Primate Liberation Week

What type of medical research is vivisection is used in?

I am interested in this topic, what information can you share with the community regarding UCSF's use of vivisection? For those of us unable to attend it would be interesting.

Xenotransplantation—transplanting cells, tissues or organs from one species into another species—began in earnest in the early 1900s. There have been many different attempts at xenotransplantation. In 1905, a French surgeon put pieces of rabbit kidneys into a child who died two weeks later. 1 In 1923, an American surgeon transplanted a lamb kidney into a human who died nine days later. 2 In 1964, another American surgeon transplanted a chimpanzee heart into a man who died two hours later. 3 In 1984 Leonard Bailey transplanted a baboon heart into newborn "Baby-Fae" in California — she died 20 days later. 4

In the entire history of xenotransplantation, there has never been a successful whole-organ animal to human transplant. 5 Most human xenograft recipients die anywhere from hours to weeks after receiving the animal organ.

Why are scientists doing cross-species organ transplants?

The majority of xenotransplant scientists claim they are doing it because of the shortage of human organs available for transplants. A group of scientists, physicians and surgeons brought together by the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation states, "…researchers are constantly looking for ways to expand the number of donor organs that become available. While there is no question that human organs are best suited for humans, xenotransplantation research should be pursued…because animals, such as the pig, could [emphasis added] offer an unlimited supply of organs and allow the transplant procedures to be scheduled on an elective basis." 6

How serious is the human organ shortage? And what can be done to address this shortage that is safer and better for humans than xenotransplantation?

Although there is a severe organ donation shortage — the reason may not be due to a lack of organs.
More public awareness of the organ donation crisis would help increase the number of organs available for transplant. At present, only about 20% of people who die healthy (e.g. in accidents, from violence, etc.) have arranged to donate their organs. 7

Additionally, many of the people receiving transplants have diseases that are preventable. For instance, it is estimated that 100,000 first-time heart attacks could be averted and $13 billion in medical costs could be saved by the year 2005 if Americans simply reduced their average saturated fat intake by as little as one to three percentage points. 8

The number of persons actually requiring transplants could be reduced by funding preventative healthcare programs advocating positive lifestyle measures such as not smoking, exercising regularly, and eating a healthful diet.

Further, if the United States adopted laws similar to those of Austria, Spain, Belgium, and Singapore there would be a potential increase in the availability of human organs. In these nations, organ donation rates soared after "presumed consent" laws passed. Such laws assume that citizens will donate their organs after death unless they specifically "opt out." 9 In Sweden and Denmark similar "mandated choice" laws require citizens to indicate whether or not they want to donate their organs. These measures have increased donations by hundreds of thousands. 10

What are the dangers of xenotransplantation?
Putting animal parts into humans can expose the recipient to potentially deadly animal viruses. Such cross-species viruses could hurt not only the original recipient but could spread to humans worldwide. Dr. David Cooper, former transplant surgeon and president of the International Xenotransplantation Association, says, "The…concern is, are we going to do any harm by transferring infectious agents to the patient…[and] Then infect the community." 11 Even if scientists can screen for some viruses in animals there is always the potential for unknown viruses to exist and, therefore, to be missed by the screening. Also, through mutations, viruses can change from benign to harmful or even deadly. Finally, it is impossible to have completely pathogen-free animals. 12

Many viruses can cross-over from animals to humans, such as the hepadnavirus, papillomavirus, retrovirus, aterivirus, togavirus, adenovirus, hantavirus, and papovavirus. Viruses that have crossed-over from animals to humans have killed scores of people. For instance, in the 1950s the Asian flu killed a million people and in the late 1960s the Hong Kong flu killed 700,000. And it is thought that the 1918 Spanish flu that killed 20 million people was caused by a virus that was transmitted from animals to humans. 13

Nearly all transplanted organs, except those of identical twins, spur rejection by the recipient, even in allotransplants — organs transplanted between the same species. In xenotransplantation, the transplanted organ may cause hyperacute rejection — a severe, life-threatening rejection of the transplanted part and acute vascular rejection, an inflammation of blood vessels. Researchers have spent millions of dollars in developing transgenic pigs that have human "flags" on their cells in hopes that their organs will not be rejected, but these efforts so far have been completely unsuccessful. 14

What are the financial costs of developing xenotransplantation?

