Oh, stop eating and drinking genetically modified foods, HFCS and polluting the environment with toxic chemicals and most of those disease will disappear. Science will only make them worse statistically speaking.

Sorry for the topo's I'm in a hurry here....should be "or people misuse what you found out" ...Have a nice day.

Opposite sides

There thing is your post is opinion not supported by facts as well, you have no way the measure of influence by my objection, it is just your personal opinion. I do understand that you would prefer to use statistics, or scientific method that only meets scientific standards of equivalence. "Monkey die of disease or it's ok to give them a disease and then study it, to qualify why just say it is better for mankind to do it, it's safe you don't have to have any real proof and if things go wrong or please misuse what you found out...you can always say we just wanted to further our understanding...someone else is the monster.

I could support my claim with all sorts of facts and figures or you could just take a walk outside and look around. I spent a lot of time in behavior science and I've decided that the truth is more important than profit, career objectives, and furthering the corruption that is science. You don't have to agree with me, but for your own sense of decency you should try looking outside your carefully constructed paradigmn. I will talk to the otter spirits in your behave, they might help you.

Treefrog,

you're missing the point here.
Your unfounded, unreasoned, and uninformed responses/comments give absolutely no credibility to the spirit of your cause in the eyes of the general public.

Therefore, you're doing a disservice to those fighting for ecological causes.
It is because of people like you that the Rush Limbaughs of America tear apart the ideals of those that actively and CONSTRUCTIVELY work towards making the world a better place, ecologically speaking.

Launching personal attacks against me does not substitute for a well-reasoned argument based on verifiable facts!

Listen, just because I don't like the color blue, that doesn't mean I have the right to demand banning of the color blue in the world, and ask for the damning of all the people that wear blue!!!
I can certainly have no blue in my house or in my closet, even request less blue put out on my street, but I can't ban it. Even if I tried to, people would laugh at me because my argument is based on the fact that I don't like the color blue, period.
And that's how you get your point across.

Opposite sides

If you want to help animals quite making it impossible for them to live by stealing thier homes, diverting thier food sources, and patenting thier cells.

Opposite sides

You are such an elistist OS, your posts are full of patronization and I think I know more than you. I guess you learn that in biomedical research school and it might be of value there but I find it offensive. You don't seem to understand that your opinions amount to sugar coated torcher and far, far exceed any objection I might put forth here. I believe that because of what you do (maybe not you but other like you) would make me sick, rob my joy, violate my sense of well being. You don't have to say WHY you do it, it is a business and a corrupt vile business so what ever reason you have for doing it only means you lack the creativity to figure out life on an ethical basis. Animals have the right to live and die without your intervention. I have seen many wild animals die, there have been quite a few that come to my mint patch for just that purpose. Things get sick and die and it is part of life...everyone will have thier way to do it...I don't want or need your help...

Helen67, you said:

"Animal experiments have not only failed to find cures for our most common diseases, they have caused widespread damage to our society's health and wasted valuable resources that could have been used in epidemiological studies, preventative measures and health education."

I would like to see the data that supports your affirmation, coming from a reliable source.

Treefrog,
only by being extremists can people have such BLUNT and STRONG opinions on matters that are so overwhelmingly COMPLEX. And when a say BLUNT, I mean exactly that! I can you label me a liar?? Or a killer?? Or immoral?? Or soulless?? Or not-compassionate??

I am a biomedical scientist, and I'm not going to present the reasons that drive me to be one here, as that is not under the scope of this discussion.
I am also a animal lover, who worries deeply about preservation (I've supported wild life preservation societies many times), and about the way we ALL relate to nature and every living thing that surrounds us. I am okay with people eating meat and wearing leather shoes, though I have concerns about the ways the meat industry, for example, carries their businesses.

So, as you see, I'm NOT BLIND to either side of the argument. But having experienced different aspects of this matter, I think gives me the right to express my opinion and present some facts. So, why to I have to be attacked??

And you all should be open to listen to all the facts also. It's reality, not fiction.

Treefrog, you said:
"This is unfortunate that you consider my position extreme, I am not altering the genetics of living being to give them diseases originating in another species. (that is extreme, not my position)"

Do you have pets? Maybe pretty blue and red fish? Maybe a hamster? Maybe even a pretty Rottweiler dog?

If you do, please go online, do some research and allow yourself to realize the amazing amount of "evilness" done by "altering the genetics of living beings" is behind the pretty pets humanity has at their houses nowadays.
It was certainly not done for the benefit of the animals themselves...

Opposite sides.

This is unfortunate that you consider my position extreme, I am not altering the genetics of living being to give them diseases originating in another species. (that is extreme, not my position) The world we live in is not understood by disecting it's inhabitants and studying the dead and diseased. It is a living functioning organizm and what you do or how you do it has a moral value. Has a benefit or doesn't. I didn't say we cannot learn from animals, I said that the cruel and immoral practices that are done secretly in laboratories are wrong. Not only the procedures but the results. Scientifically controlled environments create an artifical based world that is based on information of perverted natural law. Where people never see a full life cycle (the perpetual flowering lawn that is exactly like the one next door) Not just the harm produced but what is taken away to get that information. Stop lying, I hate liars.

I think there's an important aspect of animal experimentation that people such as OppositeSides fail to understand. While such practices are of course cruel to animals they are also very misleading when it comes to human health.

You mention working on cell lines, but cells of different species contain different DNA, and even if the same genes exist in two species they are regulated and expressed in different ways. This is the danger of extrapolating data from one species to another and anything discovered in animals must be rediscovered in humans.

Animal experiments have not only failed to find cures for our most common diseases, they have caused widespread damage to our society's health and wasted valuable resources that could have been used in epidemiological studies, preventative measures and health education.

