A cat forum. CatBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » CatBanter forum » Cat Newsgroups » Cats - misc
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Which rights for which animals? (was: problem with this newsgroup)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old December 7th 07, 07:38 PM
Whiskicat Whiskicat is offline
Junior Member
 
First recorded activity by CatBanter: Nov 2007
Location: London
Posts: 5
Send a message via Skype™ to Whiskicat
Arrow

I thought that was nice.
  #22  
Old December 8th 07, 12:09 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.education,alt.philosophy,rec.pets.dogs.misc,rec.pets.cats.misc
pearl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default Which rights for which animals? (was: problem with this newsgroup)

"Bob LeChevalier" wrote in message ...

I prefer to deal with reality


http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...65599951277261



  #23  
Old December 8th 07, 09:31 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.education,alt.philosophy,rec.pets.dogs.misc,rec.pets.cats.misc
Barb Knox
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Which rights for which animals? (was: problem with this newsgroup)

In article ,
"pearl" wrote:

"Barb Knox" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"pearl" wrote:

[SNIP]

[re-ordered]

With respect to all mammals, birds, and reptiles, we know that
they possess a sufficiently complex neural structure to enable pain
to be felt plus an evolutionary need for such consciously felt states.


You avoided responding to this issue in a previous thread, so I'll try
again: We agree that animals possess sensors for various dangerous
stimuli (intense heat, cold, pressure, etc.), and that they are
neurologically complex enough to consistently respond in ways to avoid
such stimuli; BUT, the scientific state of the art is currently unable
to tell us if they have any SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE analogous to our
feelings of pain, or for that matter any subjective experience of
anything at all. One could build a small mobile robot that senses and
avoids extreme environmental conditions, but surely from seeing its
purposeful behaviour you would not leap to the conclusion that it had
"consciously felt states". Or would you?


Over to you. And please try to respond with your own thoughts, rather
than another large cut-and-paste.


Please try to stop being such a control freak.


I can't stop what hasn't been started. In this case I just made a
polite request with the hope of provoking some original thought. And it
worked:

Of course not. Your robot lacks a central nervous system, and life.


Its CPU + memory is a reasonable analogue of a CNS.

And as for lacking life, are you saying that evolved biological machines
have some "vital force" that other machines necessarily lack? If so,
that's a rather outdated view which lacks any direct evidence in its
favour and is made less and less plausible as we learn more and more of
the underlying details about how biological machines operate.

Suppose someone makes a mobile robot and gives it a "life-like" furry
exterior (when seen from a distance). So, when you observe its
extreme-stimulus avoiding behaviour from a distance, not knowing that
it's not biological, would you THEN conclude that it has "consciously
felt states"? If not, why not?


Note that I am not asserting that higher animals definitely lack
subjective experience, but rather that our ignorance of the material
underpinnings of subjective experience is so vast that we can not even
begin to answer questions such which animals (if any) have "consciously
felt states".



But I did respond to this in a previous thread, and I reproduce
that response - which _you_ avoided responding to - below.


[SNIP repeat of large cut-and-paste]


--
---------------------------
| BBB b \ Barbara at LivingHistory stop co stop uk
| B B aa rrr b |
| BBB a a r bbb | Quidquid latine dictum sit,
| B B a a r b b | altum viditur.
| BBB aa a r bbb |
-----------------------------
  #24  
Old December 8th 07, 10:23 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.education,alt.philosophy,rec.pets.dogs.misc,rec.pets.cats.misc
pearl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default Which rights for which animals? (was: problem with this newsgroup)

"Barb Knox" wrote in message ...
In article ,
"pearl" wrote:

"Barb Knox" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"pearl" wrote:

[SNIP]

[re-ordered]


Put back as it was.

With respect to all mammals, birds, and reptiles, we know that
they possess a sufficiently complex neural structure to enable pain
to be felt plus an evolutionary need for such consciously felt states.

You avoided responding to this issue in a previous thread,


But I did respond to this in a previous thread, and I reproduce
that response - which _you_ avoided responding to - below.


You have avoided responding again, Barb. You should also retract
the false claim that I avoided responding to this in a previous thread.

so I'll try
again: We agree that animals possess sensors for various dangerous
stimuli (intense heat, cold, pressure, etc.), and that they are
neurologically complex enough to consistently respond in ways to avoid
such stimuli; BUT, the scientific state of the art is currently unable
to tell us if they have any SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE analogous to our
feelings of pain, or for that matter any subjective experience of
anything at all. One could build a small mobile robot that senses and
avoids extreme environmental conditions, but surely from seeing its
purposeful behaviour you would not leap to the conclusion that it had
"consciously felt states". Or would you?


