data that is totally inapplicable too humans. The results are often tragic: as evidenced by all the people with HIV who died during the lost four years. 1989 to 1993.
Further info on Peter Tatchell's campaigns: http://www.petertatchell.net
50 Deadly Consequences of Lab Animal Experiments : http://www.curedisease.com/Harms.html
For more information:
http://www.shac.net
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Would like to help organize a group of psychiatric survivors against animal testing. People forced on psychiatric medication against their will have a great deal in common with the animals locked in cages..
The pharmaceutical corporations profit immensely from the overdiagnosis of "mental illness", giving people chemical products without looking at the social and/or nutritional factors that contribute to stress/depression. Instead the pharmaceutical corporations maximize profit by encouraging prescriptions of petrochemically derived pharmaceuticals to people experiencing emotional difficulties..
Psychiatric survivors are peole who have often been subjected to force treatment by psychiatric medications and have emerged from the system somewhat intact. Those of us able to talk about it should do so to save both the animals and people from the unneccesary cruelty of the pharmaceutical corporations..
At this moment many people in prisons are also being force medicated by psychiatric medications against their will..
The pharmaceutical corporations profit immensely from the overdiagnosis of "mental illness", giving people chemical products without looking at the social and/or nutritional factors that contribute to stress/depression. Instead the pharmaceutical corporations maximize profit by encouraging prescriptions of petrochemically derived pharmaceuticals to people experiencing emotional difficulties..
Psychiatric survivors are peole who have often been subjected to force treatment by psychiatric medications and have emerged from the system somewhat intact. Those of us able to talk about it should do so to save both the animals and people from the unneccesary cruelty of the pharmaceutical corporations..
At this moment many people in prisons are also being force medicated by psychiatric medications against their will..
For more information:
http://www.mindfreedom.org/
before the final bugs are worked out of the pig to human liver transplant process, they'll kill more people than Eichmann did.
Hello nessie, glad 2 c you're disgusted, i am disgusted 2..
looks like nessie is at it again, comparing animal rights activists to Nazis..
No nessie, your simplistic accusations are losing ground as people realize how pharmaceutical corporation and Huntingdon Life Sciences are taking advantage of sick people with false claims backed up by insufficient evidence of animal torture, uh i mean testing..
Natural plant based herbal healing and preventitive medicine/lifestyle does not require animal testing. Pharmaceutical interventions on the other hand do, and this is using the byproduct of the petrochemical corporations like DuPont that themselves supported the Nazi chemical corporations like IG Farben (now Bayer-Hoechst, another corporation that engages in animal torture for so-called "medical" benefit)..
Not to mention much of the cancer and birth defects we see in america and elsewhere throughout Madre Tierra is likely a byproduct of living in an unhealthy environment (usually near petrochemical emissions) of consuming an unhealthy diet from the processed food corporations that use pesticide, high fructose corn syrup, and other known toxins and deprive (make in economically/geographically difficult) lower income people of access to healthy organic food, thereby causing physical illness..
Nessie chooses to ignore all this and simply state,
"Animal rights activists are Nazis"
we are starting 2 understand who the real Nazi is, nessie..
looks like nessie is at it again, comparing animal rights activists to Nazis..
No nessie, your simplistic accusations are losing ground as people realize how pharmaceutical corporation and Huntingdon Life Sciences are taking advantage of sick people with false claims backed up by insufficient evidence of animal torture, uh i mean testing..
Natural plant based herbal healing and preventitive medicine/lifestyle does not require animal testing. Pharmaceutical interventions on the other hand do, and this is using the byproduct of the petrochemical corporations like DuPont that themselves supported the Nazi chemical corporations like IG Farben (now Bayer-Hoechst, another corporation that engages in animal torture for so-called "medical" benefit)..
Not to mention much of the cancer and birth defects we see in america and elsewhere throughout Madre Tierra is likely a byproduct of living in an unhealthy environment (usually near petrochemical emissions) of consuming an unhealthy diet from the processed food corporations that use pesticide, high fructose corn syrup, and other known toxins and deprive (make in economically/geographically difficult) lower income people of access to healthy organic food, thereby causing physical illness..
Nessie chooses to ignore all this and simply state,
"Animal rights activists are Nazis"
we are starting 2 understand who the real Nazi is, nessie..
Well, that settles it! If you are against torturing animals, you're a Nazi! Thanks, Nessie!
...and are made of wood, and therefore a witch.
It's a perfect example of where nessie's all-or-nothing thinking gets him.
"AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY. A set of distinctive personality traits, including conformity, intolerance, and an inability to accept ambiguity."
http://www.faculty.rsu.edu/~felwell/Probweb/glossary/gloss1.htm
@%<
It's a perfect example of where nessie's all-or-nothing thinking gets him.
"AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY. A set of distinctive personality traits, including conformity, intolerance, and an inability to accept ambiguity."
http://www.faculty.rsu.edu/~felwell/Probweb/glossary/gloss1.htm
@%<
The Nazis also used nature ideology and the old pagan religion of the German people to gain followers. There was propaganda put out by Nazis that asphalt highways were more natural than trains. This coincided with the petroleum drilling in the Middle East around 1933. In modern day terms, this compares to Bush's "Healthy Forests" initiative seeming to support nature..
As most of us know, nothing could be further than the truth, Bush only cares about healthy forests that give short term profit after he goes in and cuts the old growth trees that keep the forests healthy in the first place..
The Nazis could care less about nature, Mother Earth and the pagan dieties, there was more logging in Germany under Hitler than any other time, most of this to add to their growing military..
When looking at the Nazi chemical conglomerate IG Farben and their close ties/info trading with DuPont and Standard Oil (ESSO --> EXXON) in America, do u really think any of these people gave a fucj about nature or the Earth's well-being??