The bottom line is, regardless of whether or not anyone gives a damn about animals (and incidentally I do very much!) medical research MUST be human specific - for our own sakes.

WTF:I guess if someones opinion is different than your on an issue they should be killed, that is the only sane and rational thing to do, because obviously your opinion is the only one that is correct.

""As a SCIENTIST working on Huntington's disease and other disorders related to neurodegeneration, I wanted to dismiss the rubbish that has been posted in this discussion (people, when talking about something that you don't fully understand, just shut up, ok?)""

"don't fully understand"!!!
A PhD internal-medicine researcher that i consider among my best friends heard me complain to him for five years that each time i saw him eat sweets he would cough and gag.
After FIVE years, when i described what i thought might be the bio-mechanism, he heard me suddenly, blurted a response, and stopped eating sweets in meetings....
My High School educated father spent 17 years coddling SCIENTIST at Northrup Research Lab, explaining real world physics to fat-head PhD children.
People who kill are killers that practice the verb ig-nor-ance.
"I am beginning to realize that 'sanity' is no longer a value or an end in itself. The 'sanity' of modern man is about as useful to him as the huge bulk of muscles of the dinosaur. If he were a little less sane, a little more doubtful, a little more aware of the absurdities and contradictions, perhaps there might be a possibility of survival." THOMAS MERTON

A biological researcher we know was worried that part-human animals would be developed and bred large scale for the sole purpose of medical experimentation without informed consent. (By the way, much medical experimentation these days is on behalf of drug industry rather than basic research. It has little to do with intellectual curiousity and much about marketing products.) So he applied for a patent on chimeras several years ago. In this case a chimera would be a combination human / chimp, which I understand is fairly easy to create.

His goal in applying for the patent was to

A. Get the patent and block anyone from using it.

B. Get a ruling from the patent office that a chimera could not be patented.

If he got result B, the goal was to appeal it up to the Supreme Court until he got the patent or the Court ruled nobody could have it.

People who oppose all animal experimentation might ask, why only chimeras? Why not the chimps too? True enough. But at least he stopped the ghastly prospect of mass farming semi-human chimeras for experimentation and spare parts, at least here in the United States.

The ethical issues can be complex. But a lot of this experimentation is industry and career driven. Let's not do it. "There is always another way."

Hi Coco: thanks for your link. I bookmarked it. It's nice to see someone else who cares about our primate cousins. Take care!

Although I agree with the "ethical" arguements of PITA - I just watched the Earthling movie, there is a glaring omission from it - Predation.

Predation is a part of the Natural Order from planktonic forms to lions.

In this sense, this Doco was little more that propaganda.

Although it will make people more aware of the conditions and practices in which their food is obtained, their clothing, etc...

What is the point?

To "friend" and others who claim that animal-rights activists care more about animals than people: you're wrong. The average animal-rights activist cares far more than the average person about all animals, humans included. We just don't believe in abusing and torturing one form of life to benefit another.

To Just-arguing:

good post.
You summed it up really well.
Hurray to the balanced minds out there.

I think the bigger question in all of this is, "can we stop human curiosity?" Because ultimately, that is the purpose of science. We are curious beings, and we have evolved to be this way. To question our surroundings, our makeup, and where we come from, how we got here, etc. Scientists and animal rights activists alike ask these questions. Not to be curious about these things would be... considered to be somewhat strange, right? So if we are going to condemn all biological scientists as evil, don't we have to basically condemn anybody who asks these questions as evil, too? Potentially all curiosity could lead to bad things -- the study of geology and chemistry lead to the utilization of global-warming-causing fossil fuels. The study of physics lead to the dropping of the atom bomb. However, we have benefited greatly from these studies and from the people who are curious. Where do we draw the line at which you are allowed no longer to test your curiosity?

I'm not saying that violations of ethical treatment of animals doesn't exist, because it does. I'm a graduate student, I have worked in many labs, and I have seen it. And I feel very sorry when animals are put to waste for no reason. Yes, they have feelings and it appears very much so that they also have emotions (I have rescued 2 dogs from shelters, and I swear they have just as "human" characteristics as I do), and just like any living thing they have a striving to survive. And I think the guidelines of ethics needs to be taken more seriously. However, it is natural, especially for humans, to be predators. To take advantage of their surroundings and use it as a tool that will further their potential survival. All predators do this. The bacteria in my body (some good, some bad) is eating all kinds of things inside me, and I don't have a say in it. Lions chase gazelles and zebras and rip out their throats, and the gazelles and zebras don't have a say in it. And I can't go on a killing spree against all the bacteria in my body, and we can't mandate a safari against all lions because they're killing the defenseless zebras.

My point is this: there are certain forces in nature that are very difficult to control -- human curiosity being one of them. And I think the only way in order to completely stop cruelty is for every living thing to die. People, lions, roaches, spiders, bacteria... these all take advantage of creatures of different species in order to survive.

I am all for the ethical treatment of animals. People, too! Wouldn't it be wrong for us to stop trying to cure horrible diseases for people who are suffering everyday, and are desperate for relief? Some of these people have no say in the matter as well. If we stopped it all right now, and killed all evil scientists, would it be right to deny them treatment for their pain because we are not permitted to probe our curiosities?

It's a complex, and difficult matter. And no, I don't believe humans are the ultimate being. I think there is much more evolving to do, and at the rate we're going with destroying the earth and ties to international communities, we'll probably all be evolving from bacteria once again very soon. And I love animals. But we must be reasonable. Yes, ethical treatment of animals can be improved greatly! Definitely work towards that. But we cannot stop nature. And it is in man's nature to question, and to use all his faculties to find answers.