Over to you. And please try to respond with your own thoughts, rather
than another large cut-and-paste.


Please try to stop being such a control freak.


I can't stop what hasn't been started. In this case I just made a
polite request with the hope of provoking some original thought. And it
worked:


If only I'd realised that this was all about original thought.... (LOL.)

Of course not. Your robot lacks a central nervous system, and life.


Its CPU + memory is a reasonable analogue of a CNS.


No, it is not. Show us a CPU + memory that *feels* anything.
A CPU which can *experience* pain, euphoria, depression, .. .

And as for lacking life, are you saying that evolved biological machines
have some "vital force" that other machines necessarily lack? If so,
that's a rather outdated view which lacks any direct evidence in its
favour and is made less and less plausible as we learn more and more of
the underlying details about how biological machines operate.


With all your advances you can't make living "biological machines".

Ask yourself why that might be.

Suppose someone makes a mobile robot and gives it a "life-like" furry
exterior (when seen from a distance). So, when you observe its
extreme-stimulus avoiding behaviour from a distance, not knowing that
it's not biological, would you THEN conclude that it has "consciously
felt states"? If not, why not?


Ask me again when you've managed to 'create' such a life-like thing.

Note that I am not asserting that higher animals definitely lack
subjective experience, but rather that our ignorance of the material
underpinnings of subjective experience is so vast that we can not even
begin to answer questions such which animals (if any) have "consciously
felt states".


[SNIP repeat of large cut-and-paste]


Evasion.



  #25  
Old December 12th 07, 06:59 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.education,alt.philosophy,rec.pets.dogs.misc,rec.pets.cats.misc
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default Which rights for which animals? (was: problem with this newsgroup)

On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 20:04:04 -0000, "pearl" wrote:

Troll [email protected] spammed in message ...
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 13:19:13 -0000, "pearl" wrote:

..
Meat Is Murder / The Smiths

Heifer whines could be human cries
Closer comes the screaming knife
This beautiful creature must die
This beautiful creature must die
A death for no reason


· Since the animals we raise for food would not be alive
if we didn't raise them for that purpose, it's a distortion of
reality not to take that fact into consideration whenever
we think about the fact that the animals are going to be
killed. The animals are not being cheated out of any part
of their life by being raised for food, but instead they are
experiencing whatever life they get as a result of it. ·


"We don't raise cattle out of consideration for them
either, but because they're fairly easy to raise.."
David Harrison Sep 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/qcp23

"obtaining meat and gravy are at least two reasons to
promote life for farm animals" - [email protected] 22 Mar 2006.


· The meat industry includes habitats in which a small
variety of animals are raised. The animals in those
habitats, as those in any other, are completely dependant
on them to not only sustain their lives, but they also
depend on them to provide the pairing of sperm and egg
that begins their particular existence. Those animals will
only live if people continue to raise them for food.

Animals that are born to other groups--such as wild
animals, pets, performing animals, etc.--are completely
different groups of animals. Regardless of how many or few
animals are born to these other groups, the billions of animals
which are raised for food will always be dependant on consumers
for their existence. ·

· From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·


GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE

.. . .
__________________________________________________ _______
Environmental Benefits

Well-managed perennial pastures have several environmental
advantages over tilled land: they dramatically decrease soil
erosion potential. require minimal pesticides and fertilizers,
and decrease the amount of barnyard runoff.

Data from the Soil Conservation Service shows that in 1990, an
average of 4.8 tons of soil per acre was lost to erosion on
Wisconsin cropland and an average of 2.6 tons of soil per acre
was lost on Minnesota cropland. Converting erosion-prone land to
pasture is a good way to minimize this loss since perennial
pastures have an average soil loss of only 0.8 tons per acre. It
also helps in complying with the nationwide "T by 2000" legislation
whose goal is that erosion rates on all fields not exceed tolerable
limits ("T") by the year 2000. Decreasing erosion rates will preserve
the most fertile soil with higher water holding capacity for future
crop production. It will also protect our water quality.

