Here's What's Wrong With Vivisection

From all-creatures.org
Animal Rights Articles

Moo-ving people toward compassionate living

Visit our Home Page
Write us with your comments

Here's What's Wrong With Vivisection

By Gary Yourofsky, Animals Deserve Absolute Protection Today and Tomorrow (ADAPTT)
August 2010

Humanitarian and British author George Bernard Shaw summed up vivisection best when he once proclaimed, “Those who won’t hesitate to vivisect, won’t hesitate to lie about it as well.”

Vivisection is the act of cutting, drugging, burning, blinding, shocking, addicting, shooting, freezing, infecting and surgically mutilating live animals. Vivisection also happens to be more than just bloody science. It’s a bloody fraud. Every year in the US about 20 million monkeys, dogs, cats, pigs and rabbits, and nearly 50 million mice and rats are incarcerated and infected with mutations of human diseases. They are tortured in violent burn and brain-damage re-creation experiments. Then they are observed for meaningless data and killed.

First, let’s understand that animals are a completely different bio-mechanical entity than humans. The anatomical, physiological, immunological, histological [dealing with the cell structures] and even psychological differences between humans and animals are too great to overcome. At this moment, a formula for making animal-derived research relevant to human health is non-existent. Animal research has not, can not and will not save a human lives because information cannot be extrapolated from one species to another.

Let me elucidate this point to you in a few ways. Everyday in veterinary schools all across this world, the fraud of vivisection is substantiated. After talking with several veterinarians who unfortunately have been fooled into believing that animal research can be beneficial to humans, I asked them when they were in vet school studying feline leukemia which animal they studied upon. Cats, of course, they all replied. I asked them why they didn’t study on dogs for feline leukemia. They each replied that studying on dogs for feline leukemia doesn’t make scientific sense. I then asked why would we use dogs and cats and other animals for human leukemia research. Their silence exposed the scam. Veterinarians invalidate the widespread use of species to species extrapolation because they use cats for feline leukemia research, horses for colic research, dogs for canine distemper research, and so on. They don’t use dogs for cats, pigs for dogs, and monkeys for horses. A footnote this topic. I do oppose what takes place in veterinary schools on ethical grounds. Understand, though, I cannot oppose it on scientific grounds because it is scientifically justifiable to research on the species in question when searching for treatments for that species. However, when it comes to using animals as research specimens for humans, I oppose this on scientific grounds as well as ethical grounds.

No matter how diligently animal researchers try, they can never re-create the spontaneously-occurring diseases that humans get. They can only re-create symptoms and give mutations. And, on top of that, the experiments are always done in a controlled, manipulative environment where researchers can produce whatever answer they’re looking for. If researchers want to show that there is NO link between smoking and lung cancer, no problem, just bring in some dogs—hook them up to facial mechanical devices—and force them to inhale smoke with every breath. For the record, it is true that smoking does NOT cause lung cancer in dogs. Then again, I haven’t met too many dogs who smoke in the first place. How about showing that diet drugs are safe for humans? No problem. Just bring in some rats, gorge them until they become obese and give them large doses of fenphen. For the record, the diet drug fenphen passed all rat research protocols but was taken off the market years ago after killing several humans.

Were you aware that every two seconds someone in the world dies from a disease that the medical community has known how to cure for nearly two thousand years. Every two seconds! That disease is malnutrition. But in early ’98, with a hefty grant, The Detroit Free Press reported that animal researchers were close to identifying the hunger gene in rats. Huh? How much more meaningless, idiotic and wasteful experiments will researchers conduct and more importantly will society condone? Once again, we know how to cure malnutrition. The sad truth is that medicine—in its myriad of treatments—is a commodity. If you can’t afford it, then you don’t get it. Keep this in mind as well, not one of Jerry’s Kids has ever walked or been cured even though the muscular dystrophy telethons have taken in more than $50 billion dollars since its inception. And that’s a generous estimate. It’s probably much more. The money has come from kind people who have been duped by the animal research community’s guileful, mendacious and insidious hook; this latest mouse experiment is very hopeful and promising. Those are the two favorite words of a vivisectionist; hopeful and promising. Translation—send me more money so I can continue my lifelong mission of gathering useless information.

Christopher Anderegg, who received his M.D. and Ph.D. from the Yale University School of Medicine, explained “It is impossible to predict human reactions to drugs, vaccines and other chemicals by testing them on animals.” Still, vivisectionists lie about the value of animal experiments and remain unwilling to use the following 10 forms of true scientific research techniques; 1) human-based clinical research; 2) epidemiology (study, causes and distribution of human diseases); 3) cellular and molecular biology using human-based tissue and cell cultures and in vitro; 4) autopsy research; 5) biopsy research; 6) computer models using virtual reality, simulators and 3D programs; 7) mathematical models using formulas to determine drug concoctions and reactions; 8. case studies; 9) human-based DNA/genetic research; and 10) trial and error methodology. Fortunately though, some people are responding to the truth. Dozens of charities like The Easter Seals Foundation, the American Kidney Fund and The International Eye Foundation, to name a few, only use the aforementioned methods of scientific research and, more importantly, refuse to perform or fund any form of animal research. So, if the Easter Seals engages in essential non-animal-based research for birth defects and The March of Dimes engages in vivisection because it claims that’s the only way to conduct research for birth defects, I ask you, “Who’s lying?” I hope you feel the same way that I do when asked to select between two diametrically opposed positions. Personally, I always side with peace, benevolence and justice. Since healing human beings cannot be based upon violent protocols and human medicine cannot be based upon a false, duplicitous model, it’s seems clear to me who’s lying.

Polio victim Linn Pulis once eloquently said, “I would not want to promote research on animals. Fortunately, only my back is twisted, not my mind.”

Dr. Richard Klausner, animal researcher and director of the National Cancer Institute, a huge animal researching entity, once said, “The history of cancer research has been a history of curing cancer in the mouse. We have cured mice of cancer for decades and it simply doesn’t work in humans.”

For some amazing information on why vivisection is unscientific, please check out Americans, Europeans, and Japanese for Medical Advancement. It is the website of Dr. Ray Greek, the world’s foremost expert in determining the value of all medical research. Also, check out The Absurdity of Vivisection, a British website.