http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/oxford/2006/02/334333.html is pretty full so lets continue here...
also
Demo Tuesday 7th March
Meet 10am at the edge of the exclusion Mansfield Rd
Well this has been one of the best debates I've seen here on Indymedia and I think it really proves it's a great thing.
The debate has been strong but I personaly feel completely unconvinced by the arguments the pro-test group. I think they have failed with thier weak arguments and perhaps some of them are beginning to question thier logic and evidence.
So for those still in the balance here is a little recap of past events leading to this whole fiasco. Mayby they will see that this is more than just an animal rights issue (although I feel that's enough to justify the protest) but a public rights issue also......
The following text is taken from here.. (if you want to see the comments also)
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/oxford/2005/11/328899.htm
As part of our campaigning strategy we will be challenging the government and government-aided institutions (and those institutions which hold the government in their pockets), to accountability and openness. To date, the government has avoided significant exposure for its failure to meet its pre-election promises regarding their Animal Rights agenda, nor have they been sufficiently challenged for their undemocratic governing approach within a democratic country. (Take for example their recent underhand chicaneries over the proposed primate lab in Cambridge).
The government, vivisection industry and the media commonly use negatively emotive language when describing those opposed to the abuse of animals. We are often referred to as "terrorists" because we have been forced to choose unorthodox methods to draw attention to an issue where other means have failed; pro-active action has often ensured that animal rights has put issues requiring attention firmly on the map. We should remember that government tactics such as this are commonplace the world over whenever the status quo is being challenged for an injustice. The use of terminology suggesting violence to describe animal rights activists is a transparent tool attempting to divert attention from the real perpetrators of violence who thus become the implied victims, therein masking the true face of those inflicting terror and what goes on behind laboratory walls.
We as a movement have often been accused of violating civil liberties and democratic laws because we have spoken out against injustice. In thus speaking out, we have always been motivated by the principles of Individual Rights and the violation of those rights. These do not just refer to the rights of animals but to the right of individuals to be fully informed of the truth behind the lies of vivisection. Surely keeping the public in ignorance of the scientific and moral facts is a violation of their civil liberties and democratic right to choose? The collusion of the government and vivisection industry to conceal the truth from society is a violation of those rights which are meant to stand for so much in our democratic society.
At SPEAK, we believe it is time for the public to be allowed to make an informed decision on this debate and that means hearing both sides of the argument.
The SPEAK campaign is about saving both human and non-human lives; can the vivisection fraternity say the same thing? Let the public decide once they know the full truth.
Background to the NEW campaign
The SPEAK campaign was born from the victory of a campaign against Cambridge University, the following is a brief history of that campaign and its incredible success.
In February 2001, South Cambridgeshire District Council heard a planning application from Cambridge University to build a huge new research complex to carry out experiments on monkeys. It would be Europe's largest primate vivisection laboratory.
At the planning hearing there were objections from anti-vivisectionists, environmental campaigners, local residents, and even the police.
The council unanimously rejected the application, to the relief of residents and campaigners.
A wealthy and influential government minister, with a vested and personal interest in the biotechnology industry, then intervened on the side of the university.
David (Lord) Sainsbury recommended that the council should ignore the green belt designation 'in the national interest'. He claimed that the proposed research was of 'national importance'.
The billionaire Sainsbury has donated over £11 million to the Labour Party, and was rewarded with the title Lord Sainsbury and given the influential post of Science Minister, within the Dept of Trade and Industry.
Among his huge business interests is sole ownership of a biotechnology company, as well as the world-wide patent for a key gene which is set to make substantial profits.
Despite the powerful intervention of Lord Sainsbury, when the university appealed, on 6 Feb 2002 South Cambridgeshire District Council once again overwhelmingly refused planning permission for the primate centre.
Cambridge University appealed again, this time to the National Planning Inspectorate.
Both Sainsbury and Prime Minister Tony Blair made further statements publicly supporting the university's application.
On Nov 26 2002, a public hearing began. The government announced that it intended to take the highly unusual step of making the decision, rather than leave it to the planning inspector.
When the planning inspector did reach his decision it was against Cambridge University and he stated that Cambridge University and the Government had failed to prove that the proposed reseach centre was in the national interest.
However true to their democratic credentials Blair and Sainsbury effectively hijacked the whole planning process and issued a 'decree' that overturned the decision of the independent planning inspector.
It was during this period that SPEAC (Stop Primate Experiments at Cambridge) was formed by a coalition of animal rights groups to fight the proposed labs.
This resulted in some infighting between the various university authorities, after startling revelations that those applying to build the labs had lied to the university governing body in order to get the go-ahead. Most notably they had neglected to mention that the proposed lab would involve animal research at all, and that resulting protests would cause severe disruption to the university.
