L.A. Unleashed

All things animal in Southern
California and beyond

« Previous Post | L.A. Unleashed Home | Next Post »

Activists clash (peacefully) over animal testing at UCLA

Animal testing protest

On opposite corners of the intersection of Westwood Boulevard and Le Conte Avenue near UCLA, opponents and supporters of the university's experimentation on animals clashed today.  Our colleague Larry Gordon at the L.A. Now blog has the details:

About 400 people, including UCLA faculty, staff and students, have joined a pro-research rally on the northwest corner ... just south of the campus. The demonstrators are carrying signs with such slogans as "Animal research saves lives" and "Campus terrorism is not OK."

As numerous police officers stood by, the pro-research group briefly traded slogans across Westwood Boulevard with a smaller, rival rally of about 30 animal rights activists on the intersection’s northeast corner. Opponents of the research contend that UCLA scientists ignore the suffering of primates and other animals used in the experiments.

The anti-experimentation faction turned out in observation of World Week for Animals in Laboratories, an annual event organized by the group In Defense of Animals.  A website for World Week for Animals in Laboratories describes animal research as "cruel, unnecessary and outdated."  Among the studies it lists as unnecessary are "Nipple preference in nursing infant monkeys," "Effect of high-fat diets on mice sleep," and "Effect of exercise on rat health."  (Rats that exercised were healthier, the site notes.)

The rally in favor of the experiments was the first organized by a new group called UCLA Pro-Test and was scheduled to coincide with the planned animal-rights rally.  "With over 70% of Nobel Prizes in Physiology or Medicine going to those who have used animals in their research, it is little wonder that scientists believe that such methods are still crucial in helping treat and cure modern diseases," reads a statement on Pro-Test's website. 

The Pro-Test group, an offshoot of an Oxford, England-based group founded in 2006, was organized by J. David Jentsch, a UCLA neuroscientist who was the target of a recent attack by anonymous animal-rights activists.  In the attack, Jentsch's car was set on fire while it was parked in front of his Westside home.  (The FBI recently announced that a reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of those responsible has been increased to $75,000.)  Jentsch, who researches schizophrenia and drug addiction, conducts tests on monkeys.  While he acknowledges that some monkeys are killed as part of his research, he maintains that they do not suffer.  Jentsch was expected to speak at today's rally.

Pro-Test's hundreds-strong turnout at today's event no doubt received a boost from the Jentsch incident and other recent, violent incidents aimed at University of California researchers who participate in animal testing. 

On Monday, two activists, Linda Faith Greene and Kevin Richard Olliff, were charged with conspiracy, stalking and other felonies for incidents involving UCLA scientists and the POM Wonderful Juice Co.  Prosecutors allege that Greene and Olliff are part of the Animal Liberation Front, a group best known for sabotaging research facilities that conduct animal tests, often removing or setting loose the animals kept there.

Although the opposing demonstrations were described as peaceful, a substantial police presence was in place to monitor the event.

-- Lindsay Barnett

Photo: Tom Holder, a leader of the Pro-Test group, speaks to those gathered at the UCLA campus on April 22, 2009. Credit: Spencer Weiner / Los Angeles Times

 
Comments () | Archives (154)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Please test on humans instead of animals. At least they know what is happening to them. Dogs, cats, birds, and small rodents respond when you communicate with them, but they don't understand why someone would torture them. They understand the basics like feeding time and treats, playing, going outside or in a box and LOVE. They give love and love getting it. How can one torture an animal with horrid experiments knowing this. In this day and age there are other ways to come to the same conclusions and if there aren't we need to discover them.
Stop this terrorism on animals.
T. Wilson

Animal research kills people. I don't have anything the same as a pig, a dog, a mouse or a turtle. Animal experimentation is done for the big bucks. Amoral. How could you?

I have a son and four beautiful grandchildren...... thanks to animal research. These people who are against it really have no idea how many millions of lives have been saved.

The 1st question survey "Yes -- and I support it if the animals are treated well " is absolutely phony as there is not humane research method.

Ever watch someone die? Ever watch the slow death of your father or mother or best friend to cancer, or ALS, or Parkinson? Ever watch the skin grow gray, the tongue white? Ever have to sign papers as power-of-attorney for someone with a fatal disease - and there's NO chance of saving them??? Maybe animal research can solve those mysteries - many people are alive now because of past animal experiments and research.

Why don't these radicals just grow up!!! Controlling other peoples' lives is just juvenile. Are they still 4 years old and throwing a temper tantrum???

The very term 'ok to experiment if treated well' is contradictory as most of the animals are kept in tiny cages, in labs, that alone will distress them. They are also more sensitive than us and can tell where there is danger present. The experiments themselves are never humane, so how can it be ok, if treated well!?

And for all of you who mistakenly think these experiments are to help us (not that we have the right to prey upon another species for our own good, we dont), most of the research produced by animal experiments is false and misleading which is why pharmaceutricals make you ill! But there is a huge huge profit to be made from these experiments since the companies involved can release their products onto the market by saying they test safe on so many rats etc. For every ailment there is a plant out there that can help you but these companies dont want you to know that, how will they make their money? Come on, we are not the same as rats or any other animal.
Bottom Line:
The research is false and misleading. It is done for HUGE profits, not for your well being. We have no right to use another species in any way at all ever.
Thanks for taking the time to read my opinion.

I don't see how testing animals could be defined any other way than cruel.

There is no such thing as "Humane" testing.
The University of Penna. was forced to close the head trauma research facility because of the abuse of chimpanzees.
It is torture - nothing less.

As I read the comments, I find the pro-animal research comments are very well thought out and logical.

The anti-animal research comments are very passionate, yet lack reason: comparing research scientists who are working to better people's lives to Hitler is one such alarming example.

Come on - make your argument intelligently. How about standing up to a real debate instead of the cowardly fire bombing of a car or childish irrational name calling - or don't you feel like you have any intellectual ground on which to stand? The comments I am reading here only hurt your cause, which is fine by me.


