Thank you, Ingrid. Thank you, Peter.
Guénady
April 03, 2009
It is amazing how many people in the general public know, when you talk to them about the statistics for adverse drug events (ADEs), that no species of animal can serve as a reliable model for humans in drug trials, or in any other medical experiments. Thus the reassurance that 'this drug has been successfully tested on animals' is, in reality, no reassurance at all.
In fact, no species of animal can serve as a model for any other species. And, to complicate matters even further, not one individual in any species can serve as a 100% reliable model for any other individual in the same species. Each 'subject' (as the medical researchers refer to us) is unique, with a set of unique characteristics which can and do cause individuals to react in unpredictable ways.
Experimenting on animals is mainly for the purpose of marketing new pharmaceutical drugs, heralded as breakthroughs in advancing human health, until the associated ADEs make headlines because the number of dead and injured can no longer be ignored or dismissed. Then the testing serves as a cover in lawsuits, where the defense can plead that all tests required by law were carried out (and of course it is the medical lobbies which guide lawmakers on which tests should be obligatory), so that the laboratories cannot be held responsible for results not foreseen by the testing. Anyone who thinks I must be making this point up should look back on the thalidomide case, in which the manufacturer was absolved of responsibility for the approximately 10,000 monstrously deformed babies born to women who had taken this 'safe' (because tested on animals) anti-nausea drug during pregnancy...
The too-gullible and the too-trusting put their faith in doctors, and medical research, believing that these super-humans have the public's best interests at heart, and that some pill or drops or other 'medical' treatment can repair the damage done by an unhealthy lifestyle. People want their meat and potatoes, their dairy products, their fried eggs and ham, and sometimes two or three times a day, and that is that. Throw in generous amounts of alcohol and cigarettes, to round things out... And why should we have to pay for all this with bad health? Especially when medicine leads us to believe that we can get away with it, as long as we submit to miracle 'drug therapies' which, if they don't exist yet... Well, never mind, medical research is working on it and the solution is just around the bend (keep the donations coming, to make sure we get there!). Have things changed much since the time, described by Morris Bealle in 'The Drug Story', '' when 'Old Bill' Rockefeller, the itinerant 'pappy' of John D. (the first) and a patent-medicine showman, used to palm off bottled raw petroleum on the yokels as a cure for cancer... '' ? *
Psychologists tell us that for humans to change their behavior is so difficult that we only do it when it becomes too painful to stay as we are... When will being patched up with pharmaceutical drugs, and then more pharmaceutical drugs to counter the adverse effects of the first lot, become so intolerable that we will be prepared to give up smoking, drinking, drugging, lolling around when we could be exercising, and the whole myth that an indolent, indulgent life is more pleasurable than living according to the laws of Nature, to which our bodies belong, if not our souls.
But wiser heads than mine have argued over this point.
In the late 1970s and 1980s, a whole movement was afoot in the Western world to inform the public that it was being 'had' by a fraud so immense that nothing short of a total overhaul of Modern Medicine could rectify the situation. Courageous doctors throughout the history of modern medicine have indicated, at a risk to themselves, the same thing.** The trouble was, and remains, that in a fraud, there is a 'frauder' who is profiting out of the scam, and to whom no appeals to morality or ethics weigh more than this simple avaricious fact.
What happened to this movement that spoke out against false medicines and medical treatments? Its voice was stiffled. Its leaders were isolated and silenced, using fear, despair, ridicule, vilification, even the abuse of judicial systems, with always and everywhere, a basic lie being touted that allowed (and still allows) the fraud to continue :
Pharmaceutical drugs tested on animals are safe.'
From this statement, we also get this variation, 'Testing on animals is awful! But we still need to do it, for a while yet, in order to advance human health.'
And again, 'Most experiments on animals are useless...' which, translated, reads : 'Some experiments on animals are useful... Vivisection is necessary.'
But it wasn't the pharmaceutical companies which undermined the anti-vivisection movement (and, following on, the movement against fraudulent medicine). It was the animal defense and animal protection associations, with rare exceptions, which touted the lies of the usefulness of 'some' exeriments on animals. And they still do it today, even though now the statistics on ADEs are known (according to a committee of independent doctors, reporting in 2004, more people die in the United States every year from adverse reactions to doctor-prescribed drugs, than die from either cancer or heart disease. This makes the doctor, with his prescription medicines, the number one public health risk). ***
Instead of uniting efforts and resources to bring out the truth, these associations turned their backs on the scientific basis for the anti-vivisection movement. This was a conscious and deliberate decision on the part of certain people in the leadership of these associations, who share in the moral responsibility for the consequences of their stand.
