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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
I thought that was nice.
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 If so, that's a rather outdated view which lacks any direct evidence in its favour and is made less and less plausible as we learn more and more of the underlying details about how biological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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
Which rights for which animals? (was: problem with this newsgroup)
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 20:04:04 -0000, "pearl" wrote:
Troll dh@. 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" - dh@. 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
|
|||
|
|||
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, dh@. 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
|
|||
|
|||
Which rights for which animals? (was: problem with this newsgroup)
dh@. wrote in message news
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 20:04:04 -0000, "pearl" wrote: Troll dh@. 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" - dh@. 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
|
|||
|
|||
Which rights for which animals? (was: problem with this newsgroup)
dh@. 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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
this newsgroup is so gay | muratbey | Cat anecdotes | 21 | December 26th 06 05:47 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 7th 05 11:57 PM |
Is it a behavioral problem or a genetic problem. | Kuisse0002 | Cat health & behaviour | 18 | November 1st 03 12:40 AM |
Accessing this newsgroup | Mr. Nangla | Cat health & behaviour | 15 | September 12th 03 06:44 PM |