If you're truly against killing animals for the benefit of mankind, you should give up:

Driving - tires contain rendered cow products, synthetic oil contains oils from processed/purified animal parts

Toothpaste, soap, and shampoo - even though it wasn't tested on animals, it contains dead animals

Living in your house/apartment - who do you think lived on that plot of land before you moved there. . . . animals duh!!

Shoes - the rubber used in them contains dead animals

Money - Bills are sprayed with a crisper that contains dead animals

Walking on sidewalks - They're sprayed with waterproof resin that contains dead animals

Drugs - they were tested in animals, even that dissolving outer plastic-like covering contains parts from dead cows

Have fun being homeless, with no transportation, no shoes, no money, and unable to seek medical help. A Darwin award awaits you!!


To all ignorant supporters of torture:
We are not anti-science or anti- medication. We realize that all medications are needlessly tested on animals. However, such testing is unnecessary. There are many methods of experimentation that do not require the torture of innocent sentient beings. ie. Microdosing, Micro-fluidic chips, DNA chips, incubated eggs,etc.
YOU are the ones who are brainwashed by the lies of the pharmaceutical companies and their yes-mans. If animal experiments are so humane, why is it that the labs have Never voluntarily realeased video footages of their experiments? All videos available on vivisection come from undercover investigations.
Here are 50 disasters caused by animal experiments along with medical citations:

50 disasters caused by vivisection

Bad Science
1. Benzene was not withdrawn from use as an industrial chemical despite clinical and epidemological evidence that exposure caused leukemia in humans, because manufacturer- supported tests failed to reproduce leukemia in mice.[1]
2. Smoking was thought to be non-carcinogenic because smoking-related cancer is difficult to reproduce in lab animals. Consequently many continued to smoke and to die from cancer.[2]
3. Animal experiments on rats, hamsters, guinea pigs, mice, monkeys, and baboons revealed no link between glass fibers and cancer. Not until 1991, due to human studies, did OSHA label it carcinogenic. [3][4][5]
4. Though arsenic was a known human carcinogen for decades, scientists still found little evidence in animals to support the conclusion as late as 1977.[6] This was the accepted view until it was eventually possible to produce in animals.[7][ 8][9]
5. Many humans continued to be exposed to asbestos and die because scientists could not reproduce the cancer in laboratory animals.
6. Pacemakers and heart valves were delayed in development because of physiological differences between animals on which they were designed and humans for whom they were intended.
7. Animal models of heart disease failed to show that a high cholesterol/ high fat diet increases the risk of coronary artery disease. Instead of changing their eating habits to prevent the disease, people continued their lifestyles with a false sense of security.
8. Patients received medications that were harmful and/or ineffective due to animal models of stroke.
9. Animal studies predicted that beta-blockers would not lower blood pressure. This withheld their development. [10][11][ 12] Even animal experimenters admitted the failure of animal models of hypertension in this regard, but in the meantime, there were thousands more stroke victims.
10. Surgeons thought they had perfected radial keratotomy, surgery performed to enable better vision without glasses, on rabbits, but the procedure blinded the first human patients (The rabbit cornea is able to regenerate on the underside, whereas the human cornea can only regenerate on the surface). Surgery is now performed only on the surface.
11. Combined heart lung transplants were supposedly 'perfected' on animals, but the first 3 human patients all died within 23 days.[13] Of the 28 patients operated on between 1981 and 1985, 8 died peri-operatively, and 10 developed obliterative bronchiolitis, a lung complication that the dogs on whom experiments had been conducted did not develop. Of those 10 humans who developed obliterative bronchiolitis, 4 died and 3 never breathed again without the aid of a respirator. Obliterative bronchiolitis turned out to be the most important risk of the operation.[14]
12. Cyclosporin A inhibits organ rejection, and its development was a watershed in the success of transplant operations. Had human evidence not overwhelmed unpromising evidence from animals, it would never have been released.[15]
13. Animal experiments failed to predict the kidney toxicity of the general anesthetic methoxyflurane. Many people lost all kidney function.
14. Animal experiments delayed the use of muscle relaxants during general anesthesia.
15. Research on animals failed to reveal bacteria as a cause of ulcers and delayed treating ulcers with antibiotics.
16. More than half of the 198 new medications released between 1976 and 1985 were either withdrawn or relabeled secondary to severe unpredicted side effects.[16] These side effects included complications such as lethal dysrhythmias, heart attacks, kidney failure, seizures, respiratory arrest, liver failure, and stroke, among others.
17. Flosint, an arthritis medication, was tested on rats, monkeys and dogs; all tolerated the medication well. However, in humans it caused deaths.
18. Zelmid, an antidepressant, was tested on rats and dogs without incident, but it caused severe neurological problems in humans.
19. Nomifensine, another antidepressant, was linked to kidney and liver failure, anemia, and death in humans. And yet animal testing had indicated that it could be used without side-effects occurring.
20. Amrinone, a medication used for heart failure, was tested on numerous animals and was released without any trepidation. But humans developed thrombocytopenia, a lack of the type of blood cells that are needed for clotting.
21. Fialuridine, an antiviral medication, caused liver damage in 7 out of 15 people. 5 eventually died and 2 more needed liver transplants. [17] And yet it had worked well in woodchucks.[ 18][19]
22. Clioquinol, an antidiarrheal, passed tests in rats, cats, dogs and rabbits. But it had to be withdrawn all over the world in 1982 after it was found to cause blindness and paralysis in humans.
23. Eraldin, a medication for heart disease, caused deaths and blindness in humans despite the fact that no untoward effects could be shown in animals. When introduced, scientists said it noted for the thoroughness of the toxicity studies on animals. Afterwards, scientists were unable to reproduce these results in animals.[20]
24. Opren, an arthritis medication, killed 61 people. Over 3500 cases of severe reactions have been documented. Opren had been tested on monkeys and other animals without problems.
25. Zomax, another arthritis drug, was responsible for the death of 14 people and causing suffering to many more.
26. The dose of isoproterenol, a medication used to treat asthma, was calculated in animals. Unfortunately, it was much too toxic for humans. 3500 asthmatics died in Great Britain alone due to overdose. It is still difficult to reproduce these results in animals.[21] [22][23][ 24][25][26]
27. Methysergide, a medication used to treat headaches, led to retroperitoneal fibrosis, or severe scarring of the heart, kidneys, and blood vessels in the abdomen.[27] Scientists have been unable to reproduce this in animals.[28]
28. Suprofen, an arthritis drug, was withdrawn from the market when patients suffered kidney toxicity. Prior to its release researchers had this to say about the animal tests: '…excellent safety profile. No…cardiac, renal, or CNS [central nervous system] effects in any species'.[29] [30]
29. Surgam, another arthritis drug, was designed to have a stomach protection factor that would prevent stomach ulcers, a common side effect of many arthritis drugs. Although promising in lab animal tests, ulcers occurred in human trials.[31][ 32]
30. Selacryn, a diuretic, was thoroughly tested on animals, but it was withdrawn in 1979 after 24 people died from drug induced liver failure.[33] [34]
31. Perhexiline, a heart medication, was withdrawn when it produced liver failure which had not been predicted by animal testing. Even when the particular type of liver failure was known, it could not be induced in animals.[35] 32. Domperidone, designed as a treatment for nausea and vomiting, made human hearts beat irregularly and had to be withdrawn. Scientists were unable to reproduce this in dogs even with 70 times the normal dose.[36][37]
33. Mitoxantrone, a treatment for cancer produced heart failure in humans. It was extensively tested on dogs, which did not manifest this effect.[38][ 39]
34. Carbenoxalone was supposed to prevent formation of gastric ulcers but caused people to retain water to the point of heart failure. After vivisectors knew what it did to humans they tested it on rats, mice, monkeys, rabbits, but could not reproducing this effect.[40][ 41]