Xenotransplantation research is an expensive attempt to examine a risky and unethical enterprise. A noted scientist, Mae-Wan Ho says, "…it is bad science working together with big business for quick profit aided and abetted by our government…" 15 Some researchers, however, hope for a lucrative market and apparently ignore the risks and harm that xenotransplantation actually poses. Millions of taxpayer dollars are allocated for this research. The following are just a few of the federally-funded xenotransplant projects recently undertaken:

· $1,974,144 of federal funds in 2000 went to A.B. Cosimi at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) for research on swine and nonhuman primates. And in 2001 he received $2,028,495 for xenotransplantation research. 16 And David Sachs, also of MGH, received $1,481,206 federal dollars for xenotransplantation research. 17

· $99,900 went to John Gibbons of ProLinia, Inc., in Athens, Georgia for "Novel Pig Cloning Procedures for Xenotransplantation." Gibbons writes, "The use of pigs as organ donors for humans is potentially a $6 billion market. ProLinia will play a niche role in developing xenotransplantation."18

· The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute gave $113,853 to Moses Njenga of the University of Minnesota Twin Cities to examine the risk of a porcine (pig) virus in xenotransplantation. The research involves putting infected pig tissues into immunodeficient mice and in studying monkey-to-monkey and pig-to-monkey transplantations. 19

· According to a May 2001 Boston Globe article, Massachusetts’ Immerge BioTherapeutics and Wisconsin’s Infigen will receive $1.7 million from the Commerce Department’s National Institute for Science and Technology in a joint venture to produce pigs for xenotransplantation. 20

What are some companies that are researching xenotransplantation?

A partial list includes:
· Alexion Pharmaceuticals of Connecticut
· Biotransplant of Massachusetts (Imutran, a British company was bought out by Novartis and merged with Biotransplant)
· Genzyme Transgenics Corporation of Massachusetts
· Geron of California
· Infigen of Wisconsin
· Nextran Inc., a division of Baxter Healthcare Corporation of New Jersey

Position on xenotransplantation?
Some anti-vivisectionist believe all xenotransplantation research should be permanently banned for the following reasons:

· Thousands of animals suffer and die for xenotransplant experimenters’ curiosity and greed. Over the years, baboons, chickens, chimpanzees, dogs, goats, monkeys, pigs, rabbits, rats, and other species have died in xenotransplant research.

· There is no guaranteed way to eliminate the possibility of a transmissible deadly cross-species virus that may cause a global human health catastrophe.

· Individual recipients die and their families suffer as a result of these medical failures.

· The United States is spending millions of dollars into developing risky and unsuccessful xenotransplant procedures. Meanwhile, certain health problems that are prevalent and can successfully be corrected go unaddressed.

Approximately 43 million Americans are without health insurance coverage; 21 millions of Americans are turned away from under-funded, under-available smoking, alcohol, and drug treatment programs and facilities; industrial polluters of our environment, a major cause of illness and death to Americans each year, are allowed to operate with minimal if any adequate controls; and preventative health measures are under-utilized and under-encouraged.

Major accomplishments in fighting human disease would be made if the government prioritized funding access to healthcare coverage and treatment facilities for all Americans, and promised all Americans freedom from industrially produced environmental toxins. Spending taxpayers' money to help develop the unpromising and even dangerous option of xenotransplantation when there are better and safer options already available is poor government spending and bad medicine.

The push for cross-species organ transplants profits only those research and breeding facilities that will reap tremendous financial gain whether the project ultimately succeeds or fails. Meanwhile xenotransplantation promises to be a failure.