High levels of nitrates and pesticides in our ground and surface waters
can cause human, livestock, and wildlife health problems. Pasturing has
several water quality advantages. It reduces the amount of nitrates and
pesticides which leach into our ground water and contaminate surface
waters. It also can reduce barnyard runoff which may destroy fish and
wildlife habitat by enriching surface waters with nitrogen and
phosphorous which promotes excessive aquatic plant growth (leading to
low oxygen levels in the water which suffocates most water life).

Wildlife Advantages

Many native grassland birds, such as upland sandpipers, bobolinks, and
meadowlarks, have experienced significant population declines within
the past 50 years. Natural inhabitants of the prairie, these birds
thrived in the extensive pastures which covered the state in the early
1900s. With the increased conversion of pasture to row crops and
frequently-mowed hay fields, their habitat is being disturbed and their
populations are now at risk.

Rotational grazing systems have the potential to reverse this decline
because the rested paddocks can provide undisturbed nesting habitat.
(However, converting existing under-grazed pasture into an intensive
rotational system where forage is used more efficiently may be
detrimental to wildlife.) Warm-season grass paddocks which aren't grazed
until late June provide especially good nesting habitat. Game birds, such
as pheasants, wild turkey, and quail also benefit from pastures, as do
bluebirds whose favorite nesting sites are fenceposts. The wildlife
benefits of rotational grazing will be greatest in those instances where
cropland is converted to pasture since grassland, despite being grazed,
provides greater nesting opportunity than cropland.

Pesticides can be very damaging to wildlife. though often short lived in
the environment, some insecticides are toxic to birds and mammals
(including humans). Not only do they kill the target pest but many kill a
wide range of insects, including predatory insects that could help prevent
future pest out breaks. Insecticides in surface waters may kill aquatic
invertebrates (food for fish, shorebirds, and water fowl.) Herbicides can
also be toxic to animals and may stunt or kill non-target vegetation which
may serve as wildlife habitat.

http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...s/MIG/Why.html
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
  #26  
Old December 12th 07, 07:01 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.education,alt.philosophy,rec.pets.dogs.misc,rec.pets.cats.misc
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default Which rights for which animals? (was: problem with this newsgroup)

On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 04:18:09 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge wrote:

On Dec 7, 4:16 am, [email protected] wrote:
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 14:08:35 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge wrote:
I only ever eat vegetarian meat.


Don't forget that pigs and poultry are omnivorous.


Don't forget meat eaters ultimately couldn't exist if it weren't for
vegetarians.


Not vegetarian humans of course. Veg*nism does nothing
to help humanity, and CERTAINLY does nothing to help
livestock. People can only contribute to decent lives for
livestock by being conscientious consumers of livestock
products. And as far as the existence of humans: If it weren't
for meat consumers humans could never have populated
much less formed thriving societies in most parts of the world
that they now thrive in. The settling and developement of
such places could have had nothing to do with veg*ns,
since people who didn't eat meat could not have survived.
It's only now that places have been populated and developed
by omnivorous humans, that veg*n humans can survive
in such places...survive to **** and moan about meat
consumption, even when consuming meat contributes to
fewer deaths than being veg*n. It's not unlike people who
can only survive on medicines developed by animal research,
who bitch about the animal research without which they
would be long dead. Actually, there's no way of knowing
how many of the people who bitch about animal research
would not exist to bitch if it weren't for the very thing they
bitch about. How many of them would have gotten Polio,
or their parents, or their children, or other members of their
family and friends? There's just no way of knowing how
many people survive only because of animal research, but
it's a safe bet that we all benefit from it in some ways.
__________________________________________________ _______
WITHOUT ANIMAL RESEARCH:

Polio would kill or cripple thousands of unvaccinated children and
adults this year.

Most of the nation's one million insulin-dependent diabetics wouldn't
be insulin dependent -- they would be dead.

60 million Americans would risk death from heart attack, stroke or
kidney failure from lack of medication to control their high blood
pressure.

Doctors would have no chemotherapy to save the 70% of children who
now survive acute lymphocytic leukemia.

More than one million Americans would lose vision in at least one eye
this year because cataract surgery would be impossible.

Hundreds of thousands of people disabled by strokes or by head or
spinal cord injuries would not benefit from rehabilitation techniques.

The more than 100,000 people with arthritis who each year receive hip
replacements would walk only with great pain and difficulty or be
confined to wheelchairs.

7,500 newborns who contract jaundice each year would develop cerebral
palsy, now preventable through phototherapy.