35. Clindamycin, an antibiotic, causes a bowel condition called pseudomenbraneous colitis. And yet it was tested in rats and dogs every day for a year; moreover, they were able to tolerate doses ten times greater than humans are able to.[42][43][ 44]
36. Animal experiments did not support the efficacy of valium-type drugs during development or subsequently. [45][46]
37. The pharmaceutical companies Pharmacia and Upjohn discontinued clinical tests of its Linomide (roquinimex) tablets for the treatment of multiple sclerosis after several patients suffered heart attacks. Of 1,200 patients, 8 suffered heart attacks as a result of taking the medication. Animal experiments had not predicted this.
38. Cylert (pemoline), a medication used to treat Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder, caused liver failure in 13 children. Eleven either died or required a liver transplant.
39. Eldepryl (selegiline) , a medication used to treat Parkinson's disease, was found to induce very high blood pressure. This side effect has not been seen in animals.
40. The diet drug combination of fenfluramine and dexfenfluramine was linked to heart valve abnormalities and withdrawn although animal studies had never revealed heart abnormalities. [47]
41. The diabetes medication troglitazone, better known as Rezulin, was tested on animals without significant problems, but caused liver damage in humans. The manufacturer admitted that at least one patient had died and another had to undergo a liver transplant as a result.[48]
42. The plant digitalis has been used for centuries to treat heart disorders. However, clinical trials of the digitalis-derived drug were delayed because it caused high blood pressure in animals. Fortunately, human evidence overrode and as a result, digoxin, an analogue of digitalis, has saved countless lives. Many more people could have survived had the animal testing been ignored and digitalis been released earlier.[49] [50][51][ 52]
43. FK 506, now called Tacrolimus, is an anti-rejection agent that was almost abandoned before proceeding to clinical trials due to severe toxicity in animals.[53] [54] Animal studies suggested that the combination of FK 506 with cyclosporin might prove more useful.[55] In fact, just the opposite proved true in humans.[56]
44. Animal experiments suggested that corticosteroids would help septic shock, a severe bacterial infection of the blood.[57][58] However, humans reacted differently. This treatment increased the death rate in cases of septic shock.[59]
45. Despite the ineffectiveness of penicillin in rabbits, Alexander Fleming used the antibiotic on a very sick patient since he had nothing else to try. Fortunately, Fleming's initial tests were not on guinea pigs or hamsters because it kills them. Howard Florey, the Nobel Prize winner credited with co-discovering and manufacturing penicillin, stated: 'How fortunate we didn't have these animal tests in the 1940s, for penicillin would probably never been granted a license, and possibly the whole field of antibiotics might never have been realized'.
46. Fluoride, a cavity preventative, was initially withheld because it caused cancer in rats.[60][61] [62]
47. The notoriously dangerous drugs thalidomide and DES were tested in animals and released for human usage. Tens of thousands suffered and/or died as a result.
48. Animal experiments misinformed researchers about how rapidly HIV replicates. Based on this false information, patients did not receive prompt therapies and their lives were shortened.
49. Animal-based research delayed the development of the polio vaccine, according to Dr. Albert Sabin, its inventor. The first rabies and polio vaccines worked well on animals but crippled or killed the people who tried them.
50. Researchers who work with animals have succumbed to illness and death due to exposure to diseases that while harmless to the animal host (such as Hepatitis B) are potentially or actually deadly for humans.
References
[1]Lancet, June 25 1977, pp1348-9.
[2]N. Sax, Cancer-causing Chemicals, Van Nostrand 1981.
[3]The Guardian, July 20 1991.
[4]Occupational Lung Disorders, Butterworth 1982.
[5]Toxicology and Industrial Health, 1990, vol.6, pp293-307.
[6]J. Nat. Cancer Inst., 1969, vol.42, pp1045-52.
[7]Br. J. Cancer, 1947, vol.1, pp192-251.
[8]Advances in Modern Toxicology, vol.2, Wiley, 1977.
[9]J. Nat. Cancer Inst, 1962, vol.5, p459.
[10]D. Fitzgerald, The Development of New Cardiovascular Drugs in Recent Developments in Cardiovascular Drugs, eds. Coltart and Jewitt, Churchill, Livingstone, 1981.
[11]Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 1980 Part 2, S9-S24.
[12]Pharmacy International, Feb. 1986; pp33-37.
[13]Lancet, i, 1983, pp130-2.
[14]Lancet, 1, no. 8480, March 8, 1996, pp517-519.
[15]Annals of Internal Medicine, 1984, vol.101, pp667-682.
[16]GAO/PEMD- 90-15 FDA Drug Review: Postapproval Risks, 1976-1985.
[17]NEJM, 333;1099-1105, 1995.
[18]J. NIH Res., 1993, 5, pp33-35.
[19]Nature, 1993, July 22, p275.
[20]Nature, 1982, April 1, pp387-90. and British Medical Journal, 1983, Jan 15, pp199-202, and Drug Monitoring, 1977 and Pharmacologist, 1964, vol. 6, pp12-26, and Pharmacology: Drug Actions and Reac. and Advances in Pharm, 1963, vol. 2, pp1-112, and Nature, 1982, April 1, pp387-390.
[21]Pharmacologist, 1971, vol.18, p272.
[22]Br. J. of Pharm., 1969, Vol. 36, pp35-45.
[23]W. H. Inman, Monitoring for Drug Safety, MTP Press, 1980.
[24]Am. Rev. Resp. Diseases, 1972, vol.105, pp883-890.
[25]Lancet, 1979, Oct.27, p896.
[26]Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, 1965, vol. 7, pp1-8.
[27]Animal Toxicity Studies: Their Relevance for Man, Quay Pub. 1990.
[28]British Medical Journal, 1974, May 18, pp365-366.
[29]Drug Withdrawl from Sale, PJB Publications, 1988.
[30]Pharmacology, 1983, vol.27 (suppl 1), pp87-94, and FDA Drug Review: Postapproval Risks 1976-1985 (US GAO), April 1990.
[31]Gut, 1987, vol.28, pp515-518.
[32]Lancet, Jan 10 1987, pp113-114.
[33]Toxicolo. Letters, 1991, vol.55, pp287-293.
[34]Drug Withdrawl from Sale, PJB Publications, 1988.
[35]Reg. Tox. and Pharm., 1990, vol.11, pp288-307, and Postgraduate Med. Journal, 1973, vol.49, April Suppl., pp125-130.
[36]Drugs, 1982, vol.24, pp360-400.
[37]Animal Toxicity Studies, Quay, 1990.
[38]Lancet, 1984, July 28, pp219-220.
[39]Martindale: The Extra Pharmacopoeia, 29th edition, Pharmaceutical Press, 1989.
[40]Br. Nat. Form., no.26, 1993.
[41]Reg. Tox. and Pharm., 1990, vol.11, pp288-307.
[42]British Medical Journal, 1983, Jan 15, pp199-202.
[43]Br. Nat. Form., no.26, 1993.
[44]Tox. and Appl. Pharm., 1972, vol. 21, pp516-531.
[45]The Benzodiazepines, MTP Press, 1978.
[46]Drugs and Therapeutics Bulletin, 1989, vol.27, p28.
[47]As quot. in Activate For Animals, Oct. 1997, The American Antivivisection Society.
[48]Parke-Davis letter, dated Oct. 31, 1996.
[49]W. Sneader, Drug Discovery: The Evolution of Modern Medicine, Wiley, 1985.
[50]T. Lewis, Clinical Science, Shaw and Sons Ltd., 1934.
[51]Federation Proceedings, 1967, vol.26, pp1125-30.
[52]Toxicology In Vitro, 1992, vol.6, pp.47-52.
[53]JAMA, 1990, April 4, p1766.
[54]Lancet, 1989, July 22, p227.
[55]Lancet, 1989, Oct 28, pp1000-1004.
[56]Hepatology, 1991, vol.13, pp1259-1260.
[57]Drugs and Therapeutics Bulletin, 1990, vol.28, pp74-75.
[58]Anesthesiology: Proceedings of the VI World Congress of Anesthesiology, Mexico City 1977.
[59]NEJM, 1987, Sep. 10, pp653-658.
[60]The Causes of Cancer, 1981, Oxford Press.
[61]J. NIH. Res., 1991, vol.3, p46.
[62]Nature, 1991, Feb 28, p732.
Source: Americans for Medical Advancement www.curedisease. com