Xenotransplantation offers nothing to the millions of Americans who have health concerns that could and should be addressed by non-animal based research and could and should be treated with better health care priorities.

Xenotransplantation is neither good science nor good ethics and should be banned.

How can I help stop xenotransplant research and increase the human organ donor pool?

· Politely tell Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson, that you want a ban on xenotransplant research and development for the reasons stated above.

Secretary Tommy Thompson
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Ave., SW
Washington, DC 20201
Fax: 202-619-0257
Toll Free Tel: 1-877-696-6775
hhsmail [at] os.dhhs.gov

· Ask your congressional representative to introduce "presumed consent" legislation.
For your senator: http://www.senate.gov/ contacting/index.cfm

For your representative(s): http://www.house.gov/writerep
Call 800-688-9889 to find the names of your legislators.

The Honorable Representative __________
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
· Become an organ donor.
Contact the United Network for Organ Sharing/Coalition on Donation
1100 Boulders Parkway, Suite 700
Richmond, VA 23225-8770
Fax: 804-323-7343
Phone: 804-330-8620
coalition [at] unos.org
http://www.shareyourlife.org


Find out if your Motor Vehicle Registry allows you to register on your driver’s license to be an organ donor. In the U.S., you can find your state’s Registry contact information by going to:
http://www.state.oh.us/odps/division/bmv/mv50.html

· Sign the Campaign for Responsible Transplantation’s online petition:
http://www.crt-online.org/petition.html

· Minimize your chances of needing an organ transplant by adopting a healthy lifestyle. Don’t smoke; drink alcoholic beverages in moderation; exercise regularly; and, eat a low-fat vegetarian diet.
—May 2001

C. Ray Greek and Jean Swingle Greek, Sacred Cows and Golden Geese (New York: Continuum, 2000), 206
Tony Stark, Knife to the Heart: The Story of Transplant Surgery (UK: Macmillan, 1996) 233.

1. Ibid., 158-162.
2. Anon, "Grandstand Medicine", Nature Nov. 8, 1984.
3. Medical Research Modernization Committee’s publication, Of Pigs, Primates, and Plagues.
4. International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation press release December 15, 2000.
5. Richard L. Worsnop, "Organ Transplants: Can the Number of Donors Be Increased?," CQ Researcher 5, August 11, 1995.
6. Gerry Oster, David Thompson, "Estimated Effects of Reducing Dietary Saturated Fat Intake on the Incident and Cost of Coronary Heart Disease in the US," Journal of the American Dietetic Association 96 (1996): 127-31.
7. Ian Kennedy, et al., "The case for Presumed Consent in Organ Donation," The Lancet, May 30, 1996: 351.
8. Moussa Awounda, "Swedish Organ-Donation Drive Set for Success," The Lancet, May 18, 1996: 347.
9. Maggie Fox, "Too soon for animal-human heart transplants" The Hindustan Times, December 18 2000.
10. Institute of Medicine’s 1996 Report
11. Greek and Greek, 216.
12. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/
shows/organfarm/etc/faqs.html back to article >>
13. The Unholy Alliance. The Ecologist Vol. 27, no.4, pp. 152-158.
14. NIH’s Computer Retrieval of Information on Scientific Projects (CRISP)
15. Ibid.
16. Ibid.
17. Ibid.
18. Naomi Aoki, "Charlestown biotech in pig-clone venture" Boston Globe May 9, 2001.
19. U.S. Census Bureau statistic for 1999.

"In 1870, two German researchers named [Eduard] Hitzig and [Gustav] Fritsch electrically stimulated the brains of dogs, demonstrating that certain portions of the brain were the centers of motor function. The American Dr. Robert Bartholow, within four years, demonstrated that THE SAME WAS TRUE of human beings." *
===================================


In Pioneering Study, Monkey Think, Robot Do

By SANDRA BLAKESLEE October 13, 2003

Monkeys that can move a robot arm with thoughts alone have brought the merger of mind and machine one step closer.