There would be no kidney dialysis to extend the lives of thousands of
patients with end-stage renal disease.

Surgery of any type would be a painful, rare procedure without the
development of modern anesthesia allowing artificially induced
unconsciousness or local or general insensitivity to pain.

Instead of being eradicated, smallpox would continue unchecked and many
others would join the two million people already killed by the disease.

Millions of dogs, cats, and other pets and farm animals would have died
from anthrax, distemper, canine parvovirus, feline leukemia, rabies and
more than 200 other diseases now preventable thanks to animal research.

http://www.ampef.org/research.htm
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ

  #27  
Old December 12th 07, 07:58 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.education,alt.philosophy,rec.pets.dogs.misc,rec.pets.cats.misc
pearl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default Which rights for which animals? (was: problem with this newsgroup)

[email protected] wrote in message news
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 20:04:04 -0000, "pearl" wrote:

Troll [email protected] spammed in message ...
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 13:19:13 -0000, "pearl" wrote:

..
Meat Is Murder / The Smiths

Heifer whines could be human cries
Closer comes the screaming knife
This beautiful creature must die
This beautiful creature must die
A death for no reason

· Since the animals we raise for food would not be alive
if we didn't raise them for that purpose, it's a distortion of
reality not to take that fact into consideration whenever
we think about the fact that the animals are going to be
killed. The animals are not being cheated out of any part
of their life by being raised for food, but instead they are
experiencing whatever life they get as a result of it. ·


"We don't raise cattle out of consideration for them
either, but because they're fairly easy to raise.."
David Harrison Sep 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/qcp23

"obtaining meat and gravy are at least two reasons to
promote life for farm animals" - [email protected] 22 Mar 2006.


· The meat industry includes habitats


GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE
"Cattle are the scourge of the Earth."
................'
http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter6.html

· From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised


GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE

. . .

Environmental Benefits



'Livestock a major threat to environment
...
.... a steep environmental price, according to the FAO report,
Livestock's Long Shadow -Environmental Issues and Options.
"The environmental costs per unit of livestock production must
be cut by one half, just to avoid the level of damage worsening
beyond its present level," it warns.


When emissions from land use and land use change are included,
the livestock sector accounts for 9 percent of CO2 deriving from
human-related activities, but produces a much larger share of even
more harmful greenhouse gases. It generates 65 percent of human-
related nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the Global Warming
Potential (GWP) of CO2. Most of this comes from manure.


And it accounts for respectively 37 percent of all human-induced
methane (23 times as warming as CO2), which is largely produced
by the digestive system of ruminants, and 64 percent of ammonia,
which contributes significantly to acid rain.


Livestock now use 30 percent of the earth's entire land surface, mostly
permanent pasture but also including 33 percent of the global arable
land used to producing feed for livestock, the report notes. As forests
are cleared to create new pastures, it is a major driver of deforestation,
especially in Latin America where, for example, some 70 percent of
former forests in the Amazon have been turned over to grazing.


Land and water


At the same time herds cause wide-scale land degradation, with about
20 percent of pastures considered as degraded through overgrazing,
compaction and erosion. This figure is even higher in the drylands
where inappropriate policies and inadequate livestock management
contribute to advancing desertification.


The livestock business is among the most damaging sectors to the
earth's increasingly scarce water resources, contributing among other
things to water pollution, euthropication and the degeneration of coral
reefs. The major polluting agents are animal wastes, antibiotics and
hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilizers and the pesticides used
to spray feed crops. Widespread overgrazing disturbs water cycles,
reducing replenishment of above and below ground water resources.
Significant amounts of water are withdrawn for the production of feed.


Livestock are estimated to be the main inland source of phosphorous
and nitrogen contamination of the South China Sea, contributing to
biodiversity loss in marine ecosystems.


Meat and dairy animals now account for about 20 percent of all
terrestrial animal biomass. Livestock's presence in vast tracts of land
and its demand for feed crops also contribute to biodiversity loss;
15 out of 24 important ecosystem services are assessed as in decline,
with livestock identified as a culprit.
....'
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/...448/index.html



  #28  
Old December 12th 07, 08:23 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.education,alt.philosophy,rec.pets.dogs.misc,rec.pets.cats.misc
pearl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default Which rights for which animals? (was: problem with this newsgroup)

[email protected] wrote in message ...