It had also emerged at this time that the projected costs of the lab had shot up by 25% to £32million, and that the university needed to find another £7million to go ahead. This was partly due to the expected costs of security as a result of the inevitable protests which the centre would attract.
SPEAC were determined that the monkey laboratories would not be built, and mobilised a mass movement to oppose the plans. Through non violent action they organised a concerted wave of pressure against the university, that ultimately proved effective. On the 27th January Cambridge University finally capitulated in the face of such pressure. The nightmare scenario of Cambridge becoming the primate vivisection capital of Europe had ended.
Now begins the next phase in the fight to end vivisection. Oxford.
So what do you think pro-test posse?? You say you believe in Human Life. Does that include Human Rights? What do you expect of your future rights if this kind of behaviour is allowed to continue?
Oh and feel free to continue giving reasons why you think animal testing is worthwhile.
But before you do....
www.curedisease.net
www.vivisection-absurd.org.uk
And think about this...
"It also goes deaper than just Oxford. Jerry Vlasak (before he was barred from the country for comments he made on a radio show) tried to engage in debate with many of the large animal testing companies in this country - to have the same reaction be all - absolute panic, gates being closed, phones slammed down, letters ignored etc...
Not only that but key philosophers from outside the country are being banned from the country - such as Steve Best - and I quote "....The Secretary of State considers that should you be allowed to enter the UK and attend further UK demonstrations or conferences you would continue to express such views. In doing so, you would be committing listed behaviours and would therefore be behaving in a way that is non-conducive to the public good. In light of these factors, the Secretary of State is satisfied that you should be excluded from the UK on the grounds that your exclusion is conducive to the public good. We instruct you not to travel to the UK as you will be refused admission on arrival. There is NO statutory right of appeal against the Secretary of State's decision."
Debate is being stifled everywhere - due to cries of extremism and terrorism. If people want a debate, there are people ready to debate with them. The problem is that no-one opposing animal rights wants a debate because they will lose."
Jools
The debate has been strong but I personaly feel completely unconvinced by the arguments the pro-test group. I think they have failed with thier weak arguments and perhaps some of them are beginning to question thier logic and evidence.
So for those still in the balance here is a little recap of past events leading to this whole fiasco. Mayby they will see that this is more than just an animal rights issue (although I feel that's enough to justify the protest) but a public rights issue also......
The following text is taken from here.. (if you want to see the comments also)
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/oxford/2005/11/328899.htm As part of our campaigning strategy we will be challenging the government and government-aided institutions (and those institutions which hold the government in their pockets), to accountability and openness. To date, the government has avoided significant exposure for its failure to meet its pre-election promises regarding their Animal Rights agenda, nor have they been sufficiently challenged for their undemocratic governing approach within a democratic country. (Take for example their recent underhand chicaneries over the proposed primate lab in Cambridge).
The government, vivisection industry and the media commonly use negatively emotive language when describing those opposed to the abuse of animals. We are often referred to as "terrorists" because we have been forced to choose unorthodox methods to draw attention to an issue where other means have failed; pro-active action has often ensured that animal rights has put issues requiring attention firmly on the map. We should remember that government tactics such as this are commonplace the world over whenever the status quo is being challenged for an injustice. The use of terminology suggesting violence to describe animal rights activists is a transparent tool attempting to divert attention from the real perpetrators of violence who thus become the implied victims, therein masking the true face of those inflicting terror and what goes on behind laboratory walls.
We as a movement have often been accused of violating civil liberties and democratic laws because we have spoken out against injustice. In thus speaking out, we have always been motivated by the principles of Individual Rights and the violation of those rights. These do not just refer to the rights of animals but to the right of individuals to be fully informed of the truth behind the lies of vivisection. Surely keeping the public in ignorance of the scientific and moral facts is a violation of their civil liberties and democratic right to choose? The collusion of the government and vivisection industry to conceal the truth from society is a violation of those rights which are meant to stand for so much in our democratic society.
At SPEAK, we believe it is time for the public to be allowed to make an informed decision on this debate and that means hearing both sides of the argument.
The SPEAK campaign is about saving both human and non-human lives; can the vivisection fraternity say the same thing? Let the public decide once they know the full truth.
Background to the NEW campaign
The SPEAK campaign was born from the victory of a campaign against Cambridge University, the following is a brief history of that campaign and its incredible success.
In February 2001, South Cambridgeshire District Council heard a planning application from Cambridge University to build a huge new research complex to carry out experiments on monkeys. It would be Europe's largest primate vivisection laboratory.
At the planning hearing there were objections from anti-vivisectionists, environmental campaigners, local residents, and even the police.
The council unanimously rejected the application, to the relief of residents and campaigners.
A wealthy and influential government minister, with a vested and personal interest in the biotechnology industry, then intervened on the side of the university.