We know that IG Farben (now Bayer-Hoechst) experimented on human prisoners in the camps. There is also proof that they tested their chemicals on animals. The myth of Nazi's not testing animals is often used by pro-vivisectionists to compare animal rights activists to Nazis. Clever propaganda, but we can see through the lies of the corporate industrialists..
http://arcnews.redblackandgreen.net/vivisection/bayer.htm
http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/abs04.html#3.
from the linx above, here is a rebuttal to the "Nazi's are animal rights activists";
"As noted above, the behaviour of some researchers can be likened to that of the Nazi experimenters of World War II. The subject of Nazism also arises when pro-vivisectionists claim that the Nazis supported animal rights, which according to the pro-vivisectionists' strange logic presumably discredits present day animal rights campaigning. This conveniently overlooks* the Weimar law passed in 1931 with respect to animal and human experimentation required that German and subsequently Nazi doctors had to first conduct their experimental procedures on animals before proceeding to human beings. This law was never abrogated in Nazi Germany. This is particularly relevant when considering the link between human and animal experimentation as it highlights the fact that the two forms of experimentation are not only linked but are actually dependent upon the other.
For example, when Dr Karl Rascher, a Luftwaffe surgeon, made his request on 15 May 1941 to Himmler, 'for two or three professional criminals' for high altitude test experiments of eighteen thousand meters, he pointed out that this experiment had already been tried on monkeys, but that monkeys outlived their usefulness at 12,000 meters, and he had to proceed to the use of humans. This was agreed to, and the vivisector who had once used animals was now able to use humans - at Dachau. In the upshot, research on animals certainly does not protect human beings from becoming the vivisector's experimental tool.
* See 'Myths of the pro-vivisectionist' also.
When the Nazi doctors were asked in the Nuremberg trials how they could have brought themselves to perform such experiments, they responded that they had been trained by conducting them on animals. Time exposes the desperate myth that animal experimentation replaces or disposes of the need for human experimentation, and that the work of the Nazi doctors was that of the insane or wholly evil.
Caplan's question in When Medicine Went Mad, 'Should Nazi data from the experiments be used?' has been answered: Nazi data has indeed been used by many scientists from many nations as it has been entering mainstream Western medicine for decades. The Columbus Dispatch in 1984 reported that a researcher in British Columbia had been using the information from Nazi experiments on hypothermia. In 1996 it was revealed that Dr Howard Israel, an oral surgeon at Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center in New York was dismayed to discover that his trusted book, Pernkopf's Topographical and Applied Human Anatomy contained illustrations that might be based on the cadavers of concentration camp victims.[29]
The boundary separating human and non-human is easily blurred, and Nazi Germany is an example of this, where various groups were deemed to be suitable for various forms of medical experimentation. It cannot be coincidental that in the Ravensbruck concentration camp, bone transplants and other experiments were conducted on women who were actually referred to as 'rabbits'. This identification of human with animal was an explicit element in the pseudo-science of Nazism. Ernst Haeckel, a biologist who became a chief propagandist for Nazi ideology asserted bluntly that since the so-called 'lower races' are 'psychologically nearer to the mammals (apes and dogs) than to civilized Europeans, we must therefore, assign a totally different value to their lives'.[30]
The Third Reich's greatest authority on gas warfare was Otto Bickenbach, on the medical faculty of the University of Strassburg. He had conducted extensive animal experiments with phosgene, a vapor that sears lung tissue on contact, and developed the drug utropine to treat the burns. In 1943, Bickenbach was persuaded to use prisoners in the Natzweiler concentration camp to further study the effects of the deadly gas, continuing his earlier line of research, but substituting human for non-human subjects.[31] Dr Eugen Haagen was another pre-eminent medical practitioner whose extensive studies on animal immunology helped to produce a vaccine against yellow fever in 1933, but whose experimental impulse during the 1940's turned to testing vaccines on humans (who of course were first deliberately infected with deadly diseases to measure the efficacy of the serums).[32]
Traditionally, of course, animals have been considered to have no intrinsic value in Western culture. Philosophers from Aquinas to Kant have affirmed that human beings have no ethical duties except toward our own species. Animals may have worth insofar as they can be used as research tools, or for other human purposes, but have no worth in and of themselves. They stand outside the realm of rights and responsibilities that define our moral order. But when a broad category of beings exists whose lives are considered expendable, almost anyone can be assigned there, and once they have been reclassified as less than fully human, they too can be exploited and manipulated with impunity. Since many of the SS officers who ran the laboratories had long experience with pharmaceutical firms and other research establishments, it presumably required only a small psychological transition to enable them to apply to those whom they considered 'sub-human' the same principle they had applied to animals.
It is seemingly a small step from experimenting on animals to experimenting with human beings. Rational people in the twenty-first century find the thought of ceremonially killing an animal as an act of divine worship to be abhorrent. However, in ancient times, such practices were commonplace: so common, indeed, that human sacrifice was an accepted element of many cultures. Human and animal sacrifice reinforced and complemented one another; they were close cousins within an archaic worldview. And as so long as animal sacrifice remained a feature of the religious landscape, human sacrifice remained a persistent possibility. There was always the danger of backsliding. So long as the ritual machinery remained in place, the victims might be interchangeable."
The point is that Nazi scientists saw their animal and human subjects as both weaker than them and therefore subject to their sick experiments. There was no more love for animals in the Nazi mind than for communists, Jews, Gypsy, gays, mentally ill, etc, all were considered weaker and inferior..
That is why today Pharma corporations test chemicals on BOTH animal and human inmates..
Thank u nessie, for challenging me to discover this info..
