Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Replace All Animal Experiments in Europe Petition

Attica said:
The above comment is an example, but my comment is aimed at all anti animal rights...

The ultra left turn of so called anarchists doesn't impress me one bit, like the RCP it is a retreat away from class struggle and into the realms of 'i know best' mediation.

The moral case for animal rights is overwhelming.

I really can't see the point in having a go at animal rights like some are...

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here [have I misread/understood what you're saying...]-

are you saying that the movement for animal rights is part of the class struggle? Lmao!

- it might be part of yours Comrade, but not the working class struggle against big business, Capital and the boss classes.

As for "The moral case for animal rights is overwhelming", I defy you to find or demonstrate one coherent moral or ethical argument in which animal rights are enshrined.

:)
 
Attica said:
I really can't see the point in having a go at animal rights like some are...
There isn't one. It is fun though :)

In any case, animal rights has absolutely fuck all to do with class struggle. Except for the obvious class issues raised by a bunch of trustafarian fuckwits vandalising some random cleaning ladies car because she works in a lab where vivisection takes place.
 
In Bloom said:
There isn't one. It is fun though :)

In any case, animal rights has absolutely fuck all to do with class struggle. Except for the obvious class issues raised by a bunch of trustafarian fuckwits vandalising some random cleaning ladies car because she works in a lab where vivisection takes place.

By emphasising this you are neglecting the aspects which can develop class consciousness, such as the issues against businesses and the state that pro animal welfare struggles bring up.

We live in an age where environmental welfare and campaigns are extremely important, on a level which goes beyond arguments about humans/animals, and is challenging the future of everything. As such, picking arguments within the pro life (my label for pro humanity, animals and the planet campaigns) camp is not useful for building larger campaigns beyond 'ultra left realist clicks'. If you want to stay in them, feel free, but the struggles are so much larger than they are and are what 'everybody' should want to be a part of.
 
If we ate mice and monkeys, and experimented on cows and sheep, would the animal rights people target the food industry?
 
OK which AR Fash on here is going to volunteer to take the place of the animals in experiments.




Anyone?





Speak up!






There must be someone willing - anyone?








Thought not :D :D



Violent AR loons can bugger off and eat my shit.
 
taffboy gwyrdd said:
There are loons in every such organisation and the press dined out on the granny-diggers, but actions that liberate animals are utterly inspiring. They save more lives than most of those scientists ever will.

tell this one to the water voles that were nearly driven to extinction after minks were liberated from mink farms.
 
but actions that liberate animals are utterly inspiring. They save more lives than most of those scientists ever will.

What, in the inspiring way that mink that were freed from a farm by AR types then went on to completely ravage the local ecosystem, causing a mini-holocaust among the local fauna?

Moron. As KJ says, all you AR types need to start volunteering for human drug trials...
 
i feel a bit bad here because i actually do have many sympathies with AR - i'mn against the AR movment as is, not any AR movement at all.

Pointless obsession with the least damaging parts of the animal industry (foxhunting! Vivisection! Fur!) and insane, nutty commitment to said causes puts me right off.

as does support from MEAT EATING random politico's.

the logic seems to be, they're breaking the law in masks, they must be doing something right.
 
Attica said:
By emphasising this you are neglecting the aspects which can develop class consciousness, such as the issues against businesses and the state that pro animal welfare struggles bring up.

..and here lies a significant reason why any potential [political] alternatives to the mainstream mostly meet at poorly attended 'meetings' in top rooms of sad pubs; endlessly discussing inane and arcane politcal 'theory', whilst the Kaptains of Kapitalism quake in their boots.
 
Taxamo Welf said:
i feel a bit bad here because i actually do have many sympathies with AR - i'mn against the AR movment as is, not any AR movement at all.

Pointless obsession with the least damaging parts of the animal industry (foxhunting! Vivisection! Fur!) and insane, nutty commitment to said causes puts me right off.

as does support from MEAT EATING random politico's.

the logic seems to be, they're breaking the law in masks, they must be doing something right.

excellent post

Pretty much sums up my thoughts on the issue
 
I take it that everyone who has signed this petition has not benefited from any drugs whatsoever that were tested on animals?

e2a: if someone could produce a half-coherent explanation of why the concept of 'rights' can be applied to animals that don't understand and cannot assert them I'd be grateful too, 'cos at the moment the whole idea looks like a big crock of shit.

<munches bacon sandwich>
 
Roadkill,

I'm not a passionate advocate of AR at all, but the argument you're putting forward confuses me somewhat.

Why do people who advocate the cessation of testing on animals in the *future* have to deny themselves drugs that were tested on animals in the *past*?

I honestly don't understand the logic of this. Its not as if refusing oneself these drugs would help any animals, the testing has already happened. Surely?