David (Lord) Sainsbury recommended that the council should ignore the green belt designation 'in the national interest'. He claimed that the proposed research was of 'national importance'.
The billionaire Sainsbury has donated over £11 million to the Labour Party, and was rewarded with the title Lord Sainsbury and given the influential post of Science Minister, within the Dept of Trade and Industry.
Among his huge business interests is sole ownership of a biotechnology company, as well as the world-wide patent for a key gene which is set to make substantial profits.
Despite the powerful intervention of Lord Sainsbury, when the university appealed, on 6 Feb 2002 South Cambridgeshire District Council once again overwhelmingly refused planning permission for the primate centre.
Cambridge University appealed again, this time to the National Planning Inspectorate.
Both Sainsbury and Prime Minister Tony Blair made further statements publicly supporting the university's application.
On Nov 26 2002, a public hearing began. The government announced that it intended to take the highly unusual step of making the decision, rather than leave it to the planning inspector.
When the planning inspector did reach his decision it was against Cambridge University and he stated that Cambridge University and the Government had failed to prove that the proposed reseach centre was in the national interest.
However true to their democratic credentials Blair and Sainsbury effectively hijacked the whole planning process and issued a 'decree' that overturned the decision of the independent planning inspector.
It was during this period that SPEAC (Stop Primate Experiments at Cambridge) was formed by a coalition of animal rights groups to fight the proposed labs.
This resulted in some infighting between the various university authorities, after startling revelations that those applying to build the labs had lied to the university governing body in order to get the go-ahead. Most notably they had neglected to mention that the proposed lab would involve animal research at all, and that resulting protests would cause severe disruption to the university.
It had also emerged at this time that the projected costs of the lab had shot up by 25% to £32million, and that the university needed to find another £7million to go ahead. This was partly due to the expected costs of security as a result of the inevitable protests which the centre would attract.
SPEAC were determined that the monkey laboratories would not be built, and mobilised a mass movement to oppose the plans. Through non violent action they organised a concerted wave of pressure against the university, that ultimately proved effective. On the 27th January Cambridge University finally capitulated in the face of such pressure. The nightmare scenario of Cambridge becoming the primate vivisection capital of Europe had ended.
Now begins the next phase in the fight to end vivisection. Oxford.
So what do you think pro-test posse?? You say you believe in Human Life. Does that include Human Rights? What do you expect of your future rights if this kind of behaviour is allowed to continue?
Oh and feel free to continue giving reasons why you think animal testing is worthwhile.
But before you do....
www.curedisease.net
www.vivisection-absurd.org.uk
And think about this...
"It also goes deaper than just Oxford. Jerry Vlasak (before he was barred from the country for comments he made on a radio show) tried to engage in debate with many of the large animal testing companies in this country - to have the same reaction be all - absolute panic, gates being closed, phones slammed down, letters ignored etc...
Not only that but key philosophers from outside the country are being banned from the country - such as Steve Best - and I quote "....The Secretary of State considers that should you be allowed to enter the UK and attend further UK demonstrations or conferences you would continue to express such views. In doing so, you would be committing listed behaviours and would therefore be behaving in a way that is non-conducive to the public good. In light of these factors, the Secretary of State is satisfied that you should be excluded from the UK on the grounds that your exclusion is conducive to the public good. We instruct you not to travel to the UK as you will be refused admission on arrival. There is NO statutory right of appeal against the Secretary of State's decision."
Debate is being stifled everywhere - due to cries of extremism and terrorism. If people want a debate, there are people ready to debate with them. The problem is that no-one opposing animal rights wants a debate because they will lose."
Jools
Comments
Hide the following 34 comments
good debate
03.03.2006 15:02
The media is not jumping on the bandwagon at this particular point because of vested interests although it certainly may do so in the future... it promotes this story because the animal rights group has been doing such a good job of raising the profile of this in the last
few years. The pro-vivisection group is an obvious good story independent of vested interest at this point. They are new and by default interesting.
Having worked as a vivisector and in labs I find most people work well with their animals and care for them. The worst I've seen is burning of cats, (their skin was useful for study). The institution I then worked had one of the best burns units in UK and regularly made peoples often childrens lives bearable. The arguement that animal models are invalid is nonsence. Clearly no animal model is perfect, but one thing missed by this arguement is that it is the differences between models which often allow us to identify the most useful information, i.e. why does this virus infect species A but not species B.
I shall now leave some space for you to shout spit and generally abuse the post
vivisector
pro lifers
03.03.2006 15:59
I guess they are starting to breed the same amount of contempt as the pro lifers get too.
slipknot
hmmmm
03.03.2006 16:20
I would suggest what made the burns unit so good was the expertise and caring of the staff involved treating the burns. Not, as you would have it, that you burning cats saves the little children of the world.