As most of us know, nothing could be further than the truth, Bush only cares about healthy forests that give short term profit after he goes in and cuts the old growth trees that keep the forests healthy in the first place..
The Nazis could care less about nature, Mother Earth and the pagan dieties, there was more logging in Germany under Hitler than any other time, most of this to add to their growing military..
When looking at the Nazi chemical conglomerate IG Farben and their close ties/info trading with DuPont and Standard Oil (ESSO --> EXXON) in America, do u really think any of these people gave a fucj about nature or the Earth's well-being??
We know that IG Farben (now Bayer-Hoechst) experimented on human prisoners in the camps. There is also proof that they tested their chemicals on animals. The myth of Nazi's not testing animals is often used by pro-vivisectionists to compare animal rights activists to Nazis. Clever propaganda, but we can see through the lies of the corporate industrialists..
http://arcnews.redblackandgreen.net/vivisection/bayer.htm
http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/abs04.html#3.
from the linx above, here is a rebuttal to the "Nazi's are animal rights activists";
"As noted above, the behaviour of some researchers can be likened to that of the Nazi experimenters of World War II. The subject of Nazism also arises when pro-vivisectionists claim that the Nazis supported animal rights, which according to the pro-vivisectionists' strange logic presumably discredits present day animal rights campaigning. This conveniently overlooks* the Weimar law passed in 1931 with respect to animal and human experimentation required that German and subsequently Nazi doctors had to first conduct their experimental procedures on animals before proceeding to human beings. This law was never abrogated in Nazi Germany. This is particularly relevant when considering the link between human and animal experimentation as it highlights the fact that the two forms of experimentation are not only linked but are actually dependent upon the other.
For example, when Dr Karl Rascher, a Luftwaffe surgeon, made his request on 15 May 1941 to Himmler, 'for two or three professional criminals' for high altitude test experiments of eighteen thousand meters, he pointed out that this experiment had already been tried on monkeys, but that monkeys outlived their usefulness at 12,000 meters, and he had to proceed to the use of humans. This was agreed to, and the vivisector who had once used animals was now able to use humans - at Dachau. In the upshot, research on animals certainly does not protect human beings from becoming the vivisector's experimental tool.
* See 'Myths of the pro-vivisectionist' also.
When the Nazi doctors were asked in the Nuremberg trials how they could have brought themselves to perform such experiments, they responded that they had been trained by conducting them on animals. Time exposes the desperate myth that animal experimentation replaces or disposes of the need for human experimentation, and that the work of the Nazi doctors was that of the insane or wholly evil.
Caplan's question in When Medicine Went Mad, 'Should Nazi data from the experiments be used?' has been answered: Nazi data has indeed been used by many scientists from many nations as it has been entering mainstream Western medicine for decades. The Columbus Dispatch in 1984 reported that a researcher in British Columbia had been using the information from Nazi experiments on hypothermia. In 1996 it was revealed that Dr Howard Israel, an oral surgeon at Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center in New York was dismayed to discover that his trusted book, Pernkopf's Topographical and Applied Human Anatomy contained illustrations that might be based on the cadavers of concentration camp victims.[29]
The boundary separating human and non-human is easily blurred, and Nazi Germany is an example of this, where various groups were deemed to be suitable for various forms of medical experimentation. It cannot be coincidental that in the Ravensbruck concentration camp, bone transplants and other experiments were conducted on women who were actually referred to as 'rabbits'. This identification of human with animal was an explicit element in the pseudo-science of Nazism. Ernst Haeckel, a biologist who became a chief propagandist for Nazi ideology asserted bluntly that since the so-called 'lower races' are 'psychologically nearer to the mammals (apes and dogs) than to civilized Europeans, we must therefore, assign a totally different value to their lives'.[30]
The Third Reich's greatest authority on gas warfare was Otto Bickenbach, on the medical faculty of the University of Strassburg. He had conducted extensive animal experiments with phosgene, a vapor that sears lung tissue on contact, and developed the drug utropine to treat the burns. In 1943, Bickenbach was persuaded to use prisoners in the Natzweiler concentration camp to further study the effects of the deadly gas, continuing his earlier line of research, but substituting human for non-human subjects.[31] Dr Eugen Haagen was another pre-eminent medical practitioner whose extensive studies on animal immunology helped to produce a vaccine against yellow fever in 1933, but whose experimental impulse during the 1940's turned to testing vaccines on humans (who of course were first deliberately infected with deadly diseases to measure the efficacy of the serums).[32]
Traditionally, of course, animals have been considered to have no intrinsic value in Western culture. Philosophers from Aquinas to Kant have affirmed that human beings have no ethical duties except toward our own species. Animals may have worth insofar as they can be used as research tools, or for other human purposes, but have no worth in and of themselves. They stand outside the realm of rights and responsibilities that define our moral order. But when a broad category of beings exists whose lives are considered expendable, almost anyone can be assigned there, and once they have been reclassified as less than fully human, they too can be exploited and manipulated with impunity. Since many of the SS officers who ran the laboratories had long experience with pharmaceutical firms and other research establishments, it presumably required only a small psychological transition to enable them to apply to those whom they considered 'sub-human' the same principle they had applied to animals.
It is seemingly a small step from experimenting on animals to experimenting with human beings. Rational people in the twenty-first century find the thought of ceremonially killing an animal as an act of divine worship to be abhorrent. However, in ancient times, such practices were commonplace: so common, indeed, that human sacrifice was an accepted element of many cultures. Human and animal sacrifice reinforced and complemented one another; they were close cousins within an archaic worldview. And as so long as animal sacrifice remained a feature of the religious landscape, human sacrifice remained a persistent possibility. There was always the danger of backsliding. So long as the ritual machinery remained in place, the victims might be interchangeable."