I think that a vote like this will never reflect the reality because there will be a lot of voters that do no know all the full facts of animal testing and so will vote in favour of it with the belief that it is necessary, as we are always being told it is. Research into the subject reveals that it isn't necessary and that in fact it is dangerous to humans Sadly, I used to support it myself until I found out more about it and how harmful it can be to humans. Prescription drugs are the fourth biggest killer in the western world. I would urge everyone to do their own research into it for their own benefit.

We have absolutely no right to benefit from the suffering of any sentient being.

Who are we to take their lives and destroy those lives in one way or another?

We should know better, but evidently we don't know it yet.

It will come back to bite us.

To Erin, let me spell something out for you:

Humans and animals: sentient beings and fellow earth habitants.

And, btw, animals can't consent to sex, therefore it's rape.

sorry, correction, meant to say, inhabitants!

Frank - I know many many many people who would never use animal tested or animal exploited anything, drugs, products.. this includes myself.

But even if they or I did use medicines in the event of a serious illness, it would not be their/my fault because currently there is no choice for us as no medicines are available for serious diseases that have not been tested on animals and that is precisely what we want and are fighting for. What more can we do?

Do you oppose slavery? if the road to the hospital was paved by slaves would you not walk upon it and therefore not go to the hospital for treatment?

You're being irrational and not thinking enough about what you are saying.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with opposing experimenting on animals, it is horribly cruel and completely unnecessary (according to highly professional and experienced scientists, professors, doctors, surgeons, ex-vivisectors worldwide)

Once again we find those that do not know enough about it and do nothng to help strongly criticise those that do!

Humans are experimented on anyway, that's what clinical trials are. The catastrophic elephant man trials alone proved that. Animal testing is bad science and there is overwhelming evidence of failures worldwide. Just Google and read up on all of them, it's actually very frightening.
Animals can not predict human reactions, for example, in the elephant man trials monkeys were given 500 times the dose and they still did not predict the extremely serious effects that the six volunteers experienced. That's why the trials occured because they 'passed as safe' on animals! But they most definitely weren't, were they? The volunteers whole systems shut down almost immediately and they nearly died and one young man has had part of his toes amputated as they went jet black and rock hard. None of this was shown in the monkeys.There wil no doubt be more to it than this but reporting of serious side effects is suppressed, for obvious reasons. You have to search for yourself if you want the realities. It makes sense to adopt the more relevant human based methods that are already available today.

I have sent comments twice and you have not published them. Why? Helen and Steve Rayshick also sent comments that were not published. Both were detailed and explicit, but against the paper's obvious pro-vivisection position. Are you only publishing the weakest anti-vivi comments?

Thank you people for your comments, and thank you Discerning Brute Apr.24, 8.46am, those of you that respect, love and care about living beings like the animals. The animals that I always have, and will love and respect so much, they are some interesting precious beings, with their spirits, souls and personalities. I get this feeling of joy and goodness just watching an animal, any animal. I could cry blood if that was possible, knowing about the torture, suffering and pain human-beings are putting them through, it's killing me. I'm heartwrecked. HOW can you "researchers" sleep at night? or get through your "workday"?
All the scams and money-greed in the "name of research". The ugly "old boys club",... Wake up people! Don't you understand the money-scams? And the animals are the suffering victims. Where is the respect ,morals and integrity???
Alternative methods are available, and there is plenty of drug-abusers that could be tested on, prisoners and you name it, and we would get results that actually could be of some benefit for humans, not torturing innocent animals.

I am a lab animal veterinarian. What does this mean? I ensure that animals involved in research, for pharmaceuticals or medical devices, receive the best care I can provide them. I came into this field because I LOVE animals - from mice, frogs, and fish all the way up to monkeys. My job affords me the opportunity to work with a variety of species closely. Nothing makes me happier than to walk in a room where the dogs come to greet me, tails wagging, and even the mice in another room come to the front of their cages. I guess I spoil them...and they come to expect that! They deserve to be respected as animals and my job is to make sure the investigators understand that. I am a big advocate for pain management and welfare - I will speak up if a protocol doesn't make sense scientifically or if there will be much pain and stress. That does not replicate what a patient would feel! I love inventing new games and finding toys for enrichment. Until alternative testing can replace ALL conventional testing in animals, I will have a job. It makes me sad that sooo many people protest what they don't completely understand. Propaganda used 30 years ago is still used today - and times have changed since then. We have the Animal Welfare Act enforced (tho rodents are not under that, I still treat them as if they were), USDA, FDA, OLAW, and AAALAC overseeing what is done. Gone are the days of surgery without anesthesia and pain medication - I would 'fire' that employee who would think of such things immediately. It is not acceptable in human medicine and not acceptable in my animal OR either. It is sad when studies end - its definitely not a highlight of my job. What makes me really sad is that shelters euthanize 100x the animals that labs do - and many times those animals did not get treated as well as animals in the lab under my care.... Overall in the end yes I agree we should continue to find alternative to animal testing even though I would be out of a job. We are not even close to replacing all studies that way and until we do, I will continue to play my part in being the animal's advocate in research.

First of all, these people are not "terrrorists". There hasn't been one death or injury from an action by an animal rights activist. Ever. Can the same be said for Al Queda??? Yet Animal Rights Activists are considered to be MORE of a domestic terrorist threat in the U.S. per the FBI and Homeland "Security" than Al Queda, white supremacy groups (like the one that planned Obama's assasination) or people like Tim McVeigh or the anti-abortion peole who bombed clinics and killed people None of these people even make the "terrorist" list AT ALL!. It's insane. The media doesn't ever mention how incredibly gruesome and worthless these "experiments" are. Corporate America buys and sells the media.

If there is no suffering in the animals (who DO experience psychological and physical pain), then why not test on HUMANS since that's the species these drugs are for?

I don't go to the vet when I'm sick, and I don't take my dog to my M.D. If animal testing were actually relevant to HUMANS, there wouldn't be a distinction there. Animals do NOT react in the same manner to the illnesses falsely induced into HEALTHY ANIMAL systems, nor to the treatments. Except for the pain and death.

We activists know more than the average Joe who gets all his information from Faux News and other idiots who just parrot what these so-called "scientists" say. I personally know several scientists who stopped doing this because it is FRAUD and actually IMPEDES medical progress in humans. There is still no CURE for any illness, only treatments (that have to be tested on human subjects after the animals, BTW). There are many, many alternatives relative to humans available now that are accurate, MUCH quicker and cheaper, but they don't bring in the millions that "animal models" do. We have the technology, but insist on staying in the 18th century when it comes to medicine. Notice all the deadly side effects for every new medication that comes out, including death. Wow, that's really safe.

Come on people, use the brain you were born with and do your research (that is NOT funded by the Corporations). Physician's Committee for Responsible Medicine is a non-profit organization and the best source of the truth because they do not have to "publish or perish" nor do they recieve millions in grant money. Go to PCRM dot org and learn.