WITHOUT ANIMAL RESEARCH:


"My own conviction is that the study of human physiology by way
of experiments on animals is the most grotesque and fantastic error
ever committed in the whole range of human intellectual activity."
Dr G. F. Walker, Medical World, December 1933.

http://www.health.org.nz/foreartl.html
http://www.health.org.nz/contents.html

Polio would kill or cripple thousands of unvaccinated children and
adults this year.


'Although those who promote vivisection often cite the polio vaccine
to support animal experimentation, the truth is more complicated.
The most important advance in the development of a polio vaccine
came in 1949 when Enders, Weller and Robbins showed that the
polio virus could be grown in human tissue. They were awarded the
Nobel prize for this discovery.

Despite this breakthrough, Salk and Sabin - who are usually credited
with the polio vaccines - continued their reliance on traditional animal
models and the use of monkey tissues. They feared that human tissues
would harbor dangerous human viruses. In fact, we now know that
monkey cells harbor many viruses, some of which have been shown
to infect humans, and are probably at least as dangerous as human
tissue, if not more so.

Sabin himself made an impressive argument against vivisection when
he testified to the House Committee on Veterans Affairs in 1984 saying:
'Work on prevention [of polio] was delayed by an erroneous conception
of the nature of the human disease, based on misleading experimental
models [of polio] in monkeys'.
....'
http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/faq.html#6

See also; http://www.health.org.nz/polio.html

Most of the nation's one million insulin-dependent diabetics wouldn't
be insulin dependent -- they would be dead.


'The link between diabetes and a damaged pancreas was first
established by post-mortem analysis of human patients. This
finding encouraged researchers to give pancreatic extracts to
both laboratory animals and diabetic patients, but the extracts
were so crude they caused severe toxicity. Even Banting and
Best's first human trial had to be stopped, with Banting admitting
that results were not as encouraging as those achieved 13 years
earlier by Zuetzer. (Banting and Best's well-publicized dog
experiments are widely believed to have produced the cure for
diabetes). Only when the biochemist J. B. Collip used chemical
techniques to purify the extracts did a more effective and less
toxic preparation become available. [Source, together with
original references: R. Sharpe, The Cruel Deception, Thorsons,
1988]

Although in the past, most insulin originated from animal sources,
diabetic patients are now usually treated with human insulin,
produced from bacteria by genetic engineering.
....'
http://animalliberationfront.com/Phi.../experime1.htm

'In New Scientist, March 18 1982, doctors say they believe insulin
could be responsible for the high levels of blindness in diabetics.
Massive available data shows that diabetes is preventable through
appropriate diet. That the highest incidence of the disease is in the
United States, which consumes an average of 35 percent animal fats
and meat, the lowest in Japan which diet contains an average of five
percent, and that when the Japanese take to American eating habits
they developed diabetic problems. One of the well-worn favourites
of the exponents of vivisection when tub-thumping supposed
examples of the benefits of their grotesque and obvious fraud, is
the discovery of insulin to administer to diabetic patients. Yet
more people per capita are dying of diabetes today than in 1900
- twentytwo years before the discovery of insulin.
........'
http://www.health.org.nz/diab.html

60 million Americans would risk death from heart attack, stroke or
kidney failure from lack of medication to control their high blood
pressure.


'Deaths per year (US) 6
-------------------------------------------------------
heart disease 709,894
cancer 551,833
stroke 166,028
diabetes 68,662
high blood pressure 17,964
------------------------------------------------------
...
Number of Americans Living with Diet- and
Inactivity-Related Diseases
-------------------------------------------------------
Seriously Overweight/Obese9 113,360,000
High Blood Pressure9 50,000,000
Diabetes10 15,700,000
Coronary Heart Disease9 12,600,000
Osteoporosis7 10,000,000
Cancer11 8,900,000
Stroke9 4,600,000]
-------------------------------------------------------
...'
http://www.cspinet.org/nutritionpoli...on_policy.html

'.. disease rates were significantly associated within a range of
dietary plant food composition that suggested an absence of
a disease prevention threshold. That is, the closer a diet is to
an all-plant foods diet, the greater will be the reduction in the
rates of these diseases.'
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...sis_paper.html

"Isn't man an amazing animal? He kills wildlife - birds, kangaroos,
deer, all kinds of cats, coyotes, beavers, groundhogs, mice, foxes,
and dingoes - by the millions in order to protect his domestic
animals and their feed. Then he kills domestic animals by the
billions and eats them. This in turn kills man by the millions,
because eating all those animals leads to degenerative and fatal
health conditions like heart disease, kidney disease, and cancer.
So then man tortures and kills millions more animals to look for
cures for these diseases. .."... C. David Coats (from the preface
of his book: Old MacDonald's Factory Farm)

.... - which in turn injure and kill man by the million.