Would you also have it that there is absolutely no other way to investigate the skins reaction to burns? As if we didn't already know the skins reaction to burns.
jools
jools
course not
03.03.2006 16:52
"I would suggest what made the burns unit so good was the expertise and caring of the staff involved treating the burns".
Absolutely correct, with knowledge gained on how to best "treat skin" with differing types of affect. The array of biological factors involved in tissue regeneration is phenomenal and they are all time dependent.. ie add factor x now and it is useless add it within a time period of 6-8 hours after burning it works a treat. Add it with factor z and it inhibits useful processes elsewhere. The statement:
"As if we didn't already know the skins reaction to burns. "
is facile, personally I dont know of any other way to study how skin reacts to burns besides
cutting off a bit of my own and even that isn't very good because...
the infection of the skin and the immune system as well as many of the other factors that you wish to see how they work are carried in the blood and regulated by organs outside of the area which is burnt. The point of doing something in vivo is that you can see how the organism reacts not a slice of tissue in a petri dish.
Having scientists subjects themselves to burns as subjects although appealing to some of the readers may lead to a certain drop in research proposals and a lot more death, injuries and social trauma to the human populace.. I'll refrain from putting up an image of an heavily scarred child to prove my point.
By the by, you can go nuke the pharmaceutical companies doing tests for eyeliners as far as I am concerned.
vivisector
waiting in the wings
03.03.2006 18:39
dollardollarbill
Not quite!
03.03.2006 18:54
I work in the media and know how lazy, desk bound, cowardly,self interested and ignorant most journalists are. They are more interested in taking what they believe will be the right outcome side of an issue than informing themselves. They don’t want to be on the losing side whatever it is, no glory there. Anti war, anti racism, pro gay - all these are good for their career. The moral right has not been won where anti vivisection is concerned in their view so it can be vilified it with no career consequences (and with a clear conscience!)
Anti vivisection bears no relation to anti abortion. Organised anti abortionists are always fundamentalist christians and oppose birth control in any form. They are just as opposed to contraception. They have no realistic social solution to abortion because of this. They are also doing Gods work and reserving their special place in heaven for themselves.
People against vivisection are not against medical research, though this is how Pro-Test would like the media to portray any one who is opposed to the use of animals in laboratories. Vivisectors are far removed from patient care. I wonder how many of them could even give you first aid if you needed it.
Myself
vivisector / torquemada
04.03.2006 03:17
Having worked as a concentration camp torturer I find most people work well with their prisoners and care for them. The worst I've seen is the running down of children by cars, (their bones were useful for study).
>The institution I then worked had one of the best burns units in UK and regularly made peoples often childrens lives bearable. The arguement that animal models are invalid is nonsence.
The safe speed limits on our roads - which save childrens lives if you want to get emotive - are derived from research carried out by your scientific equivalents on subhumans.
They chose to run down Jewish children in Volkswagons, you choose to burn cats. There was a big medical debate after the war whether to accept Nazi medical data derived from such torture - eventually they did. The pursuit of knowledge ('for the children') is ruthless certainly.
>Clearly no animal model is perfect, but one thing missed by this arguement is that it is the differences between models which often allow us to identify the most useful information, i.e. why does this virus infect species A but not species B.
But clearly you would learn more useful information about treating burns on children by burning children rather than cats. So why don't you just burn children ? In fact, why don't you visisector donate sperm and eggs and use your own flesh for the burning ? UIt won't hurt you, its only a couple of cells you lose naturally - and you obviously have no humane feelings to worry about your subjects welfare.
Or failing that, why don't you just learn about treating burnt children by the experience of treating already burned children supplemented with all the modellling that supercomputers combined with the mapping of the human genome to achieve the same ends without needless suffering ? Too scientific for you ? Or do you still burn cats for kicks when you are off-duty ?
Danny
Inaccuracies
04.03.2006 13:16
1) The only reason Pro-Test exists is to support the scientific community in their medically necessary animal research. Media coverage has been useful to us in that it has helped us gain public attention and support for our cause- it was never the aim in and of itself.
2) The "bloated white haired old Tory" is the Chancellor of Oxford University- so had every relevance to the march. He wasn't "wheeled out", he turned up of his own accord in support of his researchers and the facility being built at his university. We didn't invite him individually, but were pleasently surprised when such a high profile figure in the University turned up to lend us support. At the march itself a Liberal Democrat MP, a young American female dPhil student, and an asian neurosurgeon all spoke, lovely to see your own age-prejudice creeping into your post though.