While it's true that virtually all the medical advancements made to date have been tested on animals, that's because there were no alternatives (other than human volunteers, of course - which would have yielded much more accurate results, but humans have a "thing" about testing on human volunteers). But now there ARE better alternatives - so why aren't we using them more? Because it costs money to switch testing methods: new equipment, training new scientists, etc., not to mention the loss of currently-awarded grants that involve animal tests. And if you think the current alternatives are insufficient, how about devoting some time and money to developing even better alternatives? Think of how many incredible advancements we might have now had we not been wasting time and money torturing animals, but rather testing in ways that yield HUMAN-SPECIFIC results? We probably could have a few cancer cures by now - but we're still stuck in the dark ages, scared to move forward. In the meantime, billions of animals scream in the background while they are tortured and die.

Hi Ted, I'm sorry you weren't able to find your comment or the one by Helen and Steve Rashick, but they were both approved when submitted and you can find them here:

http://tinyurl.com/c2pdcr

and

http://tinyurl.com/daq7gj

Our blogs are only able to display 50 comments on one page and the comments are arranged chronologically by date and time submitted. So if yours wasn't one of the first 50 you can find it on one of the following pages by clicking on the ">>" link at the bottom of the page on posts that have 50 or more comments in total.

Thanks for commenting!

Couldn't care less about the animals ;)

I wish all of us would devote more energy and effort to the welfare of humans.
We live in a sorry state of doggy day care, bakeries for pets and homeless mentally ill turned out on the street. People dying for lack of medical care.

Get real people and lets prioritize humans for a change.

Pass single payer health care

Animal experiments are disgusting. They are one of the more severe forms of animal exploitation, including the meat industry etc. Most human illness is caused by bad nutrition, fast foods, additives etc. And there is no absolute cure for any illness anyway - eg diabetes is only "controlled", not cured. Look at the drug Avandia - increases risks of heart attacks etc. I stay away from all drugs. I eat healthily, mostly fresh food, nothing with additives, nitrates, etc. I do not want to be a part of anything that is associated with animal testing. Anyone could do what I do - we don't need animal testing, and the need for drugs could be done away with if people changed their eating lifestyles. Food is the greatest medicine.

Il faut arrêter cette barbarie et cette immonde hypocrisie qui sacrifie des vies au nom de l'argent et de la vanité et qui tue les patients, les USA se doivent maintenant de montrer l'exemple dans la compassion humaine et animale.

Erin, obviously Jews are humans, and non-human animals are not humans. However, you fail to point out why this is significant in deciding whether or not animal testing is morally justified. Also, it does make sense to have moral qualm about people having sex with animals, because animals cannot give consent to have sex. I would assume you have a moral qualm about adults having sex with 5-year-old children; does that mean we should conduct medical tests on 5-year-olds? I think not.

We need to make a choice, we are either sympathetic beings who will make the correct moral choice when it comes to scientific advance, or we will grasp desperately for advances no matter what gets in our way.

If we feel that testing on animals is right and needed we must not be nearly as superior as is claimed by most of our species.

Animal testing does NOT save lives

I believe some "idiot" purposely made the word "Human" to separate us from "Animal." All of us have blood. All of us have emotions, feelings. This society doesn't want discrimination, but we sure separate ourselves from "Animals". "Humans" are selfish today because "Humans" want to better THEIR SELVES, only care for their species, and don't give a damn about anything else. Where does this fucking "Survival of the Fittest" come into play? People want to jump and scream about starving kids in Africa and say it's a "miracle" they are being saved, but when a poisonous snake bites a meerkat, then its "Nature" taking course.

There is no such thing as Humane Animal Testing. Pain has to be inflicted upon any host to get the acquired results. Just like in Slaughter houses. Cows don't die peacefully. It's such a shame to see someone murder something to make a living. Such a shame.

I would like to see "Human Testing", But I wouldn't use myself. Why? Because I am a well behaved citizen. These people on death row can be used as such. I would rather let a rat live in my house than a felon or murderer.

Animals feel pain. And for those who say Plants feel pain, take a sledgehammer and hit a plant and a dog. You can obviously hear who screams. There is nothing in this world humane. Nothing goes without feeling pain. Yes, those murderers on death row will feel pain as they will be tested on.

Would you rather have a murderer live than a rat? Someone who killed another "Human" such as yourself? And please, try not to bring "God" into play, because you didn't think of God when you were injecting those dogs with different types of insulin.

As I will conclude, "Humans" are selfish, even to the point on Lives. Don't you think "Humans" are playing the role of God when Scientists are trying to find "cures" for cancer? Or AIDS?

People make choices based mainly on common sense and that's really dangerous. Scientists, like anyone else, are motivated by positive and negative stimulus; they are not a specially ethical group so there is no reason for us to believe what they say without further proof. The argument that they devote themselves to benefit humankind is a lie. They are payed by industries according to their own agenda. The "cures" are mainly new drugs to treat western rich patients of diseases caused by unhealthy ways of life. Should we really care for savings lives, we could provide Africa with means to avoid illnesses that were long erradicated in western countries

no, definitely not.

There is something called ethics. The most effective research would be the one in humans and for quite some time it was done on those groups that could not defend themselves, like jews, orphans, mentally diseased people; but now we consider it to be unethical. Although the scientists-above-all-suspicion still do it whenever they can in the third world for instance, or as recently occurred in China with the golden rice - project NCT-00680212 - involving american university scientists and poor children in China.
The paradox the scientific community has to answer is: either non-human animals are not like us and then there is no effective reason for using them in research, or they are like us and then there is no ethical justification to do to them what we would not consider doing to one of us.