FOREXTRADER

thank you for the link to the primatefreedom group. here's another one that is well worth looking at:

www.ippl.org

dr. shirley mcgreal has been awarded the o.b.e. in the queen's new years honour list. she has done so much for the 'protection' of primates.

funnily enough, i didn't see any o.b.e.'s being awarded to anyone who 'experiments' on primates or 'tortures' them...........

Treefrog, you said:

"Your position is advanced in a documentary by the title "Earthlings". I think my grandfather would say, "you can't put lipstick on a pig", you can but it is still a pig."

Don't be an extremist. I hate extremists. We don't live in a black and white world. We never did and never will. Tolerance and common sense lie within the gray area. The food chain has existed ever since organized life forms appeared.

Just because there are BAD practices working with animals (and now I'm not talking about other aspects of animal cruelty brought up by Earthlings), you can't generalize and curse and persecute scientists because they model diseases in mice. Because somebody taped scientists with bad practice at some companies like Covance or universties like UCLA, you CAN'T tell me that I do exactly the same in MY lab and therefore label me as cruel, immoral (and as people have said in this discussion, scientists "should be put down"), and devalue my work.
We can't deny that animal cruelty exists and is UNFORTUNATELY common in certain industries, but banning all animal use is not the way out.

The radical and impartial way that a lot of people put facts out there is obvious just by looking at the title of this piece... No"GM Monkeys Are Bred To Die of Brain Disease"!!! GM monkeys are bred to aid in the study of brain diseases, that would be the fair title.
How can people that present facts like this be heard and trusted?? To use your metaphor, there's not enough lipstick in the world to make extremists a nicer part of our society...

P.S. Has anyone tried to find "non" dog or cat shelters? Wait till you see what they look like on the inside, they need help, your help.
A washington state horse shelter is about to go under for those of you that vote with your dollar and not your big lips. The one that was in the paper a few ago. They are panhandling for horse feed on the streets of downtown. Don't just walk on by, stop.

Cars were tested on people and that drug is out of control. We should have tested them on animals first. We might see how stupid we all are.

People Eating Tasty Animals. Do I have to say more? Its foolery to try to dominate morally in a field where you know nothing. Torture is a moral crime yet its torture to hear someone yelling at you. And you all yell! You all tell how it is, but do you really know? You all demand your freedoms for primates and you give your soul for an apartment and a car with insurance? What, free health care? Where are the priorities?! ADOPT! HAVE MORE PETS! Have you ever fed your pet SNAKE? What is more cruel? Have you watched a constrictor? How bout rights for roundworm!? Pinworm? They're animals! Test on animals, and people, please!

Is the coal I burn to make electricity for my rescued animals worth all the degradation of the environment it causes?

People need to go see some seasons on the old farm. Just to see what our current model for society has done to the minds of the weak willed and do nothing but bitch class of I'm better that thou passive aggressive whine torturing pop offs.
Go volunteer at an animal rescue that deals with reptiles, they really need the help. I do.

Don't forget we all have to act as members of Plant Amnesty as well. As a avid gardener I hate to see people using chemicals. As an indoor gardener I hate to see what people do to their houseplants!

I don't care what you say, I care what you do. Hypocrites talk too much.

Opposite Sides

Your position is advanced in a documentary by the title "Earthlings". I think my grandfather would say, "you can't put lipstick on a pig", you can but it is still a pig.

This crap needs to stop. To treat monkeys, apes and other sentient beings for the "advance" of mankind is beyond contempt. These creatures can't speak on their own behalf. There is an organization that wants to put an end to these diabolical practices: www.primatefreedom.com

PS: I love primates and I vote!!!!

birdflewunder, you said:

"to fanny666 and all those who agree with him, most medical breakthroughs 99.99% have not come from experimenting with animals but from the study of plants, bacteria, virus's and advances in science/technology"

Wow, 99.99% is quite an impressive number!
I would like to see the data for those numbers. Send me the link (but credible, with citations).

I can send you some pretty good articles that contradict your affirmation, if you're interested.

As a scientist working on Huntington's disease and other disorders related to neurodegeneration, I wanted to dismiss the rubbish that has been posted in this discussion (people, when talking about something that you don't fully understand, just shut up, ok?) and post the following questions to PETA people and/or supporters:

1. We, as biomedical scientists, work with what we have. End the discussion. And what we have is cell lines, and animal models, ranging from flies, mice, and monkeys (though monkeys are not commonly used, for obvious reasons). We want to understand how the human body works, why do cells live or die, why disease happens, and how we can treat it. So, you godly illuminated people should come up with a list of alternatives to animal research for us to accomplish our mission. And then we can talk.

2. Also, don't forget to persecute predators in nature. They hunt, torture, and kill countless innocent animals. They should find alternatives, don't you think?

3. I find it funny that some people suggest we should do research on dying humans. I would love to curse right now, but for the sake of respect, I'll just question that so superior altruism that shows compassion for all living things except for the ones of your own species, your counterparts?!!! Very unnatural, indeed...

4. The first that never sinned, throw the first stone. When you kid comes down with some horrible debilitating, heart wrenching, soul killing disease, don't allow any treatment. After all, it was all done in animals before it was approved for humans. Let him die, it's just life after all. What do you say to that?

Get a life people. Animal research is needed in light of the tools we currently have, and THERE ARE NO ALTERNATIVES. It is CONTROLLED, and in the developed countries at least, done (somewhat) ethically.I say "somewhat" because it is always a hot topic, even among scientists...
And animals used in research are bred for that purpose, we're not going to make all the mice or rats in world disappear all of a sudden...

Look at the world today and really, is animal testing the biggest problem we face nowadays?