In experiments at Duke University, implants in the monkeys' brains picked up brain signals and sent them to a robotic arm, which carried out reaching
and grasping movements on a computer screen driven only by the monkeys' thoughts.

The achievement is a significant advance in the continuing effort to devise thought-controlled machines that could be a great benefit for people who
are paralyzed, or have lost control over their physical movements.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/13/science/13BRAI.html
=================


Researchers at SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn N.Y., have developed technology that allows them to control a rat’s actions from up to 600 yards away with implants placed in its brain.

Rats can be made to run, jump or climb, following instructions they receive by radio from a laptop computer. Clacking keys on a computer send these “ratbots” climbing trees, winding through mazes, or searching through building rubble.

The remote control rats look like school children, wearing small backpacks that house microprocessor-based remote-controlled stimulators. Wires connect the backpack to tiny probes that have been placed into areas of the rat’s brain that are responsible for reward and areas that process signals from their whiskers. The rats are controlled by manipulating these two areas of the brain.

Remote-control rats are weird enough. But even stranger is the possibility that the technology could eventually find its way into humans.

“Our discovery grew out of ongoing research into the development of thought-controlled prosthetic devices for spinal chord injury,” said John K. Chapin, Ph.D., research partner of Sanjiv Talwar, M.D., Ph.D.

The brain implants have already enabled rats to move robotic arms by thought alone.
http://www.americanfreepress.net/Alternative_Health
/25_Remote_Control-Rodent_Ratbo.htm
==============================
&
==============================

Narration: The researchers are driving the rat by sending electrical stimulations to the wires in its brain.

Graham Phillips: So you’re directing all of that.

Dr Sanjiv Talwar: He’s sending three signals: go left, go right, go straight.

Narration: For instance, the rat’s signal to turn right is when it feels a touch on its right-hand whiskers. But nothing actually touches the whiskers, the scientists stimulate the whisker part of the brain directly…a method pioneered by the head of their lab, John Chapin.

Professor John Chapin: When we stimulated in the part of the brain for the right hand whiskers the animal feels like he’s been touched on the right side of his face. It’s all done with small electrical stimulations in the brain, but he feels like he’s been touched.

Narration: But this stimulation doesn’t force the rat to turn right, rather it knows a reward will follow if it does.

Dr Sanjiv Talwar: And a rat learns that every time I feel this strange touch and if I turn right I get a sudden burst of happiness.
==============================
&
==============================

Dr. Philip R. Kennedy, an [sic] clinical assistant professor of neurology at Emory University in Georgia, reported that a paralyzed man was able to control a cursor with a cone-shaped, glass implant.8 Each [neurotrophic electrode] consists of a hollow glass cone about the size of a ball-point pen tip.9 The implants…contain an electrode that picks up impulses from the nerve endings. Before they are implanted, the cones are coated with chemicals — taken from tissue inside the patients’ own knees — to encourage nerve growth. The implants are then placed in the brain’s motor cortex — which controls body movement — and over the course of the next few months the chemicals encourage nerve cells to grow and attach to the electrodes. A transmitter just inside the skull picks up signals from the cones and translates these into cursor commands on the computer.10
* http://www.geocities.com/skews_me/implants.html
=========================================

>Some anti-vivisectionist believe all xenotransplantation research should be permanently banned

How many of them need transplants themselves, or have loved ones who do?

umm.... i'm anti-vivisection and xenotransplantation.

my father is on a heart transplant waiting list and my very best friend in life is dieing and his only hope is in xenotransplantation technology. why xenotransplantation, because it is the only way the drug manufacturer can afford to carry on their research because this fucking country spends billions on military conquests rather then life giving scientific research.

okay,
so why is UCSF being singled out for this protest? any confirmable reasons that UCSF should be protested? details would be great.