3) Pro-Test committee members have debated with BUAV and PETA spokespeople on at least three different radio and TV programmes in the last week. We are also looking into the feasability of a public debate at some point. Of course we welcome debate; why would we not? The facts are on our side!
oxfordfemme
Child/ Cat
04.03.2006 16:20
sarah
Any Dunce can cut up animals and report what he or she see's
04.03.2006 16:23
Tim
Carl Jung
04.03.2006 19:55
Vivisection is scientific fraud. Thalidomide was tested on animals for ten years before being marketed to an unsuspecting public, with the terrible results of birth deformities, infanticide and some mothers becoming insane (10,000 children were born in the West with limbs missing). Again, this drug was comprehensively tested on animals before being marketed. Chemie Gruenthal, the pharmaceutical company who manufactured this filth were acquitted in a WEst German court (1970) after a long line of medical researchers ironically testified that animal testing could not safely predict any drug's reactions on humans. In substance, a long array of research authorities confirmed in court, explicitly or by implication, what Dr. Raymond Green had written earlier in the Lancet (September 1st 1962), namely:
"We must face the fact that the most careful tests of a new drug's effects on animals may tell us little of its efects on humans... animal experiments cannot obviate the risks and may even prevent the use of excellent substances".
Despite the tragedy of thalidomide (Chemie Gruenthal paid the victims no compensation whatsoever), vivisection is still employed today in drug testing, with more terrible effects. Opfren the anti arthritis drug was tested on animals and marketed as safe before being withdrawn due to serious photosensitivity in patients. Valium and the benzodiazepine group of sedatives are now being withdrawn because of serious side effects to mental and physical health, yet these were tested on animals and marketed as safe. the anti diarrhoea drug Clioquinol led to thousands of deaths and 30,000 cases of blindness and paralysis in Japan alone, in 1979 a Tokyo court ruled that the drug had no therapeutic benefits whatsoever, yet this was tested on animals. DES, a synthetic oestrogen was tested on animals before being marketed to the public, but DES caused cancer in offspring ("I had no way of knowing what those pills do. Thousands of women took them, because their doctor prescribed them" Mrs. Grace Molloy, who lost her daughter to DES induced cancer, Newsweek, Jan 26th 1976).
Facts are facts, and the use of vivisection in medical research can be compared to trying to cure a headache with a shotgun, maybe 1 in a 1000 times there is success. But this debate ought to be put out in the public domain where both sides are given equal consideration, rather than the overly biased media articles we see today. It really is disgraceful to read the rubbish in the press written about anti vivisection, portraying all people involved in this as terrorists. This is quite frankly a hysterical remark because as far as I know, no one has been killed as yet. I would like to point out that I certainly do not condone violence at all, no matter what the cause, I prefer the passive resistance approach that Gandhi advocated, but what is not written in the press is the extent of the violence committed against animal activists, this goes unpublished, and the fact that many of these people have died (such as Jill Phipps and Mike Hill). But what is urgently needed is an honest, open debate about this instead of the appalling bias and double standards that are prevalent in the media today in favour of vivisection and big business.
I find it strange also that the person going under the pseudonym 'vivisector' is experimenting on cats and generalising these to human beings. Professor Colin Blakemore told the British ASsociation for the Advancement of Science how he sewed up the eyes of 35 kittens, allegedly to find a way to cure squints. He found out that cats with one eye sewn up shortly after birth could not see out of it when the stitches were removed. Neither coudl cats which had both eyes sewn up. In a frank interview with the London Daily Mirror, (6th September 1772), the vivisector Dr. Blakemore defended his research as being 'ethical' because 'kittens like living in the dark'. He went on to say that he was an animal lover, and that cats 'make ideal subjects, because their eyes are more like humans than those of other animals'.
This claim, like those of 'Oxford Femme' and 'Vivisector', is utter nonsense. Cats' eyes are radically different from ours, both in structure and in reactions, they see in the dark when humans don't, the eyes of ac at remain closed long after birth and ours open up. the pupil of a cat's eye is vertical whilst a human eye pupil is horizontal, we have a wide angle view of an object whilst a cat must focus on an object at a distance. But then again, a vivisector will come out with all sorts of rubbish to justify what they do.
The rhetoric of 'vivisector' and the equally blind 'Oxford Femme', who believes that the facts are somehow 'on her side' (they are not, I can assure you), are mere examples of this off target, Cartesian mentality that pervades those who endorse and undertake vivisection. This blind, stupid, Cartesian mentality is one which is totally lacking in common sense, intuition, empathy and feeling, and produces such horrific aforementioned statistics here in Britain and in many secular countries where animals are sacrificed on the altars of almighty science, the fanatical religion of the modern age, in the erroneous belief that by doing so the existential problem of human disease will one day end. It is a kind of narcissistic cerebralism totally disconnected from fellow feeling, animals, Nature and even a sense of one's own bodily incarnation. Only such a pseudo scientific mentality could work such havoc and devastation on all things earthly, and, by extension, so called 'lesser peoples' and races, as has been the tragic case in the past.