Hello fanny666,
Maybe the VP of PETA has diabetes from eating too much processed food containing High Fructose Corn Syrup, which blocks the bodies natural insulin and causes diabetes.
Why is it in our food? As a way of enabling the corn growers to make more money! We had surplus! Now that the ethynol FAD, co-incides with the organic food movement, they can be paid to grow corn for fuel & the natural food producers a can return to using sugar or honey!
Actually this is all Barbara Walter's fault! SHe did that show on living to be 150!

RedRaider said: My personal opinion is that their is nothing wrong with animal research. Millions of human lives have been saved because of this kind of research.

I suppose you are one of the idiots that also believe that "fighting the Islamofacists over there" saves millions of lives here at home.

There are some people that just deserve to be put down.

Other animals (those not human) do just fine without us. If we succeeded in eradicating even ants or bees, we would perish.
Humans are fools.

My dog had 12 puppy's, nine lived, we gave them away at markets, ran a free add in the paper..
One puppy, my favorite, drove away with it's new owner one Friday night. Sunday they called, the puppy had run off...They called again that week, they lived 15 miles away in this city, i know not where.
Six months later that pup showed up at our door, obviously had many "owners" in between. She died in my arms 14 years later.
It's a new world now, an outdoor cat is a $300 fine for its "owner", ALL dogs (except "pedigree")must be sterilized BY LAW in this county, no pets returned from the pound W/out a chip, Only pet stores can legally distribute puppies and kittens.
Australia came within a few votes of outlawing ALL domestic cats in the 1990s.
We humans will be very alone soon, we are killing our friends faster than each other.
The Scientist who developed the first vaccination killed his whole family with his later vaccination experiments.
BUT, we know so much more now, GM's aspertine is killing everyone.
I was barhopping with a few US Dept of Agriculture biologist in Berkley ten years ago, they said Americans were becoming allergic to corn syrup because the dose went from a pound a year to hundreds of pounds a year, BUT they were not allowed to talk because of their employment contracts.
The Salk and later the Sabin vaccines killed as many victims as the original disease, and THAT vector followed the epidemic curve they teach in what remains of the UC School of Public Health. Erzats: many more dead and diseased than was predicted with polio.
The tetanus vaccine produces as much lockjaw as it prevents, SID happens 10-14 days after the infant's vaccinated. This new Cervical Cancer vaccine for 13 year old girls is a product of sick, vicious madmen.
Most of the "magic bullets" in the PDR disappear within 5 years. What we really need is a vaccine for AMA.
My father went to a Doctor less than once every ten years, got a "Job" when he was 63, got laid off when he turned 81, He offed himself in four weeks with a 100% milk diet at 86.
Disclosure:
i was a Eye, Ear, Nose and Throat Specialist in the US Army, a Combat Medic and gave thousands of injections, many to Doctors.
i assisted in electroshock "treatments"; i quote the Army Doctor: "we'll give her more voltage next time, she'll thrash around on the table more".
My mother died of A.I.D.S. in 1981, fuck your medical stack of lies on top of lies.
Cures are for fools, lets stop causing dis-ease.

Let's see: science says you can't PROVE there is a soul and you can't PROVE that other sentient beings experience anything worthy of concern as a result of the torture we inflict upon them ... Guess that means we're home free! Let's rip their wings off, tear off their legs, open 'em up while they're alive and kicking - boy, homo "sapiens" is so special!

if you haven't noticed, the drug companies in this country aren't exactly ~NOT~ testing drugs on people. we just wait until we have a better idea, and then, yeah, people try things they aren't sure of. using medicines is fundamentally doing the same thing a scientist does, just by choice. now, here's the question: assuming we take research out of the equation and just let people try potential solutions to their problems: who's held responsible when some idiot who doesn't know what they're doing takes something lethal, on the word of another human being, in some vain attempt to prolong their life? are you going to stop people from listening to others? do you hold the person accountable who claimed they had a cure, but had NO RESEARCH to back it up, and killed that human in order to test a theory? would you rather they tried to back it up or would you somehow limit the freedom of the scared individual to try to help themself?

these are all questions of degree. when we do research we are doing something to attempt proving a theory. if you disagree with the method of proof, do not participate, as you probably do not believe in the value of that truth.

certainly there are some things that are more heinously used to justify research. trying to identify causes thus and potential solutions to diseases may also end up benefitting those animals in the end. how many of you know someone's pet that has received medical treatment??? but the animal couldn't have possibly consented to such a thing! you can hardly brush a pet's teeth without them protesting...and you can't tell me that's torture. are we torturing our children when we teach them our standards of hygiene?

consent is a funny thing. in the US we don't even grant it to humans under 18. granting it elsewhere is a slippery slope.

to fanny666 and all those who agree with him, most medical breakthroughs 99.99% have not come from experimenting with animals but from the study of plants, bacteria, virus's and advances in science/technology. Animal experimentation has done virtually nothing to the advancement of medicine it is just another waste of our tax dollars and another result of corporate corruption...for example we already have a proven remedy for cancer and other illnesses but we are not taught preventive medicine, no money in it...vaccines can be dangerous for children too so watch that one carefully, torturing animals adds little if anything to our human health..just like torturing humans at Guantanamo Bay and Iraqi prisons does little for our security....check it out for yourselves! all the info's out there on the web!

Actually, Dogs have always been able to detect cancer cells in people, people have just evolved enough to understand what they were saying...

There are types of animal experimentation that does not involve an inhuman relationship. For instance dogs have been trained to identify cancer cells in people, even in urine samples and they are 99% accurate. Animals help people and teach them beneficial life ways. To exploit that relationship and make it disease oriented is cruel and deceitfull.

Thank you, bellthecat.