Doctors would have no chemotherapy to save the 70% of children who
now survive acute lymphocytic leukemia.


'1. Benzene was not withdrawn from use as an industrial
chemical despite clinical and epidemological evidence that
exposure caused leukemia in humans, because manufacturer-
supported tests failed to reproduce leukemia in mice.[1]
...
[1]Lancet, June 25 1977, pp1348-9.
....'
http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/50dis.html

'There is much evidence that childhood leukemia is also the
direct legacy of vaccination, the foundation stone of vivisection.

"Vaccinations and sulfa drugs have been recognised as being
directly responsible for the production of leukemia in humans."
(Dr B. Duperrat, of the Sant-Louis Hospital in Paris, writing in
the French medical journal Presse Medicale, March 12 1955.)

"Already published reports, as well as our own observations
indicate that smallpox vaccination sometimes produces
manifestations of leukemia. In children and adults observed in
the clinics of Cracow, smallpox vaccination has been followed
by violent local and general reactions and by leukemia."
(Professors Julian Aleksandrowickz and Boguslave
Halileokowski of the Medical Academy of Cracow, Poland
wrote as reported in Lancet, May 6 1967.)

"The vaccine modifies the terrain of the vaccinated, driving it
towards alkaline and oxidised terrain - the terrain of cancer.
The fact can no longer be denied." (The January 1958 issue of
another French medical journal, Revue De Pathologie Generale
et de Physiologie Clinique.)

"In England and Wales, total death rates from all forms of
leukemia have increased more than six times between 1920 and
1952... According to Wilkinson, sulphanomides (antibiotics)
stand convicted as one of the contributing factors, even when
fairly low dosages were employed. In cases reported in detail,
the tragic path from a granulocytosis to haemolitic anaemia and
acute monolytic leukemia is revealed in black and white." (The
July 1957 issue of Medical World, article by Freda Lucas.)

"Leukemia has been dramatically increasing, especially among
children, ever since the various modern 'therapies' have been
inflicted upon a frightened, artfully misinformed public.
Urethane has sometimes an inhibitory effect on human leukemia
in contrast to what animal experiments had shown."

"The characteristic effects in leukemia were detected solely as a
result of clinical observation. The various leukemias in the mouse
and rat were relatively refractory to the influence of urethane, and
the remarkable effect in the human might have eluded discovery
if attention had been directed to the animal alone. That illustrates
the hazards of such work." (Prof. Alexander Haddow, British
Medical Journal, December 2 1950, page 1272.)

"The argument from man is so much more convincing than the
argument from mice - which indeed, may be completely
misleading, as in the case of urethane, which has some inhibitory
action on human tumours, but a marked, though temporary one
on chronic human leukemias." (Dr C.G. Learoyd, Surgeon,
Medical World, August 1954, page 172.)

"The drugs Prednisone and Vincristine are often hailed as 'curing'
childhood leukemia. Both drugs were rejected by the US National
Cancer Institute as 'useless' on the basis of animal tests.
Prednisone was developed as a result of clinical observation of
the effects of adrenal extract. Vincristine is an alkaloid of 'Vincra
Rosea', a type of periwinkle plant, and extracts of periwinkle were
used in the Roman Empire to 'dry tumours' (Pliny). They were
eventually brought to clinical trials. The children cured of leukemia
owe their lives to clinical observations and trials - and not to the
animal 'model'." (Brandon Reines, Cancer Research on Animals:
Impact and Alternatives.)
...'
http://www.health.org.nz/chleu.html

More than one million Americans would lose vision in at least one eye
this year because cataract surgery would be impossible.


'On January 6 1992 the N.Z. Woman's Weekly cites the work of
Dr George Duncan of the University of East Anglia who is using
human eye tissue in cataract research. He, and fellow researchers
at Lister Hospital, claim that human tissue tests "give reassurance
that experiments on animals do not".

"The wounds of an animal behave so differently from those of
man that the conclusions drawn from them by the vivisectors are
completely valueless and have caused more damage than benefit."
(Lawson Tait, quoted in Prof. Croce's Vivisection or Science -
a choice to make.)