Well here is some documentation on why UCSF should be protested. Seems they have had numerous violations of government regulations regarding animal experimentation (vivisection). I' m sure even Nessie would agree that some level of protection is necessary, unless he of course routinely beats his pet dog. :-)

http://www.all-creatures.org/saen/articles-rep-sq-ucsf.html

I can see people having problems will calls to get rid of all animal testing. But primate testing is getting very close to forced human testing. Is the a religious line people are drawing that makes torturing humans wrong and tests on other primates perfectly ok? If its because they dont have 100% human DNA what about torturing of disabled individuals with genetic defects?

If its so easy to draw such lines what is ones view when the line becomes citizenship?

"NEW YORK (Reuters) - Pfizer Inc. <PFE.N> said on Monday an appeals court has re-opened a case that that accuses the drugmaker of inadequately warning Nigerian families about the risks of meningitis drug Trovan during a clinical trial.

ADVERTISEMENT
Pfizer had tested the antibiotic on children during a meningitis outbreak in Nigeria seven years ago.

The case, brought by Nigerian families, charges that the world's largest drugmaker did not sufficiently explain to the children's parents that the treatment was experimental, that the parents could decline to accept the treatment for their children or that other medicines were available.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in Manhattan had originally dismissed the case, ruling U.S. courts were not the appropriate place for the case.

Judges for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit last Wednesday revived the case and remanded it back to the district court.

Pfizer denies the allegations.

"We believe Trovan was a potentially innovative medicine for a major need in the developing world, and that Pfizer personnel acted in accordance with accepted international practice concerning clinical trials," said a Pfizer spokesman.

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2003/10/13/pfizer_nigeria_case_reopened_in_new_york/

Drug companies have no real morals Pfizer's willingness to test a drug on Nigerians fits with nationalistic logic. "Do you value a foreignors life more than an Americans?" is used to justify practices that can at times border on genocide and have nothing to do with saving anyones life. Most people value the lives of nonhumans a lot less than humans but when one hears someone like Nessie asking "Do you value an animals life or a humans life more" you should think carefully. Its a loaded question that assumes a lot that is clearly not true. Drug companies are not neutral healthcare workers placing value judgements on moral dillemas they are large profit maximizing machines that will crush both humans and other animals for even a slight chance at profit.

"Studies of brain evolution are compelling because of their implications for understanding human evolution. Consequently, researchers are motivated by a desire to find the causes of intelligence. What is intelligence? It is inevitably described with respect to human attributes; we consider ourselves intelligent, and we therefore compare other species to ourselves. This view is legitimized by the fact that humans do have very sophisticated brains, exhibit extraordinarily complex behavior, and cope well in novel situations, generalizing from one problem to another. Unfortunately, criteria applicable to humans are not necessarily appropriate for evaluating traits of other organisms. There is no basis for the assumption that all intelligence is human-like intelligence, nor even for the preconception that all primate intelligence is human-like. To say that intellectual prowess is comparative across species and to use humans as the basis for comparison is a continuation of pre-Darwinian ideas of a scala naturae dealing with intelligence (Deacon 1990).[22] If ranking species in a single phylogenetic line according to criteria based on the extant member is questionable, then certainly since ecological conditions and selection pressures change over time, ranking contemporary species separated by millions of years of evolution based on the traits exhibited by one is unjustifiable. To assume a continuum of intelligence across today's species is incompatible with an evolutionary perspective, and this preconception must not be allowed to guide studies of brain evolution. The information-processing systems of different animals have been designed to respond to different stimuli, diverse "cognitive substrates," and therefore expectations of an interspecific regularity between these IPS and various other body measures are ill-conceived (Deacon 1990). What is lacking is a good definition of intelligence that will allow us to say something about how an animal copes with its own ecology and not how closely it approximates human behavior.[23] There are undeniable trends in the history of life -- towards larger brains in mammals and larger neocortices in primates -- but to generalize correlations of these trends into a concept of intelligence should not be attempted until an accurate definition is developed. Until that time, the most that comparative brain size studies can do is demonstrate correlations and thereby pose questions for scientists who focus on the evolution of species with one of these correlated characteristics."
http://hcs.harvard.edu/~husn/BRAIN/vol2/Primate.html