To the holier than thou "animals" in the crowd here, I've composed something channeled to me by the holy spirit herself:

"We pledge allegiance
to the flag
that represents medical industrial civilization...
...And to the repugnance
for which it stands
one cruelty
after another
~in the name of "god"~
(in the image of "humans" ---READ: _man_)
Dominant over all others
A-hem...

(Let's face it, indeed....)

I believe in rights for animals.

I share my home with two dogs and a cat, anyone who tries to make the argument that animals are not as significant as the human animal has probably been brainwashed by the scientific propaganda that animals have no
feelings.

I believe it was Rene Descarte who said "I think therefore I am". He was also famous for nailing living dogs to a table or some such & performing vivisection on fully conscious dogs - his answer to those who questioned why they cried in pain or screamed in agony was to compare them to a machine that wasn't functioning properly - grinding gears, etc can make a hell of a racket.

I accuse the pushers of the bible for these animal sacrifices & atrocities - just as the bible condoned slavery, incest (Lot & daughters) genocide, etc. a huge portion of the bible has rules on animal slaughter & the idea that the world needs scapegoats.

Yesterday I read that this is national vegetarian week, so this is a very appropriate article.

If God told you to sacrifice your only beloved child, what would you pro animal torture advocates do?

Obey the voice in your head?

The only thing the bible is for is to teach obedience to the many voiceless peasants of the world (us in USA included) so the wealthy can continue to rake in wealth, dominate & make laws to benefit themselves and they love to exploit the bible to rationalize their brutality and inhumanity.

Anyone who spends a day with my dogs could never again argue that dogs don't have feelings, intellegence and the right to be free from monstrous human cruelty.

My dogs have an understanding of about 50 human words, I'm told they actually have the capacity to learn 150 - unfortunately I'm no teacher. Also people are visual while dogs rely more on smell & hearing - if we knew how to test their iq's-who knows they're possibly smarter than people.

My personal opinion is that their is nothing wrong with animal research. Millions of human lives have been saved because of this kind of research. I have not looked at the full study that this article is referencing so I can't comment on it's validity. However, considering where it is being done I am sure that the study is not some evil scientist doing it for his own amusement.
One of the last posters said that humans are animals, which is true. However, I am a human therefore as far as I am concerned human life is far more important than that animal life. I am not religious, but Christianity teaches this and I am sure that other religions probably teach something similar. Let's face it the human race is far more important to me than any other species out there.
Also lower animals are cruel as hell to each other in some cases. Look at the way higher primates fight, they will in some cases gang up and brutally murder a member of another clan.

We dishonor ourselves and all beings when we create intentional suffering. This is the hell some people talk about.

curmudgeon99: "Does 'Planet of the Apes' come to anyone else's mind?"

If the apes were allowed to be the stewards they instinctively know how to be to the planet, this would never happen, so, yes--If that's what you mean.

But instead, what we have are a bunch of mindless ninnies and spiritual slaves who can only mimic one another with, "Oh, this is just the way the world is", and can say nothing worthwhile except "I agree" or "I disagree" (as if "voting" makes a difference)---And call compassion and thought across species boundaries, ahem... "extreme".

I do hope the ThomasPaine article gets a good look from readers here....

Does 'Planet of the Apes' come to anyone else's mind?

This is sick on so many levels that I can't even find the words to express it.

I do oppose medical research on animals, and for the record, I decided in 2001 to stop going to the doctor. Even though I could easily get employer paid health care, I don't have health insurance (I declined coverage), nor do I desire it. When my time comes, it comes. This is the natural way of things. Unlike most of the sheep in this country, I am not afraid of death.

So F**K off all you people who claim that this is somehow not utterly immoral. The ends do not justify the means.

I agree with the others who have said that if you oppose medical research, then it is only logical that you should also oppose medical treatment when you get ill. Otherwise, you are a hypocrite. Frankly, I think the extreme "animal rights" crowd is a large part of what is wrong with the Western "Left". They care more about mice and chickens than they do about people.

I recall that one "animal rights" activist even compared chicken production with the Holocaust!

A few points here,and then an excerpt with a link to a just published article...

1. Humans are animals.
2. Not all humans inflict this cruelty on other animals.
3. The humans who do this are humans who are dominators.
4. Those who dominate in this manner, with this cruelty, also think they can dominate all life forces, including death...

(Hence the ridiculous argument some here have made that people who argue against this cruelty are hypocrites, just because they want to stop it. --YO! We didn't create this culture, and if we are benefiting from it, it IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO PARTICIPATE BY WORKING TO STOP THE CRUELTY--That does NOT amount to "having it both ways"--It means we are aware of the complex nature of what it means to be a human in an insane culture, and therefore, that while we are part of it, we must work to stop it, to live with ourselves, and to allow the lives of other human and non human descendants to thrive, someday.

And for those of you who think this is ok to do, and you have no problem with it... An excerpt, with a quote and link. It's time to evolve....

...Or die.

EVOLVE OR DIE: CAN WE SHED OUR MORAL PRIMITIVISM BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE? Tuesday, 20 May 2008 By Dr. Steve Best

"...These superfluous gasbags and oxygen thieves could possibly redeem themselves if they began each day by studying the spine-shivering words of Dr. Martin Luther King (who didn't fear losing his life, let alone a job): "Cowardice asks the question: Is it safe? Expediency asks the question: Is it politic? Vanity asks the question: Is it popular? But conscience asks the question: Is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one must take it simply because it is right."...."

AND:

"...Similarly, by providing veterinary care and homes for many of the animals they liberate, a comparison can be made to the US Underground Railroad movement, which helped fugitive human slaves reach Free states and Canada in the 1800s. Whereas corporate society, the state, and mass media brand the liberationists as terrorists, the ALF has important similarities with some of the great freedom fighters of the past two centuries, and is akin to contemporary peace and justice movements in its quest to end bloodshed and violence toward life and to win justice for other species.