Where might we be today, not just animal defenders, but all human society, if we had heeded the following call at the time it was made :
The "animal rights" people spend most of their time conveying two messages not only to their members and supporters, but also to the general public. The direct message is that animal research and testing work - at least to some extent - a position rabidly defended by the overwhelming majority of the "animal rights" organizations...
The indirect message is even more suicidal: "animal rights" people will risk the health of human beings in order to "liberate" animals. By failing to destroy the medical and scientific myths which make the existence of vivisection possible, and by insisting further on the "liberation" of the very animals who are perceived by the public as the only hope to finding cures, "animal rights activists" become automatically anti-human since they are perceived as wanting to liberate animals at the expense of human health.
It should be painfully evident to anyone that the suicidal slogan of "animal rights" has been a godsend for the vivisectors and the beholden media whose only job consists of pitting tiny sick babies against dirty rats and an occasional dog or cat: The constant bombardment of the public with the notions of medical "advances" and "breakthroughs" due to animal experimentation has accomplished two very important goals: besides making the "animal rights" people look like a bunch of anti-human fools, it has also managed to strengthen the vivisectors' main cliches by repeating all the medical and scientific lies that nobody in the "animal rights" movement is able or willing to destroy...
The attitude on the part of the largest and wealthiest organizations to stick to morality, ethics, and philosophy, and to denounce those who seek to expose the mind-boggling scientific fraud that is part and parcel of all experimental research with life, can only be attributed to the incredible degree of infiltration to which most of the "animal rights" and self-proclaimed anti-vivisection organizations have been subjected.
While millions of dollars sit idle in the coffers of these organizations, their philosophers and "ex-vivisectors" criss-cross the country urging people not to ever use the medical and scientific arguments which, as a famous "ex-vivisector" put it, "you cannot win".
We must get rid of the slogan "animal rights", force the infiltrators out from their positions of leadership and use the millions of dollars to expose the massive damage to human health as a result of vivisection. We must also be willing to inform ourselves so we can understand and accept the most basic medical and scientific realities, which prove that all experimental research using life is a medical and scientific fraud.
If people in the movement decide not to make waves and go along with the present party line, we will all be forced to look at the putrid face of vivisection until the end of time. '' ****
These words date from 1988. The author was vilified for them-- not by vivisectors, but by 'animal rights' associations and animal defenders who, instead, wanted larger cages for the animals in laboratories, and toys to help them pass the time, while scientists got on with their 'important work'... Because, they insisted, some animal research is useful and medical research still needs to test on animals, at least for some time yet...
On March 31, 2009, the members of the European Parliament's Agriculture Committee voted on a series of amendments to the European Commission's proposals to regulate animal testing across Europe. In revising Directive 86/609/EEC, the MEPs were heavily briefed by the vivisection industry's suppliers and users before voting over 500 amendments, including :
to reduce the need for scientific justification of experiments on monkeys,
to delay any end to trapping of wild monkeys for experiments.
to remove requirements for authorization and licensing of experiments
to permit unlimited reuse of animals in most categories of experiments
to permit testing on animals even if it causes severe and prolonged pain.
With billion-dollar corporations to support (all those suppliers and users of the vivisection industry, the pharmaceutical industry, and the medical corps that depends on both), the MEPs decided to keep the lid on this lucrative fraud, which is now set to continue with even greater freedom and leeway, and with all its disastrous consequences for human health, as well as for its animal victims.
For further information on this subject, see stop-abus-animal . com , then Bulletins 39, 40, 41, 44 and 46.
See Hans Rusech's book Naked Empress for more information on the early years of the Rockefeller empire, including the Ludlow striking miners' massacre, which prompted a 'clean up' of the Rockefeller public image via the Foundation which now does advertising under the guise of philanthropy. The Morris Bealle quotation, taken from Naked Empress, continues thus:
Old Bill' called his bottled petroleum Nujol (meaning new oil) and sold it to those who had cancer and those whom he could make fear they would have it. This sounded good to Standard's [Standard Oil] researchers. The druggist pays about 21 cents for a 6-ounce bottle of Nujol which costs Standard Oil 1/5 of a cent. Instead of calling it a cure for cancer, they called it a cure for constipation.
Soon after the present-day Nujol was put on the market, it was discovered by physicians to be harmful. It robbed the body of fat soluble vitamins and caused serious deficiency diseases. Standard Oil checked the loss in sales by adding carotene to Nujol and claiming this overcame these injuries. Physicians disagree...'
See Hans Ruesch's compilation, '1001 Doctors (And Many More) Against Vivisection', 1989. Difficult to find, but some used copies are available from Amazon USA.