The point is that Nazi scientists saw their animal and human subjects as both weaker than them and therefore subject to their sick experiments. There was no more love for animals in the Nazi mind than for communists, Jews, Gypsy, gays, mentally ill, etc, all were considered weaker and inferior..
That is why today Pharma corporations test chemicals on BOTH animal and human inmates..
Thank u nessie, for challenging me to discover this info..
Animal rights, blah blah blah.... I read one sentence of your comments and then gave up, because WHO CARES! I like to eat meat, yuuummmmy in my tummy, I think i will eat a cow now or perhaps, a HAMburger, full of juicy red MEAT! YUMMMYY!!!!
Oh question, why do you kill babies and then complain about animal rights? HUH BABY KILLER? You got it reversed, humans are more important than animals!
GO BUSH! 2004!
Oh question, why do you kill babies and then complain about animal rights? HUH BABY KILLER? You got it reversed, humans are more important than animals!
GO BUSH! 2004!
Q; Why would Nazi's appear to object to animal testing on moral grounds?
A;So they can trick people into believing it is for morality, not innaccuracey of test results with real life human experience..
The Nazi chemical corporation IG Farben (now Bayer-Hoechst) realized that testing on humans produced more accurate test results, yet few people were willing volunteers..
Test subjects were needed for their experiments, and for this they placed the "lesser" humans (closer to animals) into the camps..
Modern day mirror in the testing of prison inmates for verification of the less accurate animal tests..
So the moral plow is focused on distracting the viewer from the fact that human testing simply produces more accurate results. Pharmaceutical corporations are less likely to get a lawsuit if their product has accurate results that agree with the labeled side effects..
Some modern day info on Bayer from Raleigh Eco-News;
If the pesticide industry gets its way, residents of the Raleigh area could find themselves in demand as human guinea pigs for testing of the chemicals.
Pesticide makers — including Bayer CropScience, with offices in Research Triangle Park — are pressing the federal Environmental Protection Agency to reverse a longstanding agency policy rejecting human tests of pesticides. In response, the EPA earlier this year issued a notice of proposed rulemaking on the matter. The comment period closed last month.
Pesticide manufacturers argue that the rule change is necessary to learn what happens when humans are exposed to or ingest the toxic chemicals.
The disturbing history of human testing has heightened the emotional nature of the current debate.
A catalyst for the proposed policy change was Bayer’s submission to the EPA in August 2001 of a human study of azinphos methyl conducted by a contractor in Scotland in 1998. Azinphos methyl is an insecticide derived from nerve gases developed during World War Two. Bayer scientists were among those who conducted human experiments in Nazi concentration camps. At the time, the company was a subsidiary of IG Farben, which manufactured the poison gas used to kill Nazi prisoners.
More recently, at least one participant from the Scottish azinphos methyl study has come forward to accuse Bayer and its contractor of treating subjects unethically by failing to give them the information needed to give truly informed consent.
A;So they can trick people into believing it is for morality, not innaccuracey of test results with real life human experience..
The Nazi chemical corporation IG Farben (now Bayer-Hoechst) realized that testing on humans produced more accurate test results, yet few people were willing volunteers..
Test subjects were needed for their experiments, and for this they placed the "lesser" humans (closer to animals) into the camps..
Modern day mirror in the testing of prison inmates for verification of the less accurate animal tests..
So the moral plow is focused on distracting the viewer from the fact that human testing simply produces more accurate results. Pharmaceutical corporations are less likely to get a lawsuit if their product has accurate results that agree with the labeled side effects..
Some modern day info on Bayer from Raleigh Eco-News;
If the pesticide industry gets its way, residents of the Raleigh area could find themselves in demand as human guinea pigs for testing of the chemicals.
Pesticide makers — including Bayer CropScience, with offices in Research Triangle Park — are pressing the federal Environmental Protection Agency to reverse a longstanding agency policy rejecting human tests of pesticides. In response, the EPA earlier this year issued a notice of proposed rulemaking on the matter. The comment period closed last month.
Pesticide manufacturers argue that the rule change is necessary to learn what happens when humans are exposed to or ingest the toxic chemicals.
The disturbing history of human testing has heightened the emotional nature of the current debate.
A catalyst for the proposed policy change was Bayer’s submission to the EPA in August 2001 of a human study of azinphos methyl conducted by a contractor in Scotland in 1998. Azinphos methyl is an insecticide derived from nerve gases developed during World War Two. Bayer scientists were among those who conducted human experiments in Nazi concentration camps. At the time, the company was a subsidiary of IG Farben, which manufactured the poison gas used to kill Nazi prisoners.
More recently, at least one participant from the Scottish azinphos methyl study has come forward to accuse Bayer and its contractor of treating subjects unethically by failing to give them the information needed to give truly informed consent.
For more information:
http://www.raleigheconews.com/archives.php...
Since humans are stronger than pigs and baboons, we have the right to take them from their families (mammals suckle their young) and carve out their hearts because we will not look at what is wrong with our own (are we sick in our petrochemical smog surroundings?)..
The Nazi chemical corporation IG Farben also understood this logic, only to find they could get better heart/liver transplants if they obtained a healthy human heart/liver. Often times the animal heart transfusions don't function very well and the operating costs are enormous $$$$$$$$$$..
So weaker and less important humans (communists, Jews, Gypsys, anarchists, mentally, ill, gays, lesbians, etc.) were rounded up and placed into camps for liver/heart transplants. These monkey people were not judged to be very smart, though they did have healthy heart/livers and were also sutable subjects for chemical exposure for IG Farben/Bayers petochemical military/herbicide weapons..