On the grounds that animals have basic rights, animal liberationists repudiate the argument that scientists or industries can own any animal as their property. Simply stated, animals have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, all of which contradict the property status that is often literally burnt into their flesh. Even if animal "research" assists human beings in some way, and there are significant doubts that it does, that is no more guarantee of legitimacy than if the data came from experimenting on non-consenting human beings, for the rights of an animal trump utilitarian appeals to human benefit..."

FROM:
http://www.bestcyrano.org/THOMASPAINE/?p=713

Leading causes of deaths in America (for all males):

1. Heart disease 27.2
2. Cancer 24.3
3. Unintentional injuries 6.1
4. Stroke 5.0
5. Chronic lower respiratory diseases 5.0
6. Diabetes 3.0
7. Influenza and pneumonia 2.3
8. Suicide 2.2
9. Kidney disease 1.7
10. Alzheimer's disease 1.6

. 1 in 10 over 65 years in the US have Alzheimer's

. Nearly 50% of those over 85 years in the US have Alzheimer's

Alzhemier's and Parkinson's are diseases of the old. We get old, then we die. We must die some day.

If I'm allowed a lethal injection if I get a disease that eats away at my brain, then I can choose to have animals tortured to save my decrepit, rapidly aging body, so I can live a few more years, or not, as the case may be.

I might have to live for the sake of others. But, if I'm alone, I might choose to die.

Problem is, I'm not allowed a lethal injection, so asking me whether I should accept a treatment that was developed by torturing animals is ridiculous given my only other option is to be tortured myself.

Interestingly, more males die of suicide each year than develop Alzheimer's.

More young people across the world suffer mentally and physically because of economic hardship than old people suffering from Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. Street children sniff glue and petrol, which causes irreparable brain damage.

Scientists working on cures for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and Huntington's are not saving the world! They are, in fact, deciding to let many, many more people die in order to pursue something that interests them.

Just trying to put it in perspective.

Why do we need to genetically engineer monkeys with brain defects when we have so many neocons out there?

Scientists also injected tasmanian tiger dna into a mouse embryo. Of course some idiots will say: hey this is good-let's bring back an extinct tiger.

Nice--except you have to rape other species to do it.

if its ok to do that--then its ok to grab people on the street and torture them to death for the greater good.

If its ok to torture innocent beings to death in the pursuit of some cure, then J Marrion Sims was right to have bene honoured with a statue in Central park for performing surgery on black slaves--including the removal of a man's jaw against his will.

And the stupidest of all arguments I hear is the one where they say: wouldnt you want to torture a rat to death to save your child's life?

a) doesnt it flatter a scientist's ego to think he can cure a disease by killing a few rats? They have tortured millions and yet we still have graveyards.

b) if you really truly love your child-why on earth would you want your child to have second best? Only humans are the correct model for humans. If you say you wouldnt want to see a stranger's child tortured and killed to spare your own, then some parent you are. That's how I answer that one.

Scientists are narrow minded thinkers--that's why they cant grasp basic ethical principles and common sense.
Stcik a scientist in a room of people and shut the lights off. Pump the smell of gasoline inside.

Then offer then a choice of match stick or flashlight for the people to see where they are going.

Give it to the average joe-they will choose the flashlight.

Give it to the scientist and he will choose the match.
Why?
He has just gotta know that its gasoline he smells.

Every anti vivisection argument is here:

http://animalvegfaq.tripod.com

The PETA propaganda is predictable: greedy, money-obsessed scientists mercilessly torture animals unnecessarily. Possibly because they don't care at all about animals, or even hate them. Moralistic judgments about the personality of anyone who doesn't tow the line, and claims about the scientific merit of research while offering NO evidence, or even specifics- just assertions. And sweepingly broad, cartoonish ideas about "scientists", straight from a bad B movie.

Wow, what an easy way to solve a moral dilemma- you are allowed to benefit from animal research because it has already happened! The bacon is on the table, so it's not your moral duty to question how it got there.

Nope. You can't have it both ways. If you are so opposed to animal research that you are calling it "torture" and "murder", then live as a Christian Scientist- refuse all medical treatment. Or admit that you feel OK about benefitting from torture and murder. Either way, do a mental inventory of your own family's health history.

http://www.fbresearch.org/Education/nobels.htm

Ya'll ever seen "I am Legend"? Or any other similar story?
This is the way those things begin. Science is nice when it furthers the enlightenment of our minds, and improves the world we live in, but as all responsible scientists since da Vinci (and before) have shown, you must consider the consequences. Screwing with the genetic makeup of a life form, especially in regards to such a terrible disease as this, is playing with fire... and not having a pyrotechnics license.

As for "considering animals more important than humans" ...well, we probably should. At the least humans are just another animal, no better or worse - though the case for "worse" can quite easily be made.

We are an insane species that destroys our own world and environment, thinking we are making our lives easier and our world better, when in reality we are making our lives worse and destroying the vibrant ecosystems of our planet.

And as far as vivisection in general goes, it's useless. Typically, any test that is definitive that uses vivisection can be proven through some other means ("I hypothesize that if we shoot this chimp in the face, his head will blow up" -bang- "Hey! It worked!") Any vivisection testing that is experimental and not definitive will have to undergo many more tests and applications before it can be applied and/or used on humans. In other words, just because something works on a rat, or a chimp, or a monkey, doesn't mean it will work on a human. So vivisection is pointless and useless. Yes, it may show that you are getting close to a solution, but there are other ways to do this, and since it doesn't provide you with a definitive solution anyway, why cause the astronomical suffering to our fellow life forms?