"Chimpanzees doing fractions? Language and math skills have long been thought to be solely human abilities, but an Ohio State University researcher has taught some chimpanzees to solve simple arithmetic problems. Primatologist Sally Boysen, who has been working with chimpanzees for many years, shows that the chimps are truly processing the information and not just learning by rote. Boysen's discoveries mean we may have to re-evaluate how we think about primate intelligence."
http://www.pbs.org/safarchive/4_class/45_pguides/pguide_504/4554_chimp2.html

The (very long) message about xenotransplantation tries to point out the folly of even attempting such a thing by pointing out the very short patient survivability of receipients. However, I know someone who has lived for over 10 years after receiving a xenotransplant. My brother-in-law received a heart valve from a pig, and has been living a veryt full life. The reason he needed this heart valve is not because of his lifestyle, he has a congenital heart defect. He would have died by now if he had not received this transplant, and many others have received similar transplants.

So, why do you wish people like my brother-in-law to die?

no one wishes that your brother dies. yet somehow, being critical of tobacco science and looking at the wasted milllions of dollars of research money is viewed as wishing death. that's bullshit and you know it. oversight on vivisection and criticizing it and it's flaws is a healthy debate. i doubt the intention of ending xenotransplantationsss is bad thing. what about the forced failure to give the primates water? what about the dumb experimentations being done strictly in the name of generating another grant. is standing up for animals a bad thing? somehow all your anthropocentric individuals think it is and you can't even see beyond that. the notion that someone criticize science seems fucked up to you. you ever look at how corrupt scientists are for big business? you ever see the manipulation of data is for the timber industry or other resource extraction industries are? why did the epa once say that dioxin is the most deadly toxin known to mankind and then after enormous pressure from industry, they changed their tune on that little chemical. big business science has it's flaws. being critical of it is partriotic.

are humans beyond natures natural selection? what are these pro vivasection folks doing to combat the failure of the planet to support the consumptive lifestyles that is pushing many species to the brink of extinction. criticizing vivasection is only one small piece of the puzzle that needs to be looked at and scrutinized. also jim, as you wrote that post, do you have your donor card in your wallet? is nessie the wholier than though, have his body ready to donate in the event he dies a sudden death? is your brother in law going to donate his organs when he dies?

Man, just come out and say, 'I'm bullish on bio-med'. One of the few sectors within the US economy with a clear position in the future. Along with nano-tech. More people, more sickness. More sickness, more drugs, machines, tech, tech, tech. Technology is driving it all. I don't know nessie, maybe you don't 'play' stocks, but with your views about bio-med, maybe you should give it a thought. Here's a tip, gold made a big move yesterday .
Seriously, these issues will only be resolved by people within the scientific establishment. The only activists who will be truly effective will be those who have dedicated their life towards scientific research. The ALF's analysis of the situation is flawed, they're imitating the violent culture they wish to detach from. These corporations may be in violation of certain obscure humane laws, but animals don't have individual rights in this country like other nations, Germany for example. Animals in the US are property; your dog, cat, bird, and horse are your property. Any violation against them is legally, first a property damage situation, second a humane animal cruelty situation. Alot of times the penalty for the second is much more severe, while the first is usualy a settlement. Those corporations own the animals. How they obtained them (especially in the past) would have been the place to expose corruption and violation of law. Poor African nations, dictators, and a thriving primate trade. I guess times have changed, somewhat, the last thing I read about these issues described an aging over population in NASA and hepatitis chimps, among other things.
There's no question about wether or not we are primates or primates are us(Primates Are Us!) and there's no question that most non-human animals, primate or not, possess some level of cognitive ability similar to our own, recognizing that as fact is a different story. Read up on it and you can find out some interesting things.
Personally, I think they should reintroduce certain groups of uneeded-unwanted chimps back into the wild, gradually. Here's an experiment; can research chimps become prolific in central America if successfully reintroduced?