That is the logic of i take your heart/liver along with your life. When u categorize animals as less important you eventually look at fellow humans in this way, the disease of the European colonialists..
"Like they do the buffalo, they do me.."
The Nazi chemical corporation IG Farben also understood this logic, only to find they could get better heart/liver transplants if they obtained a healthy human heart/liver. Often times the animal heart transfusions don't function very well and the operating costs are enormous $$$$$$$$$$..
So weaker and less important humans (communists, Jews, Gypsys, anarchists, mentally, ill, gays, lesbians, etc.) were rounded up and placed into camps for liver/heart transplants. These monkey people were not judged to be very smart, though they did have healthy heart/livers and were also sutable subjects for chemical exposure for IG Farben/Bayers petochemical military/herbicide weapons..
That is the logic of i take your heart/liver along with your life. When u categorize animals as less important you eventually look at fellow humans in this way, the disease of the European colonialists..
"Like they do the buffalo, they do me.."
http://insidehls.com/
Animal rights advocates are not anti-human or anti-science. The desire to see non-human animals free from the suffering of being unwilling experimental subjects in no way renders them insensitive to the suffering of humans. On the contrary, animal rights advocates are concerned about non-human animals because their circle of compassion extends widely and includes both humans AND non-humans. In fact, it is precisely because of this compassion for humans that many people (including but not limited to animals rights advocates) are opposed to animal research.
An increasing number of doctors and researchers, as well as a growing segment of the public, are voicing their opposition to animal research based on scientific reasons. Surgeon Jerry Vlasak has said, "As a physician, I always like to tell people who think we are winning the 'disease war' through vivisection that, since the 1970's, when this 'war' began, cancer rates have gone UP, strokes are UP, heart disease UP, diabetes UP, addiction UP, alcoholism UP. There is more suffering, more disease, and more death from these causes than ever before."
Groups of doctors and scientists are speaking out against the use of non-human animal models as a means of researching human dysfunction and disease. They argue that the cellular differences between species are too great to extrapolate experimental results from one species and apply it to another. They cite examples where the experimental results of animal studies were devastatingly different from the way human systems behaved under the same circumstances. An extensive (but still limited) sampling of these instances is available here.
Evidence for the invalidity of animal research as a means of studying human maladies is so great that many researchers are confident in concluding that findings from animal models can *never* be reliably extrapolated to humans. Rather, they advocate human-based research methods that pose no hazard to humans and provide accurate results including clinical studies, in vitro research, autopsies, post-marketing drug surveillance, computer modeling, epidemiology, and genetic research.
The perceived consensus supporting animal research comes largely from PR firms that work tirelessly to create this consensus. They manufacture and advertise support for animal research, but abandon critical debate and lack cogent scientific arguments. Additionally, they shy away from offers to debate scientists opposed to animal research. Americans for Medical Progress is one of the largest of these PR firms. A quote by the head of the National Cancer Institute demonstrates what is revealed when those who profit from animal research slip up. Dr. Richard Klausner stated in the Los Angeles Times, May 1998, "The history of cancer research has been a history of curing cancer in the mouse. We have cured mice of cancer for decades, and it simply didn't work in humans." This is just one in a long line of telling statements from the other side.
Animal rights advocates are not exempt from having friends and family members who have suffered injury, disease, and terminal illness, and they want nothing more than than for these people to be free of this suffering. Unfortunately, an inordinate amount of money continues to be poured into the multi-billion dollar a year industry that is animal research and hence, is diverted away from the more reliable methods listed above.
Animal rights advocates are not anti-human or anti-science. The desire to see non-human animals free from the suffering of being unwilling experimental subjects in no way renders them insensitive to the suffering of humans. On the contrary, animal rights advocates are concerned about non-human animals because their circle of compassion extends widely and includes both humans AND non-humans. In fact, it is precisely because of this compassion for humans that many people (including but not limited to animals rights advocates) are opposed to animal research.
An increasing number of doctors and researchers, as well as a growing segment of the public, are voicing their opposition to animal research based on scientific reasons. Surgeon Jerry Vlasak has said, "As a physician, I always like to tell people who think we are winning the 'disease war' through vivisection that, since the 1970's, when this 'war' began, cancer rates have gone UP, strokes are UP, heart disease UP, diabetes UP, addiction UP, alcoholism UP. There is more suffering, more disease, and more death from these causes than ever before."
Groups of doctors and scientists are speaking out against the use of non-human animal models as a means of researching human dysfunction and disease. They argue that the cellular differences between species are too great to extrapolate experimental results from one species and apply it to another. They cite examples where the experimental results of animal studies were devastatingly different from the way human systems behaved under the same circumstances. An extensive (but still limited) sampling of these instances is available here.
Evidence for the invalidity of animal research as a means of studying human maladies is so great that many researchers are confident in concluding that findings from animal models can *never* be reliably extrapolated to humans. Rather, they advocate human-based research methods that pose no hazard to humans and provide accurate results including clinical studies, in vitro research, autopsies, post-marketing drug surveillance, computer modeling, epidemiology, and genetic research.
The perceived consensus supporting animal research comes largely from PR firms that work tirelessly to create this consensus. They manufacture and advertise support for animal research, but abandon critical debate and lack cogent scientific arguments. Additionally, they shy away from offers to debate scientists opposed to animal research. Americans for Medical Progress is one of the largest of these PR firms. A quote by the head of the National Cancer Institute demonstrates what is revealed when those who profit from animal research slip up. Dr. Richard Klausner stated in the Los Angeles Times, May 1998, "The history of cancer research has been a history of curing cancer in the mouse. We have cured mice of cancer for decades, and it simply didn't work in humans." This is just one in a long line of telling statements from the other side.
