The Scientific vs. the Cruelty Argument: Vivisection

From all-creatures.org
Animal Rights Articles

Moo-ving people toward compassionate living

Visit our Home Page
Write us with your comments

The Scientific vs. the Cruelty Argument: Vivisection

From People for Reason and Science in Medicine (PRISM)

Since government sponsored animal experimentation (vivisection) first reared its ugly head over one hundred years ago, the people who perpetuate this fraud have managed to convince the public that vivisection is necessary and, indeed, vital to human health and survival. They further insist that their experiments on animals are conducted by compassionate scientists who are kind in the treatment of their subjects which they are forced to “sacrifice” for the good of mankind. Although no “cures” from any disease has ever materialized from a vivisector’s laboratory, the public inexplicably continues to believe their lies.

For almost as long as vivisection has existed so have people who have decried animal experimentation as cruel and immoral. Their protests through the years have fallen on deaf ears as vivisection has grown exponentially.

When Hans Ruesch published his scrupulously researched books SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENT and NAKED EMPRESS, he offered positive proof that experiments on animals cannot be extrapolated to humans and is nothing but a trillion dollar industry perpetuated by the petrochemical/pharmaceutical industry.

One would assume that with clear evidence of the fraud of vivisection and proof of the harm caused to HUMANS, “animal rights” groups would eagerly use this “ammunition” in the fight against vivisection. One would think that “animal rights” groups would say to themselves---“Imagine!! No cure has ever come from torturing animals and never will! When the public finds this out vivisection will end!!

Unfathomably, most “animal rights” groups and anti-vivisection organizations have heard the truth and have decided to largely ignore it. They have received the information in the form of books, pamphlets, documentary films and from the mouths of enlightened doctors and scientists. In spite of learning the facts regarding the scientific argument against vivisection these groups continue to focus on the tried and true, catastrophically unsuccessful, MORAL argument; animal experimentation is cruel, great philosophers in history have spoken out against it, animals have the same rights as humans, etc.

A handful of groups including The Nature of Wellness and People for Reason in Science and Medicine (PRISM) understand the scientific argument and, with enthusiastic optimism, have done everything in their power with limited resources to inform the public of the facts. The leaders and members of these groups were shocked and bewildered by the attitudes of national, high-profile animal rights groups who not only refused to use the scientific argument but attacked the groups that were, calling them “wacky extremists” for telling the truth. Furthermore, many animal rights adherents know or care nothing about human health. They seldom mention that junk food, tobacco, alcohol, drugs and chronic stress are the primary causes of the diseases for which millions of animals are being uselessly vivisected.

In the past few years groups like Physicians’ Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) have offered up the scientific futility of vivisection while continuing to focus its A-V campaign on the cruelty issue. Another very large animal welfare group, having access to accurate scientific information, not only continues to focus on the cruelty issue but equivocates regarding the usefulness of vivisection. For many years they have sent out a questionnaire to potential donors asking the question, “What would you think if you found out MOST animal experimentation is useless?” clearly implying that SOME vivisection is useful. For whatever reason they cannot bring themselves to admit that it is not.

Humans have a natural fear of terminal disease and death. They cling to promises of cures coming out of vivisectors’ laboratories that will save their lives and those of their loved ones. Even Mary Tyler Moore, who purports to dearly love animals and helps homeless animals, raises money for vivisection because of her own affliction, diabetes. Like her, the majority of people who love animals will turn a blind eye to the grim reality of vivisection because they think they will give up all hope of cures should vivisection end.

It is stunningly OBVIOUS to any thinking person that people who believe vivisection will save their lives NEED to be told the facts---that drugs do not and cannot heal disease, that a plant-based, nutritionally sound diet creates a healthy body, that toxins need to be eliminated from our air, food and water and if we do become ill we need to employ everything possible to strengthen our immune systems since that is where healing takes place. We have to take responsibility for our own health and not depend on toxic drugs and procedures touted by the religion of modern medicine and its high priests in white coats.

People need to replace a faulty belief system with one that REALLY works for them. Only then will they be willing to stop clinging desperately to hopes for a cure coming out of a vivisector’s laboratory.

The intransigence of animal and A-V groups in refusing to focus on the scientific argument continues to be completely baffling---Why wouldn’t they WANT to use the most potent ammunition we have? Is it fear of standing up to the petrochemical/pharmaceutical industry? Do they think donations would fall off if members took offense at being told magic cures do not exist? Do the leaders of these groups THEMSELVES actually believe vivisection works? Are they afraid to debate vivisectors because they feel intimidated by people in white lab coats who claim to be “scientists”?

We have no way of knowing the answers to these questions. In questioning the spokespeople of animal groups who reject the scientific argument and cling to the failed moral and philosophical ones their responses are always evasive, nebulous, defensive and angry. All we know for sure is that they choose to do what Einstein said is the definition of insanity “...doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.”

PRISM, however, chooses to disseminate the facts. And if animal welfare groups and AV groups truly want to end vivisection, they will have to do the same. If all of us, including environmental organizations, work together to expose vivisection as a fraud, it could not survive.