"There are no alternatives to vivisection, because any method intended to replace it should have the same qualities, but it is hard to find anything in biomedical research that is, and always was, more deceptive and misleading than vivisection. The only genuine alternative to vivisection is it's abolition" Professor P. Croce MD, former vivisector.
"95% of drugs passed by animal tests are immediately discarded as being useless or dangerous to humans (Smithkline Beecham Internal Report).
"After over 100 years of cancer research on animals, cancer has recently overtaken heart disease as the commonest cause of death in the UK (British Medical Journal, 13th February 1999).
Carl Jung
Oxford Femme-Ever Heard of fake Debates?
04.03.2006 20:34
1/ RSPCA-have had shares in drug,chemical companys who all do animal experiments and employ vivisectors or "researchers",on their "scientific" advisory boards.
2/ IFAW- have had shares in drug companys,cage makers and those companys who supplied the tools,for the "researchers" handiwork,this was done under the brian davies foundation who is the founder of IFAW.
3/ PETA-i have'nt heard a debate with a PETA representative on uk tv regarding animal experimentation but you have, so i believe you but PETA does'nt use the scientific or medical arguments or mention the human victims of animal experimentation,thats why they were probably chosen by that media corporation.(not forgetting they do deals with mcDonalds,that makes them look good and PETA look good,so they may be giving donatry bribes from drug,chemical companys but that is only a presumption)
3/ BUAV-there's some interesting articles on the BUAV on this website,it may take you a minuate to find them,as there are other articles regarding vivisection,but there very helpfull.
Also the presenter of the "debates" you have heard,follows from his or her corporational script,what questions are asked,how they are asked,who they are asked too,the tone of the debate and where it begins and ends.
Tim
Lies, Damned Lies, and Soundbites
04.03.2006 23:19
That's potentially misleading. To understand whether it was relevant to the current thread, you'd need sufficient information as to how heart disease had been reduced, whether medical treatment thereof was due to drugs tested on animals, and so on.
Still, it sounds good - eh?
Amused
Amused to Death
05.03.2006 00:44
Pro-Test - March of the Perverts
plague
Carl Jung
05.03.2006 03:51
You mention in your (utterly ignorant) remark that this fact 'sounds good'. Yes, it does, especially when the fact in question is stipulated in the British Medical Journal. Sadly for you though 'Amused', I know they don't cover these issues in the Beano!
Carl Jung
Touched a nerve, eh?
05.03.2006 12:06
Amused
"Gerald Holmgren-esque personal attack" .. hehe .. brilliant!
05.03.2006 18:40
I'll die in stiches when you are eventually done here.
Btw, I HATE animal Abuse and I HATE vivisection and I may just HATE YOU?
See ya .. wouldn't want to be ..
Shocked to Death
Lies and Damned lies?
05.03.2006 20:11
Carl Jung
On You Go
05.03.2006 21:13
Amused
For Amused, re: vivisection.
06.03.2006 04:32
The moral case against vivisection is enough for many people like myself to be horrified by it and to oppose it, and I suppose this is the reason why I find it incredulous that you, 'Amused', should be sitting on the proverbial fence undecided as to 'which side' of the debate your views lie. If I took you to a vivisection laboratory and you witnessed the vile experiments that take place there believe youme, you would be horrified. One experiment (utterly scientifically useless) is to surgically fuse two beagle dogs together, this was formerly undertaken to 'investigate' the phenomenon of monozygotic twins. When the dogs though come round after anaesthetic they always attack each other. As said, the scientific value of this experiment is nil, zero, and it fills me with disgust that people like 'Oxford Femme' and 'Vivisector' can defend and even carry out such an obscenity.
The last line of the vivisector's defence is the emotive chestnut 'either a dog/cat/mouse etc. or your child'. But not only is this argument irrelevant to the lives and daily choices of people in society today, but such an argument of 'necessary evil' has been used to justify all sorts of crimes throughout history, from Herod to Hitler. Yet this argument itself is fallacious when considering the appalling injuries and fatalities caused by animal tested drugs subsequently given to humans. I mentioned the notorious case of Thalidomide, where 10,000 children were born without limbs. I once saw a child who was a victim of Thalidomide, a little girl... she had no arms and had artificial metal arms in their place. I couldn't help but weep afterwards. Vivisection did this to her, as well as thousands of other children, and has subsequently gone on to injure and kill thousands of other people with drugs passed 'safe' by animal testing, while making obscene profits for pharmaceutical companies.
I won't be coming to this site much longer. I cannot appeal to 'Vivisector', nor 'Oxford Femme'. To my mind their souls are dead. Moreover I question the mindset of someone who can do this to animals in a dispassionate manner. But perhaps I can appeal to you to save your soul and campaign peacefully against a practice which is a horrific crime, not only to animals but also to humanity.