Animal rights advocates are not exempt from having friends and family members who have suffered injury, disease, and terminal illness, and they want nothing more than than for these people to be free of this suffering. Unfortunately, an inordinate amount of money continues to be poured into the multi-billion dollar a year industry that is animal research and hence, is diverted away from the more reliable methods listed above.
You've got nothing but an appeal to authority.
Unlike your "maybe, maybe not" bullshit decree, the claims of those dedicated to shutting down the torturers at HLS are backed up by documented proof. I guess you missed that part. http://insidehls.com/insidehls.htm
You're right about one thing, though. It is about choice. You choose to support the torture of those who can't speak for themselves. I don't.
Butt out? I don't think so.
Unlike your "maybe, maybe not" bullshit decree, the claims of those dedicated to shutting down the torturers at HLS are backed up by documented proof. I guess you missed that part. http://insidehls.com/insidehls.htm
You're right about one thing, though. It is about choice. You choose to support the torture of those who can't speak for themselves. I don't.
Butt out? I don't think so.
nessie: "There is a very specific name for the use of force to bring about the death of a human. It’s called murder."
Nessie, you're insane. Get help.
@%<
Nessie, you're insane. Get help.
@%<
nessie:
"You are promoting a holocaust, the likes of which dwarf even Hitler’s. People who promote holocausts sow the seeds of their own destruction."
No Nessie, its you who are promoting a holocaust of non human animals. Your logic of experimenting on animals to "benefit" humans is no different than Nazi medical experimentation on the Jewish people to benefit the Aryan race, or really any form of predjudice or oppression where you see others as less than you.
And if you really want to talk about a human holocaust, lets talk about using science to sustain people past their normal life cycles and the suffering and death that will occur once we have exceeded the carrying capacity of this planet.
"You are promoting a holocaust, the likes of which dwarf even Hitler’s. People who promote holocausts sow the seeds of their own destruction."
No Nessie, its you who are promoting a holocaust of non human animals. Your logic of experimenting on animals to "benefit" humans is no different than Nazi medical experimentation on the Jewish people to benefit the Aryan race, or really any form of predjudice or oppression where you see others as less than you.
And if you really want to talk about a human holocaust, lets talk about using science to sustain people past their normal life cycles and the suffering and death that will occur once we have exceeded the carrying capacity of this planet.
nessie: "You’re trying to murder someone I love, and I’m going to stop you by any means necessary."
Isn't it fascinating to see how little evidence nessie needs to fling around his wild accusations?
@%<
Isn't it fascinating to see how little evidence nessie needs to fling around his wild accusations?
@%<
I reread that paragraph, incidentally, and now it simply seems to me to be a simple death threat couched in a transparent fig-leaf.
nessie: "Keep trying to kill us, and sooner or later, you *will* die in the process. If I don’t do it, someone else will. You have a *lot* of enemies, and no, we are not going to stand idly by and be murdered by the likes of you. We have a right to defend ourselves, and more than enough of us have the means."
Sounds like Michael Palin's Luigi Fraccati, doesn't: "I'm not threatening you. It's just that things get broke."
@%<
nessie: "Keep trying to kill us, and sooner or later, you *will* die in the process. If I don’t do it, someone else will. You have a *lot* of enemies, and no, we are not going to stand idly by and be murdered by the likes of you. We have a right to defend ourselves, and more than enough of us have the means."
Sounds like Michael Palin's Luigi Fraccati, doesn't: "I'm not threatening you. It's just that things get broke."
@%<
"I have no sympathy for mass murderers. They deserve whatever they get."
I feel the same way, except I'm not a speciesist.
http://www.powerfulbook.com/
I feel the same way, except I'm not a speciesist.
http://www.powerfulbook.com/
For more information:
http://www.powerfulbook.com/
Does that mean you are equally outraged when a tiger takes a liver from a pig? Or is it only humans whom you believe should act against Nature?
Show me a tiger who keeps pigs in torture camps and I'll consider answering your question.
Yes, I'm against cats being kept in torture camps and used for absolutely useless experiments by crazed humans who think "immortality itself is within our grasp" if only we keep slicing and dicing other species.
http://www.askuswhy.com
http://www.askuswhy.com
nessie, comically: "The word "righteous" in the following sentence modifies "grief and anger," not "rampage." "
Which is how I parsed it. Duh. Now explain, Dumbfock Holmes, how you figure that kneejerk of yours changes my argument one whit. It's the word "righteous." You're claiming that calling something "righteous" isn't giving a moral verdict? Do go on. Please continue. You're doing marvelously.
nessie: "This is not the sort of mistake one would expect from a literate, educated, native speaker. One cannot help but wonder where Gehrig did learn his English syntax. Perhaps he took a crash course at the Midrasha before being assigned to his post in Urbana-Champaign."
You know, my first temptation was to point out the routine difficulty you're routinely having distinguishing between "your" and "you're," but that would be pretty lame. Not as lame, though, as trying to claim that my correctly identifying the use of the word "righteous" somehow proves I'm a -- gasp! -- foreign agent out to sap and impurify your bodily fluids. For _that_ level of lameness, you have to turn to nessie.
You know, nessie, you'll just sling any old paranoid shit that comes to your paranoid mind when you're on the ropes, won't you, you sad creature. Can you say "grasping at straws"? Can you say "anything to change the subject away from what an embarrassment my Stalinesque grip on SF-IMC has turned out to be in practice, as the once-great SF-IMC spirals into abject irrelevancy -- not to mention dormancy -- under my tender ministrations and I've just been caught telling a potential volunteer to fuck off because she wasn't bowing and scraping deeply enough to suit a man of my station"?