This is a very pertinent debate but for it to be effective, we should all forget what we think we know and start afresh. There's a lot of "common sense" adding noise to the discussion.
I also used to think that scientists were a particularly ethical group, but now I understand that they are like everybody else: reacting to positive and negative stimulus to get along with their lives.
Then I decided to investigate and I realized that according to an official report in UK, only 30% of the research done is published; many of the articles considered interesting enough for publication are a trip to hell and the conclusions (whenever there are conclusions and not the reccomendation that further studies should be carried out) laughable if they weren´t dramatic for the animals involved. The least we can conclude is that not all research is reliable and justified and every time a group is self controlled, abuses occur.
Research nowadays is payed by industries according to their own agenda so the myth of the purity of science goals falls apart. Scientists are payed to create new drugs for rich western patients suffering from diseases mostly created by unhealthy lifestyles; cheap shampoos, cleaning products, oil for cars, etc that have to be tested in bunnies eyes or skin prior to come to the market.
Information is available, we can choose to study it or we can keep on repeating what we've been hearing all our lives, feel that we have the best system that could ever exist and nothing should be changed. By being repeated again and again, a lie can seem to be true but it isn't.

The activists who haven't "done anything" have been firebombing professors cars and houses...what are you talking about? They also flooded one persons home out of the consideration that burning it down may have started a wildfire. Gee, thanks.

Many of you anti-testing people are living in a bubble. Maybe if everyone ate organic and did yoga, disease wouldn't exist anymore? What's with all the "it's all cause of bad diet" nonsense? yes, some things are.

Was the plague? Is HIV? Was polio? What about SARS? The flu (any flu?). Viruses, bacteria, parasites are a serious problem.

Please, those of you who think yoga and healthy food will fix everything, pop open any book of history.

Also, human testing wouldn't be as useful as animal testing. Ever. Mice go through their life cycle faster, you can get more of them, and you can tinker with them. Want to study how people with autoimmune deficiences can help live against infections?

These are people with anything like HIV, Lupus, or even just CHEMO or RADIATIOn therapy (it kills your immune system). You get mice with that certain defect and learn. You can't exactly get a hundred volunteers of people who just did radiation therapy to learn how to help save lives.

That some animal research has been successful doesn't justify continuing it. And neither does benefit to other nonhumans.

In truth, there have been far more failures than successes. This is why many researchers are now speaking against it.

Animal research is a multi-million dollar industry. Drug companies rely on it to minimize their liability when medicines harm humans, which is not a rare occurence. Many drugs approved by the FDA are later taken off the market, because animal research cannot predict how it will effect the human population.

By comparison, there is little money given to alternatives. With adequate funding, non-animal research could be developed. Instead of inducing illness and injury in helpless living beings who have personal interests of their own, we could further develop computer models, microscopic studies, clone organs, and who knows what else?

To those who support animal research, I ask what gives us the right to exploit others, whether human or nonhuman?

There is no such right -- only the notion that "might makes right" -- and there are many who disagree. For as long as animal research continues, it will be wrong.


Get a grip people. The fact that for some reason there are those who think animals were put on this earth for our sorry souls? This is completely WRONG!

They were never put here for our good. They have their own rights which we have taken away. And one way is that we take innocent creatures who have done nothing and they use them for some of the most stupid and painful tests. Do these tests help humans? Well only if you think these creatures are the same as we. Which they are not. They have never given any real answers where lives are saved. How can they, they will not react the same as we.

There are better ways to get these results. This is not something new. These tests have been giving better results than any animal that has been abused and then killed. So why do they still use animals for any form of tests? Well we have heard a lot of stories. It is like our government, who is telling the truth? I don't think I would believe the very people who use these creatures.

The fact is, if those people who agree to using these innocent creatures for these tests would educate themselves, they would then see that using them does nothing, and only 10% of any of these tests have ever done anything to improve any humans life.

So wake up. Stop thinking that these creatures are nothing but something for us to use for everything! They are not! They have their own rights, and their own reason for being here. And I personally can't think of one reason they would have been put here for us.

We are the ones who make these mistakes when it comes to the air, water, food we eat and I guess I could go on forever. But man will not admit to any wrongs. It is that big fat chip on his shoulder that keeps him from admitting that the use of any creatures does nothing. Wow if they did admit it, just think of what people would think of them then. I mean, they have only killed billions of innocent creatures for no reason! Some who were picked up or stolen from their homes and forced into these labs, where the pain and suffering is beyond your wildest dreams. We don't even treat a person who has robbed a bank this bad. Where did we go wrong that we think we can treat them this way.

I feel bad for the students at UCLA. UCLA uses a lot of creatures for testing. It is sad that we the most intelligent on this earth, or so we say, can treat others with so much disrespect. Doesn't say much for us.

DO THE RIGHT THING!

Frank, Frank, Frank, you really must educate yourself on this issue. What you state is wrong. These creatures have never done anything to improve our lives. It has only made their lives a living hell. There is a great article from Harvard that gives you the answers you are looking for. Go find them!

To tell you the truth, man is so selfish that he tries to find ways to live forever!! Forever. Well the only way to do this is to die!! And then and only then if you have been good will you live forever.

Do you think that God himself sees this as being good? If indeed you believe in God. He did create these beautiful and innocent creatures. Do you think he made a mistake? And man was supposed to clean up his mess? Wow, let's all get out the brooms.

Just another uninformed person who thinks that these creatures were put here to live horrible lives. Just to save us. The very people who torture them, kill them, and eat them. Wow what planet do I live on? I am not sure this is earth.

Like I said in the other comment, get a grip. Those people who continue to torture these creatures, well I can't imagine that God looks kindly on this. I mean, he did create them first!! And said it was good. After a while he then created the thing called man. Man who after a very short time went and screwed up so bad he was punished for the rest of his life. Now, tell me, who is good and who is bad????

DO THE RIGHT THING!

What is humane in causing the suffering of a helpless animal? Where are the human volunteers?

Animal research has not cured cancer or AIDS or diabetes etc. Researchers have wasted decades and billions of dollars while millions die each year from these diseases. Reaserchers dance all around the "cure" question citing advancement in cancer treatments. BUT, WHERE ARE THE CURES?