In the Journal of Organotherapy, Vol. XVI, No. 1, January-February
1932, page 23, it is reported that a well-known operation for cataract
devised by Philip Syng Physick, was the result of clinical research
alone.

In Medical Press, January 27 1954, page 74, in criticism of an article
which drew attention to reports of successful treatment of cataract
through experiments on rats, Posner warns that there are dangerous
hazards, even resulting in blindness should the method be applied to
human beings.
...'
http://www.health.org.nz/catrct.html

Hundreds of thousands of people disabled by strokes or by head or
spinal cord injuries would not benefit from rehabilitation techniques.


'Spinal cord experiments on animals are part of the medical
fraud of vivisection. We are told that animals must be used
in this horrifying way in attempts to understand physiological
mechanisms and to test surgical procedures, but extracts from
articles written by those undertaking this "research" show that
spinal cord research with animals is obviously not working.
...'
http://www.health.org.nz/spcord.html

The more than 100,000 people with arthritis who each year receive hip
replacements would walk only with great pain and difficulty or be
confined to wheelchairs.


'John Charnley developed an arthoplasty of the hip in 1946, but
a preliminary trial led him to believe that it was unsatisfactory(1).

In 1949, Charnley received a Home Office licence to experiment
on animals, and it is said that he grafted bones in goats but did
not record the results. Likewise, he did not publish ANY papers
on any animal experiments he may have conducted(1). Charnley
wrote "A few observations on the human are often of more value
than a large series of experiments on animals..."The `crucial`
experiment was an isolated observation"(2). The `crucial`
experiment had been performed on a human patient(3).

Later, Charnley measured co-efficiency of the fracture of articular
cartilage. This could be done quite simply in an engineering
laboratory but it was not so easy in animal joints, since the
cartilage could not be fashioned into a plane surface. Charnley
checked the published papers and found two written in 1934 and
1936 by E S Jones, who had described his experiments on the
knees of horses but Charnley believed that such experiments were
open to various objections and decided to make measurements
on a freshly amputated knee joint of a human patient(3).

Thus, Charnley may have had a vivisector`s license and, possibly,
did conduct some animal experiments - but he realized that the
progress had to come from clinical work - which he did.
...'
http://www.freewebs.com/scientific_a...ycontinued.htm

7,500 newborns who contract jaundice each year would develop cerebral
palsy, now preventable through phototherapy.


'Phototherapy has proven successful in humans and Gunn rats for
the long-term management of unconjugated hyperbilirubinemia.
Exposure to high-intensity visible light induces catabolism of bilirubin
to less toxic, diazonegative derivatives, which can be excreted in bile
and urine.(6) This therapy was not derived from the Gunn rat model.
In 1958, by measuring the effects of sunlight and artificial blue light
on serum bilirubin concentrations in newborn infants, Cremer
demonstrated that phototherapy had potential value in the prevention
of hyperbilirubinemia.(40) Lucey et al. noted, "The decolorizing
effect of sunlight and artificial light upon solutions of bilirubin has
been known for many years. This observation prompted Cremer to
first use phototherapy clinically"(41) in 1958. In 1968, Lucey et al.
conducted the first controlled study of low-birthweight infants to
test the effectiveness of phototherapy in the prophylaxis of
hyperbilirubinemia. They found that, "...continuous phototherapy
is effective in significantly modifying hyperbilirubinemia."(41) To
date, the treatment of CJN syndrome "...usually requires exchange
transfusions and phototherapy."(34)
...'
http://www.curedisease.com/Perspecti...liment/Model%2

There would be no kidney dialysis to extend the lives of thousands of
patients with end-stage renal disease.


'In Holland, Willem Kolff heard of cellophane in 1938 from Prof
Brinkman, his biochemistry teacher at Groningen University. Once
he was aware of this, Kolff took 45cm of skin used to cover
sausages, filled the skin with blood and added 100mg of urea.
He sealed both ends of the sausage skin, fixed it to a board and
rocked it in saline solution in a bath. After 30 minutes, all of the
urea had passed from the blood to the rinsing solution. This led to
Kolff`s idea of an artificial kidney. He purchased further supplies of
the sausage skin and began calculating the requirements for the
design. Through trial and error, Kolff built four machines, but none
were considered reliable enough for clinical use. In 1942, Kolff and
Berk constructed the fifth prototype - but it remained unused for
some time. In 1943, the first patient was referred to Kolff as
doctors at the time thought that the machine would, at least, do no
harm - but it did. The first 15 patients treated with the new artificial
kidney all died.. It was not until 1945 that Kolff successfully
treated Sofia Schafstedt, a 67 year old woman. Kolff went on to
send eight machines to different parts of the Netherlands. After 1946,
one machine was sent to London, another to New York, and a third
to Montreal, Canada(1). ref 1.Keck, PS. Meserko, JJ. Proc Am
Acad of Cardiovascular Perfusion. vol 6. 1985
...'
http://www.freewebs.com/scientific_a...nalsurgery.htm