Matt
 
Matt S said:
Why do people who advocate the cessation of testing on animals in the *future* have to deny themselves drugs that were tested on animals in the *past*?

I honestly don't understand the logic of this. Its not as if refusing oneself these drugs would help any animals, the testing has already happened. Surely?

Seems more to me to be a point of principle. If not, why bother being vegetarian, since the animals on sale in the butcher are dead already? The logic is the same...

Besides, the utility of animal testing hasn't suddenly ground to a halt. There are new drugs coming out all the time. Perhaps I could have phrased my point so as to include all future medicines that have been tested on animals...

I don't believe that needless cruelty to animals can ever be justified and I'm completely against testing of cosmetics on animals. But in my world humans come first and if drugs are going to save human lives, then the price of testing them on animals is IMO one that;s worth paying. And I'm anti the concept of AR because, well, it's bollocks. Animal welfare is one thing: animal rights quite another.
 
”Setting an example” is always the first line of action, I say.

Don't ....
1)..... own a dog in city flats.
2)..... run your dog ”out of gait” on a lead while you peddle along on your push-bike.
3)..... leave a dog in an automobile without an open window.
4). ... leave a dog alone in any confinment more than a prescribed amount of time.

There is SO much one can do (oneself) before putting pressure on the various institutions. Well, that's how I see it anyway.
 
Scientists For Medical Progress:

http://www.curedisease.net/

Intersting stuff here.

There are extremes in the AR movement I agree, but really the uneducated anti-AR rhetoric sprouted in this thread is easily just as bad.

Animal experimentation is misleading and exists purely to perpetuate a multi billion dollar industry. Do you really think the cancer research industry wants to find a cure?

AR people are not anti-human, although it might be convinient for some people to perpetuate that idea.
 
Crashing Boar said:
There are extremes in the AR movement I agree, but really the uneducated anti-AR rhetoric sprouted in this thread is easily just as bad.

Animal experimentation is misleading and exists purely to perpetuate a multi billion dollar industry. Do you really think the cancer research industry wants to find a cure?.

Oh shut up, you soft minded pillock. I actually thought you may have a point in your first sentence, but then you just couldn't resist spouting that dogmatic, unthinking bollocks and your credibility shot right away.

You honestly think that someone who's spent most of their life looking for cures for cancer would actually suppress a breakthrough? Have all those dedicated scientists been indoctrinated into the conspiracy, would their skills be non-transferable, would none of them spill the beans...

:rolleyes:
 
Crashing Boar said:
Animal experimentation is misleading and exists purely to perpetuate a multi billion dollar industry.

Please point out the researchers who have a 100% accurate model of how the human body works...

Crashing Boar said:
Do you really think the cancer research industry wants to find a cure?

Strangely enough, yes. (But I'm guessing you don't know anyone with cancer, or who has died from it. Tends to change your view on animal research...).
 
Crashing Boar said:
There are extremes in the AR movement I agree, but really the uneducated anti-AR rhetoric sprouted in this thread is easily just as bad.

Really? :D

Animal experimentation is misleading and exists purely to perpetuate a multi billion dollar industry. Do you really think the cancer research industry wants to find a cure?

Paranoid, conspiracy-theory nonsense. There is no viable alternative to animal testing: find one, and people might agree that it should stop. Until that time it'll carry on, for the simple reason that it works.
 
Roadkill said:
Really? :D



Paranoid, conspiracy-theory nonsense. There is no viable alternative to animal testing: find one, and people might agree that it should stop. Until that time it'll carry on, for the simple reason that it works.


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.

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.
 
Everyone knows these A/R types have no interest in animal welfare, they're all just in the pay of the soya industry.
 
Crashing Boar said:
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. Cuckoo-Cuckoo- Tin foil hat blah blah....

None of the above justifies your paranoid delusions about a conspiracy of doctors. PR folks may be annoying, but they're not in a position to stop all doctors working on research.

Still, perhaps animals experiments are going beyond the pail. You seem to have been gentically spliced into a mix of unthinking human and a total cock yourself...

:p
 
tarannau said:
Still, perhaps animals experiments are going beyond the pail. You seem to have been gentically spliced into a mix of unthinking human and a total cock yourself...

:p


Ah well, if thats the level of debate you are intersted in I will leave you to it. I suggest understanding a little of what you talk about in future though.

Have fun.
 
tarannau said:
None of the above justifies your paranoid delusions about a conspiracy of doctors. PR folks may be annoying, but they're not in a position to stop doctors working on research.

Still, perhaps animals experiments are going beyond the pail. You seem to have been gentically spliced into a mix of unthinking human and a total cock yourself...

:p


Regardless of my opinion on the subject it is interesting to see that "AR loony Conspiracy Theorist" Mr Boar has calmly and clearly put forward his opinion and offered some quotes and sources without having to resort to playground insults to make a point......
 