All the researchers can do is name treatments -- they can't name cures. Everytime you read the paper their PR machines have cranked out a press release about being on the "brink of a cure". The public has been duped by a bunch of mumbo jumbo junk science. Researchers love to throw around medical terms because they think it diverts the attention away from the truth -- that billions of our tax dollars are wasted each year on animal research.

And, whoever made the point about the "bloated employees" out there protesting was exactly right. We the tax payers were paying their salaries while they stood out there campaigning to keep their jobs.

Ask yourself this -- who is benefiting financially from animal research and who is not? Clearly the money trail leads right back to the wallets of the animal researchers. They will never willingly give up animal research as long as they can just change one variable in an experiement and get another hefty grant. Fear is what they use to try and dupe the public -- the old your baby or your dog routine. It completely disregards the facts that animal research does not translate to human health. It just doesn't. There is no cure for cancer, AIDS, diabetes...the list goes on.

There are alternatives to animal research and the researchers know this but will fight it because it is more expensive. It cuts into their revenue flow. Plus it is much easier for them to just do the same useless experiments over and over (like how many times a monkey smiles in a mirror). The experiments that get funded are outrageous and they know this which is why they are fighting tooth and nail to keep the public dumbed down. Who wants their hard earned paycheck to fund an experiment on the effects of cocaine use in monkeys?

The public and the animals are paying the ultimate price for bad science with their lives -- so that animal researchers can live comfortably. Disgusting.

poll - Yes -- and I support it if the animals are treated well.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Well theres the problem right there. There NOT treated well. How humanly can you treat an animal forced to inhale gas fumes, to see how long it takes for it to get cancer!

Dr.Leaky and his camp (Fossey, Galdakis, Goodall) are held in great reverence by both the Science and Lay world.....Then Jane Goodall goes on record against the flawed, immoral practice of vivisection at which point the abusers attempt to marginalize her in the most disrespectful of ways....


Not to be redundant but;
"Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals,
and the answer is: "Because the animals are like us."
Ask the experimenters why it is morally okay to
experiment on animals, and the answer is:
"Because the animals are not like us."

Animal experimentation rests
on a logical contradiction."

~ Professor Charles R. Magel

Does anyone remember the many, many animal trials that were simply a waste of time? (My long dead Thalidomide cousin doesn't)They "worked" with animals yet failed in humans..there are hundreds of class action lawsuits as we speak due to results that do not correlate ...but forget that; A program at Johns Hopkins has been able to virtually eliminate Animal testing by using alternatives, and will soon completely eliminate the need for animals. Can any of you Pro-testers give it the barest that maybe just one scientist, one corporation, somewhere is more motivated by greed than altruism (probably not that hard, considering that greed is so prevalent these days). and that maybe alternatives are not good news for them. Now can you widen that up and say that there are probably MANY doing experiments that are the equivalent of the famous GSA$475 Wrenches..... The only difference being is that the wrench lacked sentience.

Ask yourself - insulin? estrogen? gunshot wounds? heart transplants?
Where would YOU or your family be without one or more of the above procedures/medicines - that were discovered and made possible by animal testing???????

Want drugs and procedures tested? Then VOLUNTEER yourself!!!!

Dogs asked: "Are the people in favor of animal testing willing to give up their dogs and cats for experiments?"

Many already are. Dogs and people suffer from many of the same cancers, including breast cancer, prostate cancer, and bone cancer. Studies of some cancer therapies are being offered to the owners of pets that are suffering from these naturally occurring cancers, before they are ready to be used in people. These therapies have helped many dogs and advanced the research towards their use in people. Click on my name for an article in Scientific American on this topic.

This poll is certainly slanted towards Animal Rights, of course those who support research using animals want the animals treated as well as possible and we do have laws to govern research. Society would not have developed this far without the benefits in medical and pharmaceutical areas without the use of animals. Look who the protesters are KIDS with lots of extra time on their hands who have yet to develop the ability to look at the big picture and are led by those who cannot deal with the less pleasant side of the real life. Hooray for those doctors and researchers who continue to fight for a better life for all of us humans and animals!

To - a parent - There are more people that oppose aninmal research than those who wear costumes.I can see your reasons for trying to make it seem as if the opposition does not have any of the many experts it clrearly has. It is something that pros try to promote, trying to discredit and pretend that animal rights know nothing. However, it is a million miles away from the truth as you will be aware. I would be interested to see how would you belittle the many anti vivisection experts worldwide? These include doctors, surgeons, ex-vivisectors, professors, scientists and on and on who have a vast knowledge on the subject... I don't know if they wear costumes or not but what I do know is that their experience and expertise is well worth listening to!!

erin

You can compare what is HAPPENING to animals to what HAPPENED to jews.

do you understand now??????

Incidentally humans are animals

Rob Evans Are you aware that there are thousands of safe products on the market that have never been tested on animals? The Co-op's own brand products and Marks and Spencers, for example, are even approved by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection. This proves unequivocally that product testing is NOT necessary. Are you aware that after prescription drugs have been 'passed as safe' after animal tests, they have let humans down and caused serious side effects and even fatalities? Remember the TGN1412 trials where the six volunteers immune systems shut down 30 mins after being given medication. Long term effects are not yet known! This is what you support??? Prescription drugs are the fourth biggest killer in the western world, did you know that fact? Hospitalisations from adverse reaction to drugs cost the taxpayer a large amount each year. Facts that you would NEVER learn from pro vivisectionists!!!!I
I can't recall exactly the amount, perhaps you should check it for yourself?
Seems to me, like you need to do some research into the facts of animal testing before you have any opinions. Unfortunately, this is a very common problem among people. "Conviction is at it's strongest, when knowedge is at it's weakest" comes to mind...

 
« | 1 2 3 4 | »

Connect

Recommended on Facebook


Advertisement

In Case You Missed It...

Video






Pet Adoption Resources


Recent Posts


Archives