See : 'Death by Medicine' in the August-September 2004 issue of Nexus Magazine, also available on the Net.
From a 1988 issue of the magazine of the US anti-vivisection organization, SUPRESS
In fact, no species of animal can serve as a model for any other species. And, to complicate matters even further, not one individual in any species can serve as a 100% reliable model for any other individual in the same species. Each 'subject' (as the medical researchers refer to us) is unique, with a set of unique characteristics which can and do cause individuals to react in unpredictable ways.
Experimenting on animals is mainly for the purpose of marketing new pharmaceutical drugs, heralded as breakthroughs in advancing human health, until the associated ADEs make headlines because the number of dead and injured can no longer be ignored or dismissed. Then the testing serves as a cover in lawsuits, where the defense can plead that all tests required by law were carried out (and of course it is the medical lobbies which guide lawmakers on which tests should be obligatory), so that the laboratories cannot be held responsible for results not foreseen by the testing. Anyone who thinks I must be making this point up should look back on the thalidomide case, in which the manufacturer was absolved of responsibility for the approximately 10,000 monstrously deformed babies born to women who had taken this 'safe' (because tested on animals) anti-nausea drug during pregnancy...
The too-gullible and the too-trusting put their faith in doctors, and medical research, believing that these super-humans have the public's best interests at heart, and that some pill or drops or other 'medical' treatment can repair the damage done by an unhealthy lifestyle. People want their meat and potatoes, their dairy products, their fried eggs and ham, and sometimes two or three times a day, and that is that. Throw in generous amounts of alcohol and cigarettes, to round things out... And why should we have to pay for all this with bad health? Especially when medicine leads us to believe that we can get away with it, as long as we submit to miracle 'drug therapies' which, if they don't exist yet... Well, never mind, medical research is working on it and the solution is just around the bend (keep the donations coming, to make sure we get there!). Have things changed much since the time, described by Morris Bealle in 'The Drug Story', '' when 'Old Bill' Rockefeller, the itinerant 'pappy' of John D. (the first) and a patent-medicine showman, used to palm off bottled raw petroleum on the yokels as a cure for cancer... '' ? *
Psychologists tell us that for humans to change their behavior is so difficult that we only do it when it becomes too painful to stay as we are... When will being patched up with pharmaceutical drugs, and then more pharmaceutical drugs to counter the adverse effects of the first lot, become so intolerable that we will be prepared to give up smoking, drinking, drugging, lolling around when we could be exercising, and the whole myth that an indolent, indulgent life is more pleasurable than living according to the laws of Nature, to which our bodies belong, if not our souls.
But wiser heads than mine have argued over this point.
In the late 1970s and 1980s, a whole movement was afoot in the Western world to inform the public that it was being 'had' by a fraud so immense that nothing short of a total overhaul of Modern Medicine could rectify the situation. Courageous doctors throughout the history of modern medicine have indicated, at a risk to themselves, the same thing.** The trouble was, and remains, that in a fraud, there is a 'frauder' who is profiting out of the scam, and to whom no appeals to morality or ethics weigh more than this simple avaricious fact.
What happened to this movement that spoke out against false medicines and medical treatments? Its voice was stiffled. Its leaders were isolated and silenced, using fear, despair, ridicule, vilification, even the abuse of judicial systems, with always and everywhere, a basic lie being touted that allowed (and still allows) the fraud to continue :
Pharmaceutical drugs tested on animals are safe.'
From this statement, we also get this variation, 'Testing on animals is awful! But we still need to do it, for a while yet, in order to advance human health.'
And again, 'Most experiments on animals are useless...' which, translated, reads : 'Some experiments on animals are useful... Vivisection is necessary.'
But it wasn't the pharmaceutical companies which undermined the anti-vivisection movement (and, following on, the movement against fraudulent medicine). It was the animal defense and animal protection associations, with rare exceptions, which touted the lies of the usefulness of 'some' exeriments on animals. And they still do it today, even though now the statistics on ADEs are known (according to a committee of independent doctors, reporting in 2004, more people die in the United States every year from adverse reactions to doctor-prescribed drugs, than die from either cancer or heart disease. This makes the doctor, with his prescription medicines, the number one public health risk). ***
Instead of uniting efforts and resources to bring out the truth, these associations turned their backs on the scientific basis for the anti-vivisection movement. This was a conscious and deliberate decision on the part of certain people in the leadership of these associations, who share in the moral responsibility for the consequences of their stand.
Where might we be today, not just animal defenders, but all human society, if we had heeded the following call at the time it was made :
The "animal rights" people spend most of their time conveying two messages not only to their members and supporters, but also to the general public. The direct message is that animal research and testing work - at least to some extent - a position rabidly defended by the overwhelming majority of the "animal rights" organizations...