Find some humans who are dying of the disease and are willing to be test subjects. Otherwise find another way or don't do it at all. Disease exits, all life is mortal. No one gets out of life alive and the sooner we accept that the sooner we can stop worrying about dying and embrace life, and live however much of it we get to its fullest.

My take: If you can save humans without torturing animals, great. But if you can't be saved without torturing innocent animals, then let nature take its course. This goes for me, my husband, my family and my friends. The ends do not justify the means.

"However, I'm not allowed to make that decision. Others are doing so for me!"

Rhetorical question and you won't receive a response because I have to be getting back to my crazy science antics, but. . . what alternatives to experimenting on animals do you suggest I switch to so that I and my colleagues don't force you to make an unmanageable decision?

"That's right, scientists are angels from heaven with only one thing on their mind - making the world a better place!"

Well given that I don't believe in angels or heaven I'd never say that. :)

Humans including scientists are of course a mix of motives. Why is it so hard to believe, though, that they might actually want to cure these diseases and that's why they do what they do? My boss began his interest in neurodegeneration after a close relative suffered with Alzheimer's.

FWIW, that woman in SA sounds like an idiot to me.

vital_dust writes: "I think it's completely fair given that millions of people exist with these conditions right this very second."

No, it isn't fair. If I choose not to torture animals to cure a disease, I must live with that decision.

However, I'm not allowed to make that decision. Others are doing so for me!

They are creating a dilemma that would not exist otherwise.

vital dust, ready my post above. Scientists have carried out a lot of unnecessary animal testing.

You write: "It cannot be easy, and my experiences and difficulties only make me respect these scientists more."

That's right, scientists are angels from heaven with only one thing on their mind - making the world a better place!

Your comment reminds me of one made in "Scientific American" concerning the news that a scientist had been imprisoned for sexually abusing a toddler. A woman said, no, no, he's a marvelous man, done such wonderful work curing children, I have so much respect for this guy - he's innocent!

[staying sane...] writes "Anyway, asking people what they would do when they are about to confront death is an unfair question."

I think it's completely fair given that millions of people exist with these conditions right this very second.

DarrellM, no we are actually talking about curing horrible diseases. Do you think the scientists performing these experiments ENJOY the fact that they have to harm these monkeys? As far as I may be permitted to speak for them as a fellow scientist, they do it out of care for humanity not the desire to inflict cruelty. That may conflict with your beliefs or philosophies about animal rights, but keep in mind they are your beliefs.

I actually work on Huntington's - I give it to fruit flies to study how it causes behavioral problems at the level of the single neuron. I find killing even tiny insects difficult, and I don't think I could physically sacrifice a mouse let alone work on diseased primates. It cannot be easy, and my experiences and difficulties only make me respect these scientists more. Don't assume people are just playing "mad scientist". The general population is quick to judge until it is time to reap the benefits.

The cosmetics industry long claimed animal testing was the only way to prove their products were safe for humans. It turns out, this is not the case, and a lot of animal testing is unnecessary.

If animal testing must be carried out, scientists should first prove it is absolutely necessary. There must be stringent requirements for conducting such experiments.

fanny666 doesn't seem to care AT ALL about animals.

fanny666 is rather like those Americans - and they are not a minority - that don't care AT ALL about how many Iraqis are suffering. We have to protect America, right?

And so it is with animal testing. We have to protect humans, right?

"vital dust" writes:

"I trust if experiments such as these lead to a cure for Huntington's, Parkinson's, cancer, MS, ALS, etc., that those of you denouncing them would abstain from treatment were you to contract them."

Let me give you an analogy. If I were about to die from starvation and found some bacon, would I eat it? Well, what's done is done. The pig was killed a long time ago, and the bacon is just lying there, so, yes, I'd eat it.

A more challenging question would be to ask, what if a group of animals had to suffer, first, before any treatment could be administered - would I acquiesce?

Anyway, asking people what they would do when they are about to confront death is an unfair question. If, when I was healthy, I chose not to torture animals to find a cure for a certain disease, then I will be forced to live with that decision.

The question of whether I would accept medication developed using "unethical" methods would, therefore, be moot. There would be no such medication!

Dilemma solved.

We are not talking about curing horrible disease, we are talking about perpetrating horror.

I do not think animals have more rights than humans, but I do think animals should have the right to live their lives free from human cruelty which is what this sounds like to me.

I'm with the last two posters. You all can ride in on your high horse, but you have used the smith to shoe your horse while decrying the mining that brought them in.

Without medical research we would likely not even be using the internet to have this discussion, as many more humans would have died, and likely ones who have furthered technologies and creative endeavors far beyond purely medical concerns.

Broaden your intellectual horizons, folks -- have some peripheral vision.

Yes what we do is sometimes awful, but remember we are talking about curing horrible diseases here, not testing cosmetics.

I could not agree more fanny666.

I trust if experiments such as these lead to a cure for Huntington's, Parkinson's, cancer, MS, ALS, etc., that those of you denouncing them would abstain from treatment were you to contract them.

If you want to cure disease, this is how it is done. If you are against it, then don't pretend to want a cure.

"Even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we'd be against it."
— Ingrid Newkirk, President and Co-Founder of PETA

If a fern cannot get a disease, then the research to cure that disease will involve animals. This includes AIDS, cancer, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, Huntington's, spinal cord injury- even the diabetes which afflicts the insulin-injecting vice-president of PETA.

If we knew enough about these diseases to build predictive computer models, then we wouldn't need to do the research in the first place.