Finally, a quote from a vivisector who obtained sadistic delight from his actions:
"how fortunate are those who can do research their whole life, for however long they live, they die young. It keeps you alive. Same as if you were a criminal and enjoy your crimes. It keeps you alive" (Caught in the Act, The Feldberg Investigation, by Melody McDonald).
Carl Jung
Comparing Jews with Animals
06.03.2006 10:30
Are the lives of non-humans*, equal to the life of a human?
*(assuming it is not from an endangered species)
Added to that is:
Does anyone have the right to enforce their decision on this philosophical question on others?
Clearly my answer on both of these will be 'no', and if it was an endangered species I would answer the non-human was probably worth many human lives... but not my own of course - that's called self preservation. I would be interested to hear why anybody could answer 'yes' to both as the first 'yes' implies great freedom of inclusion and equality but the second 'yes' implies rigid application of your own values to all those who you just said are equal (presumably equal in their freedom to live by their species specific instincts, morals, priorities as much as anything else).
Mayflower
Re: vivisection
06.03.2006 13:01
Carl Jung
Replying to the nonsense posted by Oxfordfemme
06.03.2006 13:09
The bloated white haired old Tory stands for the status quo and his own glorious career. He has never displayed any courage in his political life and I am glad he supports you.
And is the asian neurosurgeon the very same one quoted in The Guardian as saying he agrees with using animals to test cosmetics?
Calling someone old when they are old is not ‘age-prejudice’. Perhaps you might like to campaign to get the word ‘old’ removed from the Oxford English Dictionary if it offends your delicate sensibilities so much. If feel your arguments are failing to get the result you want and you need to divert attention away from the issues around vivisection you can always go the way of the pro hunting lobby - accuse your opponents of prejudice!
I am not aware that either PETA or BUAV are directly involved with the campaign against the Oxford lab.
Have you debated with SPEAK? Since SPEAK have been the subject of an injunction by Oxford University how does that help any debate? Are you willing to help get that injunction lifted so a real debate can begin? Not just a debate with narrow terms of reference set by Oxford University and its supporters. Please post the facts which are on your side up here for scrutiny.
Keep trawling indymedia and other internet forums for opportunities to get your argument across.
Myself
One last thing
06.03.2006 13:38
The reason why you test on animals is because you claim that 'they are not like us'. But then when you generalise the (often disastrous) results to humans, you do so because 'they are like us'. So at one point you justify your research stating that animals are like us, then you test on animals because they are not like us. Strange but true.
One last thing though, a question which I feel that is both pertinent and relevant to this debate, since you are defending vivisection, and assuming that you are 'Vivisector' above:
Do you enjoy your work? I mean, do you get some job satisfaction from it?
As said, I am interested in the mindset.
Carl Jung
My Mommy told me not to play with nonces like 'Amused'
06.03.2006 21:15
Independent Online
Sharon Howe: Animal testing is both cruel and unnecessary
No one could be keener to see a cure for Parkinson's than I: my mother suffers from it
Published: 06 March 2006
The privilege of studying at Oxford is not something I have ever taken for granted. I was brought up on a council estate in Swindon and went to a pretty rough comprehensive. My parents struggled financially for most of their lives, but they put me and my education first and that is how - seemingly against all odds - I got into one of the country's top universities. It was a moment of great pride - for both me and my family - when I entered the grand Sheldonian Theatre in gown and cap to receive my first-class honours degree.
It is therefore with great regret that I now find myself forced to return that degree to an institution of which I can no longer be proud. I simply cannot continue my association with a university which persists in building a new laboratory to perpetuate the morally repugnant and scientifically outdated practice of animal testing. How can painfully and artificially inducing human diseases in other species with a different genetic make-up to our own possibly advance the cause of modern medicine?
Of course animal testing has always gone on at Oxford - but here was the perfect opportunity to move forward and develop a centre of excellence for cutting-edge, non-animal research which would give us the competitive advantage Tony Blair is so keen to promote - and inspire other countries to follow our example.
Yes, animal testing may have brought some fortuitous human benefits in the past - to argue otherwise would be as disingenuous as Professor John Stein's claim that "almost all of the medical advances of the last 100 years have happened through animal experiments" (conveniently ignoring the development of anaesthetics, the sanitation improvements which saw off infectious diseases such as TB and cholera long before vaccines were developed, the surgical techniques developed on the battlefield during the Second World War and the epidemiological studies which have identified the main - largely diet and lifestyle-related - causes of heart disease, cancer, strokes and Aids). But how do we know that the same benefits wouldn't have been achieved - and sooner - without it?