Unfortunately, once again that pesky thing called reality has come winging crash-bang-slam into your Zionists-in-my-cornflakes fantasia. I'm a fifth-generation Illinoisan on my dad's side and descended from a Mayflower pilfgrim on my mom's side (not, as it turns out, a particularly rare thing statistically). So go ahead and hoot your malarky if it makes you feel better -- that is, if you're the sort who finds public embarrassment at having said dumbfuck things makes you feel better.
Sorry if my incurable case of native Illinioisanism interferes with your carefully nurtured persecution complex. But, hey, at least this way you're not taking your paranoid/delusional worldview out on a potential SF-IMC volunteer, like the one I mention above who's rightly appalled by your un-IMC-like behavior. If you'd rather get your rocks off by screaming that I'm a Mossad mole, if that makes your reality go smoother, go ahead and believe it. It's not like it would be the first piece of erroneous shit you've ever believed. And it's not like you have any reputation left to save, is it now, outside your little sandbox, now is it, Dumbfock.
nessie: "If enough of them show up, we may have to consider modifying a few entries in his profile. "
You can imagine what a terrifying threat I find that, nessie, given that (a) you tried to label me, network-wide, as a spammer and convinced no one, (b) you tried to label me, network-wide, as a "racist" and convinced no one, and (c) you have consistently tried to label me as a Zi-i-i-ionist agent controlled by the Mossad, convincing only that lone troll on Vancouver.
What I am, nessie, is one of the first people on the IMC network to notice that the Generalissimo has no clothes, and that plummetting feeling you're having is the sound of your own reputation hitting the gutter because of exactly the same kind of wild, paranoid accusations as the ones you've just made about me -- not to mention the ones you just made to the would-be SF-IMC volunteer. Jeeeezus, have you any idea what a jerk you looked like on _that_ one?
@%<
Which is how I parsed it. Duh. Now explain, Dumbfock Holmes, how you figure that kneejerk of yours changes my argument one whit. It's the word "righteous." You're claiming that calling something "righteous" isn't giving a moral verdict? Do go on. Please continue. You're doing marvelously.
nessie: "This is not the sort of mistake one would expect from a literate, educated, native speaker. One cannot help but wonder where Gehrig did learn his English syntax. Perhaps he took a crash course at the Midrasha before being assigned to his post in Urbana-Champaign."
You know, my first temptation was to point out the routine difficulty you're routinely having distinguishing between "your" and "you're," but that would be pretty lame. Not as lame, though, as trying to claim that my correctly identifying the use of the word "righteous" somehow proves I'm a -- gasp! -- foreign agent out to sap and impurify your bodily fluids. For _that_ level of lameness, you have to turn to nessie.
You know, nessie, you'll just sling any old paranoid shit that comes to your paranoid mind when you're on the ropes, won't you, you sad creature. Can you say "grasping at straws"? Can you say "anything to change the subject away from what an embarrassment my Stalinesque grip on SF-IMC has turned out to be in practice, as the once-great SF-IMC spirals into abject irrelevancy -- not to mention dormancy -- under my tender ministrations and I've just been caught telling a potential volunteer to fuck off because she wasn't bowing and scraping deeply enough to suit a man of my station"?
Unfortunately, once again that pesky thing called reality has come winging crash-bang-slam into your Zionists-in-my-cornflakes fantasia. I'm a fifth-generation Illinoisan on my dad's side and descended from a Mayflower pilfgrim on my mom's side (not, as it turns out, a particularly rare thing statistically). So go ahead and hoot your malarky if it makes you feel better -- that is, if you're the sort who finds public embarrassment at having said dumbfuck things makes you feel better.
Sorry if my incurable case of native Illinioisanism interferes with your carefully nurtured persecution complex. But, hey, at least this way you're not taking your paranoid/delusional worldview out on a potential SF-IMC volunteer, like the one I mention above who's rightly appalled by your un-IMC-like behavior. If you'd rather get your rocks off by screaming that I'm a Mossad mole, if that makes your reality go smoother, go ahead and believe it. It's not like it would be the first piece of erroneous shit you've ever believed. And it's not like you have any reputation left to save, is it now, outside your little sandbox, now is it, Dumbfock.
nessie: "If enough of them show up, we may have to consider modifying a few entries in his profile. "
You can imagine what a terrifying threat I find that, nessie, given that (a) you tried to label me, network-wide, as a spammer and convinced no one, (b) you tried to label me, network-wide, as a "racist" and convinced no one, and (c) you have consistently tried to label me as a Zi-i-i-ionist agent controlled by the Mossad, convincing only that lone troll on Vancouver.
What I am, nessie, is one of the first people on the IMC network to notice that the Generalissimo has no clothes, and that plummetting feeling you're having is the sound of your own reputation hitting the gutter because of exactly the same kind of wild, paranoid accusations as the ones you've just made about me -- not to mention the ones you just made to the would-be SF-IMC volunteer. Jeeeezus, have you any idea what a jerk you looked like on _that_ one?
@%<
Hey, you know how some people such as Ward Churchill at the unitarian church describe a 'hierarchy' of activist causes where certain issues morally most rate higher than others. According to this notion, people who go to great lengths to ban smoking at bus shelters or fighting a proposed big ugly building while not spending any energy on a list of problems around the world that involve thousands of people dying, are somewhat as guilty as the people who never do anything. Where does SHAC fit into this? Does only displaying your best energy for this imply that all the problems with people dying of poverty and dictatorships around the world is less important?