If you have ever been vaccinated, then you personally have benefitted from animal research. If you have ever taken any kind of medicine other than herbs, then you personally have benefitted from animal research. If you are truly opposed to animal research then stop accepting the benefits. Don't vaccinate your children. Don't receive any medical care when you are sick. If you truly want a cure for AIDS or cancer, then stop supporting groups which fight the scientists who are trying to find the cure. It makes me sick when I see idiot celebrities who support PETA while wearing an AIDS ribbon, or attending a breast cancer benefit. It's like putting a humidifier and a dehumidifier in the same room. Pick a side and then live with the consequences.

ticonderoga writes: "...although it is cruel to the monkeys, is to find a cure for Huntington's, so all you PETA people just be quiet about it, unless, of course, you think animals are more important than people."

First, ticonderoga, just because certain individuals are against this practice does not make them members of PETA.

Second, humans are animals, and as far as nature is concerned, we are no more important than any other animal - or plant, for that matter.

Humans are trying to outwit nature. However, we did not evolve to be healthy in old age. Parkinson's and Alzheimer's are merely nature's way of getting rid of what is no longer needed.

If you've had children, your genes have done all they can for you, jumped ship, and entered younger bodies. You've been left with an unwanted shell that's falling apart at the seams.

Scientists may be able to stitch you together, but the stitches won't last too long, and then your stuffing will fall out again - only this time in many more places!

That's right, ticonderoga. Immortality is only for the gods.

(The onset of Huntington's disease, admittedly, can be at a much younger age - from 30 onwards).

We're living in a second Dark Ages that seems to be far worse than the First.

Is anyone familiar with the great Dr. Albert Schweitzer and his "Reverance For Life"?

youbetterwork - Once you concede that ends justify means, you are embarked on a slippery slope. Why not test diseases on prisoners? Why not mentally defective people? Or godless Communists? Animals are not commodities or laboratory specimens, except in the brains of a species in which arrogance has gone amock.

I want them to cure this disease. And people eat monkies, so why can't we do this? I don't have any ethical problems with this. Monkies have to die too, why not of this disease.

Science has become a sickness.

I remember when Peta was pushing to get basic animal care rights for rats, mice and birds in a Farm Bill, and Jesse Helms(who benefited from a pig heart valve transplant)said: oh, rats suffer more from being killed by snakes, they dont need any special care.

Peta had an undercover video of a scientist at a US University who was removing the brains of newborn rats. He said it was too much work to euthanize them before doing it.

There is just something truly repugnant about animal research--as it is a perversion of altruism and shows the sadism and childish moral reasoning inside science. It requires so much pre planning and thought-and yet the purpose is to find new ways of torturing and killing.
And they use the same sort of selfish scare tactics that animal sacrificers used in ancient times(stop this and the world will fall under plagues and horror).Humans survived even during the Black Plague and simply torturing a mouse to death does not lead to cures. Its BS.

I hear this morning that the UK is not preventing scientists from doing human-non human embryo research.

They always let it go-claiming its simply a fight between human supremacist christians and progressive science--when there are many non christian reasons to be against such research.

Cloning was a failure-250 -sheep were tortured and killed to get one healthy clone who died after 7 years.

Since you cant stop death-there will always be a new atrocity around the corner. It will never stop.

Infantile scientist defense: animal research is justified because of the benefits(this is like a thief justifying his crime because of the benefits he and his family gain). It isnt a defense--its just a statement of intent.

You can take the non human out of research but you still need the human.
To say you can cure human diseases by using non humans is like saying the best way to cure elephant illness is by experimenting on giraffes.
They use a quasi -Darwinian secular version of the Great Chain of being--that humans are the top of the heap(instead of being at the bottom).

That Chris Hedges article on Secular fundamentalism can be linked to this sort of thing.

Devil's advocate: the reason why this is done, although it is cruel to the monkeys, is to find a cure for Huntington's, so all you PETA people just be quiet about it, unless, of course, you think animals are more important than people.

Real response: what coco and WTF said.

These scientists deserve a special place in Hell.
Was reading how they sprayed a forest in Australia with Agent Orange and now townsfolk are dying of cancer. These people are a public menace.
Total human garbage.

The idea of trying to help one by CAUSING misery in another innocent being is an abomination of basic ethics.

What can be more simple to understand--you see a homeless person and you want to help him. Would anyone suggest going to some house and beating the residents to death so you can move him in?

BTW
It would be just as wrong if it was done to rats or mice.

The only way to stop this is to publicize the addresses of the scientists and shame them in public. Tell their children what sadists they have as parents etc.
Shac tactics work.
That's why the US chapter ran into such trouble.

The only good thing is one reaps what you sew.
The more power these scientists think they have over life, the more they will lament having to die. And eventually these techniques will be used in military work to make life miserable for other humans.

Its bad but there is a principle of justice in that.

Amen coco. There are plenty of people suffering from terminal diseases, and are willing to experiment with new procedures. Why not let them volunteer (that will give us the answers we need, not through surrogate testing) rather than seeking questionable procedures practiced overseas?

It should be remembered that the wretched creatures who produced these monkeys are also genetically defective. We are not sure how it happened, but at some point a congenital disposition to become pathologically attached to belongings, a hypertrophied sense of entitlement and a susceptibility to cruelty and violence afflicted our ancestors and has been passed through the generations like a pernicious virus. Of course we will create doomed monkeys. We created Phoenix, Arizona didn't we?

PETA is always fighting against this kind of disgusting, worthless, immoral experiment. we all have to die sometime, so what's the point in subjecting these defencelss creatures to this abomination?............

The pressure on scientists to publish or perish is one reason why such mindless experiments are still carried out...another is the insane ambition of everyone to live beyond 100 no matter the cost in suffering paid silently and far from the public view by animals. We can all hang our heads in shame.