I wonder how many of the people whom pro-vivisectionists seek to manipulate emotionally with their specious "dog-or-child" dilemma are aware that, while alternatives require scientific validation before being approved, the same rigorous criteria have never been applied to animal experimentation? In fact, the Home Office has even refused to conduct a cost-benefit analysis on vivisection. Surely a reasonable request?
And "reasonable" is what the vast majority of people who want to see an end to animal testing are. They are people like me with a sense of compassion who campaign peacefully by shaking tins for humane research charities, organising sponsored walks, collecting names on petitions and talking to people on the streets. But that's not exciting enough for large sections of the media. Confrontation and violence make much better copy. Hence their relentless homing-in on a minority of extremists - which can be gratifyingly found on the fringes of any movement for social change, from women's emancipation to civil rights.
No one could be keener to see a cure for Parkinson's than I: my mother has been suffering from it for many years and it breaks my heart to see her steadily degenerate. But cutting open the skulls of monkeys - who do not even suffer from the disease - and injecting chemicals into their brains is at best a crude and highly circuitous path to achieving this. As for the ethical dimension, the distinction we seek to make between wild-caught and purpose-bred monkeys, or between pet cats and dogs and their laboratory counterparts, must be one of mankind's most monumental feats of hypocrisy.
The technology to achieve change already exists. Organisations such as the Dr Hadwen Trust and the Humane Research Trust are funding vital research into all the major human diseases to replace painful procedures on animals. Cancer research projects use complex 3D human cell cultures and mathematical modelling to improve the targeting of radiation treatments, for example, while new generations of brain scanning techniques - some of them developed at Oxford - are providing far more relevant insights into neurological diseases like Parkinson's than invasive operations on monkeys are ever likely to do.
OK, so the options were limited in Galen's day - but we are now in the 21st century, with an arsenal of sophisticated techniques at our disposal from computer simulation to stem-cell research. The British pharmaceutical company Pharmagene, for one, tests drugs exclusively on human tissue, arguing that "If you have information on human genes, what's the point of going back to animals?"
It is nonsense to suggest that abolishing vivisection would mean the end of medical progress: on the contrary, it would enable the funds lavished uncritically on projects such as the £18m Oxford laboratory to be diverted to directly relevant, human-based research, which is currently being held back by institutional inertia and vested interests.
And what better way for the university to maintain its reputation as a world-class seat of human progress and enlightenment than to be at the forefront of this endeavour?
The writer is a university lecturer and translator
Danny
Another fake post from M pretending to be me
07.03.2006 12:51
and it's not the only one, they posted this as well
I've no problem with someone else using the name Danny here but using the same name as someone else has already used on a thread is out of order. It's also not the sort of thing that even angry trolls stoop to, I'm beginning to assume M is actually an agent of the state given their previous posts. I am sort of flattered to merit this special smearing, but I'll just start posting under different names from now on on new threads. Just bear in mind, if M ever posts here again, treat him with the suspicion and contempt that he has earned.
Danny
WTF?
07.03.2006 23:34
Really?
Total Animal Liberation!
M (Danny)
M (Danny)
Nasty troll
08.03.2006 12:33
This usually includes hurling around oceans of gratuitous abuse and defamatory comments, all delivered via a range of anonymous identities - with a few forged ones thrown in for good measure.
Sharp eyed bulletin board editors can usually ban 'bad bwoy' trolls before they can cause too much trouble, but on unmoderated newsgroups the damage can be terminal, with some communities giving up in the face of relentless attacks."
Danny
What is science?
08.03.2006 15:08
I know from epidemiological analyses that if women inherit a specific mutation in the BRCA2 gene, they will have roughly an 80 per cent chance (controlling for lifestyle factors, like smoking, weight, etc) of developing an aggressive breast cancer in their lifetimes.
From reading the literature, I suspect the BRCA2 gene may be involved in controlling the cell cycle (ie the mechanisms by which the cell divides and grows). I want to find out more about how this gene works -- exactly how it controls cell division. I think that if I discover how it works, I may one day be able to design a drug that can help fix the problems in the cell that happen when the gene is mutated.
What do I do? What is the next step?
Smad
What is science? pt 2
08.03.2006 18:46
Smad
Attention Smad
08.03.2006 18:49
Myself
Have a look
09.03.2006 10:45
Studying the actions of specific genes in any organism requires that one study the gene in that organism, or in tissue from that organism. Because genes and their products tend to work in concert with other genes and gene products in complex systems, it is in those specific systems that the genes must be studied.
Myself
What is science?
09.03.2006 11:23
Other than this name -- BRCA2 -- that I've arbitrarily assigned it, I don't know anything about it. I want to find out more about how it works. I need to make an experimental system I can use to study this gene in isolation.
How do I go about making this experimental system? Suggestions?
Smad
S mad...
10.03.2006 09:54
FatPUnkChris
e-mail:
chris@stopanimalcruelty.co.uk