"the use of terrorism"?

By who where?

The T word seems to be thrown around pretty lightly these days. Damage property and your a terrorist.

The only things I recognize as terrorism are US wars in other countries anything else doesnt seem to live up that that name.

<<<Technology is driving health and prosperity. Without technology, we’d still be nothing but tree dwelling leopard food. Drugs and machines are good things. Sure, they can be used in bad ways, but so what? So can anything, including bare hands. On the whole, drugs and machines are an enormous boon to humanity. If you want to live without drugs and machines, get off the d*mn computer, you deplorable hypocrite, and go live a short, nasty, brutish life in a cave in the woods somewhere. We wont miss you one bit.>>>

No, nessie, you're the 'deplorable hypocrite'. If your brain was functioning, you might have realized my post was not to be taken seriously. But you did. In fact, you took it personally. Now take this personally; STFU!!! I never stated all technology was all bad. I never stated anything about living without drugs or tech or whatever. You constantly state people are 'putting words in my mouth' etc. You dogmatic hypocrite. On top of that, you are an absolutist, a very dim absolutist.

<<<Now you’re talking. Unless you are a trained scientist, currently working in the field, and 100% up to date, you have no business offering an opinion. Your opinion is worthless. You don’t know what you’re talking about.>>>

So is yours. My opinion was in your favor. Now my opinion is that you are ignorant beyond repair. Which leads nicely into.....

<<< “Reintroduced”!?! Your ignorance is appalling. Chimps are native to Africa.>>>

Seriously nessie, shut down your computer, walk out the door and go live somewhere where debating is forbidden and computers are the devil. Go back to the Loch Ness, dive in, sink to the bottom and stay there.
Your debating is precambrian. You can't even distinguish when people are on your side? Because you have the obsessive compulsion to posture and preen your menial debating tactics? Look jerk, I know where chimps come from, notice how I mentioned AFRICA in my post!!! I was actually posting my comments in favor of your argument how the ALF are misguided fools. Guess what? You're a misguided fool aswell, you're probably one of them. I seem to recall you stating that you *could* be the ALF in the Emeryville thread. What a joke. All I ask is that you don't use a bunch of these> to respond to this post because I'm not going to respond back. I know that's in vain, you'll come out espousing your feeble defense against your own feeble logic. It won't even be about the context of this debate, it will be about my syntax, line for line. There is finality here for me; even if nessie's argument makes sense, nessie's still a chump, because nessie has ridiculed someone who supported the basic idea in nessie's argument(that ALF are in the wrong). You, nessie, are also in the wrong. I would say you owe me an apology, but even if you did apologize, I wouldn't accept it, I wouldn't trust it as sincere.

FYI, nessie, in the beginning of all these debates I took a stance against you, mostly because your evangelical like fervor. Having sifted through the rhetoric, I extracted some wisdom in the rough. I began to see some of your points. If you want more people to follow this format, you might want to turn the volume down. Alot of people concerned with these issues are younger than you, you know this; 'before most of you peed in a pot'. Try toning it down, you are barking at less experienced people like a stark raving lunatic dog. I took your post against me personally because you quoted me, then responded totally out of context. You'll never gain more support for your various ideologies if you continue the superority complex charade. People need time and resources to gather facts and process information. They don't just wake up one day and say, 'ecoterrorism is always all bad' or, 'scientific research is always all bad'. People need time and experience to form solid positions on certain issues.
I posted against you harshly because you qouted me then flamed, without fully understanding where I am coming from. It should end there, but if it doesn't, I've made my point; ALF are not helping anybody with flaming explosives, you are not helping anybody with flaming posts. If it's not your intention to help people, then what is your intention?

Pain inflicted on anything for any reason doesn't fly...lame ass rationalizations of why we humans do the messed up things we do, all in the name of vanity, the search for immortality and sanity becuase we can't handle the truth that we're more than just large clumps of organic tissue with more purpose than just self indulgent bullshit. We forsake our Mother, our animal tribe and in doing so forsake ourself....just doesn't fly does it?