The indirect message is even more suicidal: "animal rights" people will risk the health of human beings in order to "liberate" animals. By failing to destroy the medical and scientific myths which make the existence of vivisection possible, and by insisting further on the "liberation" of the very animals who are perceived by the public as the only hope to finding cures, "animal rights activists" become automatically anti-human since they are perceived as wanting to liberate animals at the expense of human health.
It should be painfully evident to anyone that the suicidal slogan of "animal rights" has been a godsend for the vivisectors and the beholden media whose only job consists of pitting tiny sick babies against dirty rats and an occasional dog or cat: The constant bombardment of the public with the notions of medical "advances" and "breakthroughs" due to animal experimentation has accomplished two very important goals: besides making the "animal rights" people look like a bunch of anti-human fools, it has also managed to strengthen the vivisectors' main cliches by repeating all the medical and scientific lies that nobody in the "animal rights" movement is able or willing to destroy...
The attitude on the part of the largest and wealthiest organizations to stick to morality, ethics, and philosophy, and to denounce those who seek to expose the mind-boggling scientific fraud that is part and parcel of all experimental research with life, can only be attributed to the incredible degree of infiltration to which most of the "animal rights" and self-proclaimed anti-vivisection organizations have been subjected.
While millions of dollars sit idle in the coffers of these organizations, their philosophers and "ex-vivisectors" criss-cross the country urging people not to ever use the medical and scientific arguments which, as a famous "ex-vivisector" put it, "you cannot win".
We must get rid of the slogan "animal rights", force the infiltrators out from their positions of leadership and use the millions of dollars to expose the massive damage to human health as a result of vivisection. We must also be willing to inform ourselves so we can understand and accept the most basic medical and scientific realities, which prove that all experimental research using life is a medical and scientific fraud.
If people in the movement decide not to make waves and go along with the present party line, we will all be forced to look at the putrid face of vivisection until the end of time. '' ****
These words date from 1988. The author was vilified for them-- not by vivisectors, but by 'animal rights' associations and animal defenders who, instead, wanted larger cages for the animals in laboratories, and toys to help them pass the time, while scientists got on with their 'important work'... Because, they insisted, some animal research is useful and medical research still needs to test on animals, at least for some time yet...
On March 31, 2009, the members of the European Parliament's Agriculture Committee voted on a series of amendments to the European Commission's proposals to regulate animal testing across Europe. In revising Directive 86/609/EEC, the MEPs were heavily briefed by the vivisection industry's suppliers and users before voting over 500 amendments, including :
to reduce the need for scientific justification of experiments on monkeys,
to delay any end to trapping of wild monkeys for experiments.
to remove requirements for authorization and licensing of experiments
to permit unlimited reuse of animals in most categories of experiments
to permit testing on animals even if it causes severe and prolonged pain.
With billion-dollar corporations to support (all those suppliers and users of the vivisection industry, the pharmaceutical industry, and the medical corps that depends on both), the MEPs decided to keep the lid on this lucrative fraud, which is now set to continue with even greater freedom and leeway, and with all its disastrous consequences for human health, as well as for its animal victims.
For further information on this subject, see stop-abus-animal . com , then Bulletins 39, 40, 41, 44 and 46.
See Hans Rusech's book Naked Empress for more information on the early years of the Rockefeller empire, including the Ludlow striking miners' massacre, which prompted a 'clean up' of the Rockefeller public image via the Foundation which now does advertising under the guise of philanthropy. The Morris Bealle quotation, taken from Naked Empress, continues thus:
Old Bill' called his bottled petroleum Nujol (meaning new oil) and sold it to those who had cancer and those whom he could make fear they would have it. This sounded good to Standard's [Standard Oil] researchers. The druggist pays about 21 cents for a 6-ounce bottle of Nujol which costs Standard Oil 1/5 of a cent. Instead of calling it a cure for cancer, they called it a cure for constipation.
Soon after the present-day Nujol was put on the market, it was discovered by physicians to be harmful. It robbed the body of fat soluble vitamins and caused serious deficiency diseases. Standard Oil checked the loss in sales by adding carotene to Nujol and claiming this overcame these injuries. Physicians disagree...'
See Hans Ruesch's compilation, '1001 Doctors (And Many More) Against Vivisection', 1989. Difficult to find, but some used copies are available from Amazon USA.
See : 'Death by Medicine' in the August-September 2004 issue of Nexus Magazine, also available on the Net.
From a 1988 issue of the magazine of the US anti-vivisection organization, SUPRESS