Crashing Boar said:
Animal experimentation is misleading and exists purely to perpetuate a multi billion dollar industry.

I've heard this argument from AR people before. The thing is I've never seen the slightest suggestion that any one of them would be prepared for a second to believe anything different. Of course there are vested interests within the research industry (although that will be true for non-animal testing as well) but not everyone involved is doing it purely for the money and is totally lacking in ethics. The AR argument is generally made by people who have at least as much invested in the other side of the argument, even if that isn't financial.
 
Aye, but his one isolated quote goes nowhere close to justifying his ridiculous 'Do you really think the cancer research industry wants to find a cure' statement. Whatever the flaws of using mice (and it's not just mice is it) as research subjects that quote is just laughable compared to his PR-nutto conspiracy nonsense.

With that in mind, it's hardly worth having a honest debate. If someone can leap to that conclusion and use such a meagre, mostly unrelated comment as 'support' of their hypothesis, it doesn't exactly bode well for their intellectual rigour and appraisal of the known facts does it? It stinks of unreasoned, thoughtless dogma. What's the point?
 
Crashing Boar said:
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.

Yep, but what do you propose as an alternative...? :confused: And one of the ways of avoiding the "cellular differences" is to unfortunately experiment on chimps. They're a lot closer to us than mice are...
 
Crashing Boar said:
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.
...

What tarannau and others have said. The quote above is absolutely nowhere near to providing justification for the wild conspiracy theory you've set out above.

Now, if you want anyone besides yourself to be convinced that animal testing doesn't work, please explain - calmly, and witout resorting to conspiracy theories - why the overwhelming majority of scientists continue to support it? You see, there's no 'perceived consensus': there is a consensus, whether you like it or not.

If you can provide links to some peer-reviewed articles arguing against animal testing that would at least support the suggestion that there's a minority of credible scientists opposed to it, 'cos at the moment it looks to me as if not even that is the case.
 
"The genetically engineered monkey experiments now underway at Oregon Health Sciences University (OHSU) bear as much resemblance to bona fide medical research as a circus sideshow does to a legitimate museum. Fall for the hype, and you'll believe OHSU's bizarre assembly line of designer 'monkey models' will actually help cure Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, cancer, and who knows, even male-pattern baldness.
Apparently, OHSU is undeterred by the dismal results from decades of genetic engineering of mice, who have been inserted with human genes to study human cancers and other human diseases. What did we learn? That treatments which may work in transgenic mice fail in humans. Nothing relevant to treating human disease has resulted."
-Neal D. Barnard, M.D., President-Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, January 2001

"Animal experimentation is not necessary. It is expensive. It is inaccurate. It is misleading. It consumes limited resources. And further, it is detrimental to the very species it professes to be working to help -- humankind."
-Dr.s Ray & Jean Greek, Sacred Cows and Golden Geese, 2000, p 223

"What good does it do you to test something (a vaccine) in a monkey? You find five or six years from now that it works in the monkey, and then you test it in humans and you realize that humans behave totally differently from monkeys, so you've wasted five years."
-Dr. Mark Feinberg, a leading AIDS researcher, Atlanta Journal Constitution, September 21, 1997

"Because of the irreconcilable biological differences between animals and human beings, the results of animal tests cannot be applied to human beings with any degree of confidence. Dr. Ralph Heywood, past scientific director of Huntington Research Centre (U.K.), stated at a 1989 scientific workshop held at the Ciba Foundation that: ‘…the best guess for the correlation of adverse reactions in man and animal toxicity data is somewhere between 5% and 25%.’ "
-Dr. Andre Menache, speaking at the 10th World Congress on Law and Medicine, held in Jerusalem, Israel, August 29, 1994.

"There is no doubt that the best test species for man is man. This is based on the fact that it is not possible to extrapolate animal data directly to man, due to interspecies variation in anatomy, physiology and biochemistry."
-Dr MacLennan and Dr. Amos, Clinical Sciences Research Ltd., UK, Cosmetics and Toiletries Manufacturers and Suppliers, 1990; XVII: 24

"The findings were that if you enclosed animals in a field armored vehicle and set off an explosion inside, that the ear drum and the middle ear mechanism may be damaged... More valid information regarding sound pressure levels presented to the middle ear could have been much more easily obtained by the use of a Kemar mannequin placed in the appropriate position in the vehicle."
-J. William Wright III, M.D., The Ear Institute of Indiana, October, 1990
Proceedings of the First International Medical Conference Against Vivisection", Israel, 1989


Animal experiments confuse the issues and their results will never have scientific precision. There is absolutely no connection between vivisection and human health. The general belief in the value of animal experimentation is the result of brainwashing that the public has been submitted to for a long time. Behind it are the pharmaceutical industries, which spend fortunes on publicity and finance the research in institutes and the universities."
-Dr. Arie Brecher, M.D., extract from a lecture to the Medical and Juridical Society at the Hotel Dan-Panorama of Haifa in Israel on November 1, 1986.