I understand that this is a heated debate. I research rodent neurology and I would just like to say I DO care for the animals I work with.
1. the animals are treated humanely (e.g. use of analgesics, anesthetics)
2. it is valid. i.e. we are contributing to human understanding
3. I care. e.g. I am here reading criticisims of animal testing to work out an appropriate ethical paradigm.

I just think the last thing anyone needs are reactionary and inflammatory comments. It just leads to irrational thinking. What I hope is that people think about both sides before attending a protest, or starting a flame war online.

I know their hearts are in the right place (as a medical researcher I really quite leterally do), but animal protesters should also think long and hard about the priorities of their targets. Most universities are heavily monitered for abusive activities. Whereas a much bleaker existence would be one of a farm animal or politician. Go protest the local abattoir or the poli-sci department (which may, in fact, be entirely similar).

Anyway, please don't hate me. I could care less, but it'll just bring you down.

you oppose paralyzed people being able to walk again someday:


http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=31503

New Tech Plugs Human Brain into Desktop PC

A Foxborough, Mass., company has developed technology that plugs a human brain into a desktop computer, the Chicago Sun-Times reported.

Cyberkinetics Neurotechnology Systems has developed BrainGate, a product aimed at enabling quadriplegics to do things like surf the Web, write e-mails, play video games and operate TV remotes and telephones just by thinking.

"We can take someone's thought and put it on a screen," said Tim Surgenor, chief executive of Cyberkinetics Neurotechnology Systems, manufacturer of the device, which is called BrainGate Neural Interface System.

BrainGate has already been tested on one person, and the Food and Drug Administration has given Cyberkinetics permission to test the technology on four other quadriplegics.

The system requires a surgeon to drill a hole in the patient's head and implant a chip Latest News about Chip on the surface of the brain area responsible for moving arms and hands.

that's your interpretation of the issue, and it's not as black and white as your little mind prefers to see it

you can oppose primate research and *still* want science to find a way to help the paralyzed walk again (just not by exploiting non-human primates on the way)

of course, there's also the logging companies that say if you're for saving trees than your against people (i.e. logging jobs). same false limitation of options in furtherance of the destructive status quo.

I pay taxes that fund the NIH and it's animal research. I'd say that gives me a say in how my tax dollars are spent.

Personally, I'd rather see that money be spent on universal healthcare today, for those who cannot even get basic medical care right now, rather than be spent on future cures for the well-insured developed on the backs of animals.

You'd rather my tax money go to research for the already well-insured, and we will disagree on that, but do not presume to tell me you have a right to decide where my money is spent and I do not.

(1.) There is are enough resources to provide everyone on *earth* with health care. They aren't going to research. They're going to war.

(2.) Research is *part* of healthcare. Without research there would be no treatments.

What, who, what, huh?? Anti-human! er, You have no right! er, Bunk logic! you proclaim

If anything is bunk logic, it's when you you write: "Research is *part* of healthcare" and then leap to the conclusion that "Without research there would be no treatments" in an absolute sense.

Obviously there is some truth to your point, research *is* a part of healthcare, but the bunk part is when you take that *part* and make it the whole -- "Without research there would be *no* treatments". You miss the distinction between basic healthcare and advanced medical treatments, as we *already* have a great deal of knowledge from research about basic healthcare that doesn't even reach everyone in this country, much less "everyone on earth". Oh, sure, in a perfect utopian world everyone on earth would have access to every last medical treatment ever thought of, but, come on now, that's pure fantasy talk. In there here and now, over 40 million people in the US can't even schedule a simple appointment with a doctor, and you presume that chimp paralysis research is the wisest way to spend our limited healthcare dollars and that such research is well on it's way to benefiting someone who can't even get anti-biotics or clean drinking water in Africa.

The wisest way to spend our limited healthcare dollars, is to not limit them in the first place, by squandering the money on war.