Surgery of any type would be a painful, rare procedure without the
development of modern anesthesia allowing artificially induced
unconsciousness or local or general insensitivity to pain.


'(26) According to the Royal Commission into vivisection (1912),
'The discovery of anaesthetics owes nothing to experiments on
animals'. The great Dr Hadwen noted that 'had animal experiments
been relied upon...humanity would have been robbed of this great
blessing of anaesthesia'. The vivisector Halsey described the
discovery of Fluroxene as 'one of the most dramatic examples of
misleading evidence from animal data'.
...'
http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/33facts.html

Instead of being eradicated, smallpox would continue unchecked and many
others would join the two million people already killed by the disease.


"Official statistics from many countries indicate that smallpox
(and other communicable diseases) were declining before
vaccination programs were enforced. This may be attributed to
the sanitation reforms and nutritional teachings instituted around
the mid-1800's. For example, water supplies were protected from
contamination, streets and stables were cleaned, sewage was
removed, and food was delivered while still fresh. However, once
smallpox vaccinations became mandatory, deaths from the disease
steadily increased. In fact, records in several countries show that
nearly every contagious disease-plague, cholera, measles, scarlet
fever, dysentery, whooping cough-except smallpox (kept alive by
mandatory shots), declined in number and severity on its own."
[Eleanor McBean, The Poisoned Needle (Mokelumne Hill, CA :
Health Research, 1974) pp. 12-20](p. 45)

Before England passed a compulsory vaccination law in 1853, the
highest death rate for anytwo year period was only 2,000 cases,
even during the most severe epidemics. [Eleanor McBean, The
Poisoned Needle (Mokelumne Hill, CA : Health Research, 1974)
pp. 13]"(Jenner himself admitted that smallpox was relatively
unknown before he began his vaccinations. In fact, there were
only a few hundred cases of smallpox in England at that time.)
After more than fifteen years of mandatory vaccinations, in 1870
and 1871 alone more than 23,000 people died from the disease.
In Germany, over 124,000 people died of smallpox during the
same epidemic. All had been vaccinated. In Japan, nearly 29,000
people died in just seven years under a stringent compulsory
vaccination and re-vaccination program. Compare these
devastating figures to Australia, where the government terminated
compulsory vaccinations when two children died from their
smallpox shots. As a result, smallpox virtually disappeared in
that country (three cases in fifteen years)." (p. 46)

"Every examination of the facts indicates that the smallpox vaccine
was not only ineffective but dangerous. Undoctored hospital
records consistently show that about 90 percent of all smallpox
cases occurred after the individual was vaccinated. " . . . There is
a direct relationship between the percentage of babies vaccinated
and the number of smallpox deaths: the higher the percentage, the
greater the fatalities. In other words, deaths from smallpox tumbled
only after people refused the shots [see Figure 1 below]."(p. 46)
....
http://gentlebirth.org/nwnm.org/Does...eally_Need.htm

Millions of dogs, cats, and other pets and farm animals would have died
from anthrax, distemper, canine parvovirus, feline leukemia, rabies and
more than 200 other diseases now preventable thanks to animal research.


At least that's applicable to the target species.

.... http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/errors.html

http://www.ampef.org/research.htm


Pro-vivisection propaganda.



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
this newsgroup is so gay muratbey Cat anecdotes 21 December 26th 06 06:47 AM
Nox Vs A Newsgroup Enfilade Cat anecdotes 17 April 26th 05 03:08 AM
New to the Newsgroup MELISSA WHEELER Cat anecdotes 16 March 8th 05 12:57 AM
Is it a behavioral problem or a genetic problem. Kuisse0002 Cat health & behaviour 18 November 1st 03 01:40 AM
Accessing this newsgroup Mr. Nangla Cat health & behaviour 15 September 12th 03 06:44 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright İ2004-2018 CatBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.