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


"It could be argued that this (cancer research) is a field of research which has consumed an enormous number of animals without any tangible result."
-Professor D.H. Smyth, Alternatives to Animal Experiments
 
"From an animal one can get only a very approximate indication of how a human will react under similar circumstances. But this is not science-it’s a lottery. However, we are not playing games. At stake are health and life. There is absolutely no connection between vivisection and human health. The day it was decided to develop medicaments using animal models, it was a sad day for mankind. People began to get sick and to die due to medications."
-Dr. Arie Brecher, M.D., the Israeli physician, held on August 12, 1986 at Tel Aviv


"I have been in medical practice for 38 years. I have never done any animal experiments, neither during my studies nor subsequently, and have also never been inside an animal laboratory. Animal experimentation represents a fallacious practice. I cannot name one single case in which experiments on animals may have led to a useful result. I think vivisection is a crude, archaic method which must be completely reconsidered. I am convinced that we are approaching a quite differently conceived form of research method, based on cell cultures."
-John A. McDougall, M.D., article, "The Misguided War on Cancer" in the Vegetarian Times, September 1986


"The statement that the prohibition of animal experiments would result in a deterioration of medical care and knowledge is not tenable, and quite clearly a view with overtones of self-interest…"
-Dr Werner Hartinger, Specialist in General and Accident Surgery, practitioner for the Industrial Injuries Insurance Institutes, with 25 years’ experience at the hospital and in private practice, in an interview with CIVIS, April 29, 1986


"The facts continue multiplying that refute the barbaric practice of animal experimentation in the name of human health and longevity. Yet the efforts by the medical establishment to justify this practice continue unabated…The medical establishment threatens us with dire consequences if animal experimentation is stopped. This is a shame, a weapon being used to ensure continued funding to the tune of $6 billion a year by the National Institute of Health and Mental Health to the nation’s universities."
-Murray J. Cohen, M.D., in the Chicago Tribune, April 8, 1986


"The question was, can we give up animal experiments without halting medical progress? My answer is that not only one can, but that one must give up animal experiments not to halt medical progress. Today’s rebellion against vivisection is no longer based on animal welfare…But we have now become convinced that we should put an end to animal experimentation not out of consideration for animals, but out of consideration for human beings. I won’t speak now of the pharmacological disasters due to animal experiments, that would be too simple. I mean the constant, daily harm caused to medical science by the belief in the validity of animal tests."
-Prof. Pietro Croce, M.D., in an interview with CIVIS, Jan 11, 1986


"It would be very difficult to find anything that could be more misleading for biomedical research than animal experimentation."
-Prof. Pietro Croce, M.D., Vivisezione o Scienza, (Vivisection or Science- a Choice), 2nd edition, 1985
-Dr.Irwin Bross, 1983
-Dr. Heide Evers, D-7800 Freidburg, 1982
-Prof. Pietro Croce, M.D.
-Dr. Irwin Bross, in testimony before the U.S. Congress, 1981
-Dr. Luigi Sprovieri, contributor to the invention of the cardiopulmonary bypass machine in La Nazione, Florence, Italy, October 5, 1980
-Melmon KL: The clinical pharmacologist and scientifically unsound regulations for drug development. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1976;20:125-129.
-Prof. Dr. Herbert Hensel, Director of the Institute of Physiology at Marburg University, 1975
-E.M. Perdue, M.D., Director of Johnson’s Pathological Laboratory in Cancer Research at the time of this quote
-Dr. Frederic Benoit, Surgeon of the Maternity Hospital, Wassy, France, April 1, 1964
-Dr, Louis J. Vorhaus, The Saturday Evening Post, May11, 1963
-Dr. Charles Mayo, founder of the Mayo Clinic (New York Daily News, Mar. 13, 1961)
-Dr. Lional Whitby, Dec. 1937 p.170
-Medical Times, March 1932
-Charles Clay, M.D., London Times, July 31, 1880, renowned surgical innovator, former President of the Manchester Medical Society
-Alexander Fleming, 1945 Nobel Prize winner "for the discovery of penicillin and its curative effect in various infectious diseases"
-Albert Schweitzer
-Dr. John Bowie
-Dr. F.E. Vernede

But the terrible custom is to continue resorting to vivisection, this ancient procedure which has never produced a single success in 20 centuries. Valuable time which could have been used profitably for science in other ways has thereby been wasted. The evil, out-moded, archaic and malevolent vivisectionist thinking must be fought."
-Dr. Foveau de Courmelles, Paris, President of the International Society for External Medicine, medical advisor to the Education Department of the Legion of Honour, honored by the French Academy of Medicine
-H. Fergie Woods, M.D.
 
Back
Top Bottom