Is there something amiss with the event advertised in the calendar, where people are supposed to meet at MacArthur BART to car caravan to the homes of employees of customers of HLS? First, the FBI has probably read this announcement, and if you have cars, they're going to see the license plates, and then you will be arrested later on even if neighborhood hoodlums write graffiti on their mailboxes later in the day. There are quite a few things about this that seem problematic.
yeah, it might be problematic that the calender item is highlighted on the front page. especially in light of how things went at last weekends home demo on sunday. on the other hand a lot of the people that came to the home demo were new to the tactic or not as involved in stuff previously and so hopefully people learned from last weeks action. whoever ends up going today should think twice about taking certain actions while doing a home demo/visit during the day, especially when the actions are more above ground than usual - like last sunday's action which was widely promoted and attended by a channel 7 news team, as well as some agro neighbors that took down license plates and were on the verge of physically assaulting protestors at times for "disrespecting" private property and the Chiron lawyers' right to privacy. One of the neighbors was also crying that we were bothering other neighbors, and implying that we were all bomb throwing "terrorists".
In moments like these it is important to keep a cool head and try to think things thru strategically, especially when it comes to the security of the movement and the sisters and brothers that you are doing the action with. Last weekend there was at least one undercover SFPD officer that tried to pose as an activist, IWW patch and all, but that was not good at being undercover... especially since he was seen at different times in marked and unmarked SFPD vehicles thru the weekend.
Keep yr head up...
Reach out and don't let yourselves be isolated as our struggles are interconnected and we need to organize as openly as possible to confront and shut down corporations like HLS, whether it is because of abuse and killing of animals or abuse of people's labor and disrespect for humans. It all comes down to the same thing, greed and disrespect for life itself.
Don't Mourn Organize!! Stop the Persecution of the SHAC 7!!
Free All Political Prisoners!!!
In moments like these it is important to keep a cool head and try to think things thru strategically, especially when it comes to the security of the movement and the sisters and brothers that you are doing the action with. Last weekend there was at least one undercover SFPD officer that tried to pose as an activist, IWW patch and all, but that was not good at being undercover... especially since he was seen at different times in marked and unmarked SFPD vehicles thru the weekend.
Keep yr head up...
Reach out and don't let yourselves be isolated as our struggles are interconnected and we need to organize as openly as possible to confront and shut down corporations like HLS, whether it is because of abuse and killing of animals or abuse of people's labor and disrespect for humans. It all comes down to the same thing, greed and disrespect for life itself.
Don't Mourn Organize!! Stop the Persecution of the SHAC 7!!
Free All Political Prisoners!!!
Yeah, I guess what I'd like to see a bit more of is that if groups are going to say "we're all together in this, all our causes are connected" and to mean by this that if we are expected to back each other up, then people should really discuss things and be accountable to the larger community.
An example I'm thinking of is groups on the UC Berkeley campus that sometimes do ill-planned actions, totally lacking in style, centrally planned by the ISO, for instance the day of Iraq escalation March 20th where they did a sit in with demands for the UC to divest money and declare Baghdad U a sister school, meanwhile everyone with any sense had gone to the financial district which was a much more appropriate target because UC Berkeley did not escalate the war in Iraq, but a lot of corporations downtown and the Federal Reserve and the NASDAQ and Bechtel etc. *were* directly responsible. And there are other examples of stuff done by groups such as the Spartacist league, and also a short list of very loud-mouthed individuals who pretty much spite other leftists but then want to be backed up when they are banned from Cody's or driven off campus. And then when they get in trouble, getting arrested, there are these frequent calls for all the other leftists on campus to show up at their hearings and help defend them. That would be a lot easier to do if they had done stuff that was easier to defend and weren't sometimes so embarrassing to be around.
So basically, if you want to act as a free agent individualist group that doesn't follow the security precautions everyone else has been talking about, it's more difficult to donate to the SHAC defense fund.
Here, when channel 4 news reads that there will be this car caravan and they show up at MacArthur BART to follow along (maybe, because they are interested in this story due to what happened last week) , does everyone else have to go out of their way to help?
An example I'm thinking of is groups on the UC Berkeley campus that sometimes do ill-planned actions, totally lacking in style, centrally planned by the ISO, for instance the day of Iraq escalation March 20th where they did a sit in with demands for the UC to divest money and declare Baghdad U a sister school, meanwhile everyone with any sense had gone to the financial district which was a much more appropriate target because UC Berkeley did not escalate the war in Iraq, but a lot of corporations downtown and the Federal Reserve and the NASDAQ and Bechtel etc. *were* directly responsible. And there are other examples of stuff done by groups such as the Spartacist league, and also a short list of very loud-mouthed individuals who pretty much spite other leftists but then want to be backed up when they are banned from Cody's or driven off campus. And then when they get in trouble, getting arrested, there are these frequent calls for all the other leftists on campus to show up at their hearings and help defend them. That would be a lot easier to do if they had done stuff that was easier to defend and weren't sometimes so embarrassing to be around.
So basically, if you want to act as a free agent individualist group that doesn't follow the security precautions everyone else has been talking about, it's more difficult to donate to the SHAC defense fund.
Here, when channel 4 news reads that there will be this car caravan and they show up at MacArthur BART to follow along (maybe, because they are interested in this story due to what happened last week) , does everyone else have to go out of their way to help?
"Then this must be proof of BBC's insanity: "
Follow the link and look at the picture and then tell me how seriously you take that guy.
Humans live longer than any other mammal and if you look at all animals (aside from sponges and clams) you cant find any that live more than 200 years. Scientists have increased the lifespan of small animals by a good amount but the upper limit for humans will probably stay around 120 for next next couple hundred years.
Follow the link and look at the picture and then tell me how seriously you take that guy.
Humans live longer than any other mammal and if you look at all animals (aside from sponges and clams) you cant find any that live more than 200 years. Scientists have increased the lifespan of small animals by a good amount but the upper limit for humans will probably stay around 120 for next next couple hundred years.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$190.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network