Outlaw all those painful experiments (From Worcester News)

This is just one of the myths put about by the animal rights crowd.

Animal experiments carried out over the years 1900-1916 gradually enabled transfusion to become the routine technique it is today. The idea that blood transfusions could have been successfully performed 200 years previously is nonsense, the necessary knowledge of the immune system and technological capability was just not there in the early 18th century.

Let's keep animal based research legal, and in the UK where it can be licenced properly.

Blood transfusions are an example of how experiments on other species lead to human deaths and delay medical progress.

Blood tranfusions were carried out in the 1600s, misleadingly successful dog-to-dog transfusions led to animal-to-human transfusions -

according to the Wellcome (Trust) Collection, in 1667 "physician Jean-Baptiste Denis gives blood from a lamb to a 15-year-old boy suffering from high fevers. Experiments are soon banned as patient deaths mount.".

According to the Institue of Biomedical Science Jean-Baptiste Denis "considered that transfusions "ought to be done with blood of the same species". However...he later rejected this policy in favour of using animal blood...resultant fatal reactions recorded by Denis led to the transfusion of blood to humans being prohibited...Thus, blood transfusion fell into disrepute and neglect for 148 years."

As regards the claim that animal experiments between 1900 and 1916 'enabled' transfusions to become routine, rather it is early 20th century breakthroughs that relied on technology and observation of humans not experiments on other species - such as the discovery of anticoagulants, blood preservatives, human blood groupings, compatibility assays - that enabled safe, successful and routine human transfusions.

Anyway though it matters not whether experiments on other species in past centuries have or have not contributed to medical progress - the question is whether they can be justified by scientific, fact-based evidence in the 21st century -

they cannot because today we know that each species is different at the cellular and molecular level, we know that it is not the number of genes in common that matters but the tiny, tiny genetic variations which are absolutely crucial even within the same species and so on.

To give just one example to illustrate the point - dog-to-dog transfusions were misleadingly successful because, unlike humans, dogs rarely have isoantibodies against other blood types...

so in the majority of cases cross-matching in dogs does not need to be done on the first transfusion...althou
gh due to sensitisation from the transfusion any subseqent need to be so matched.

Blood is not simply blood across species just as it isn't within species, dogs do not have the same blood group/types as humans nor do cats, the structure of the blood group antigens are different.

For more information on the crucial issue of medical progress and why experiments on other species are invalid and dangerously misleading for humans see
www.safermedicines.n
et

Apologies the link for scientific, fact-based evidence that animal experiments are invalid and dangerously misleading for humans is

www.safermedicines.o
rg

Safer Medicines Campaign is an independent patient safety organisation of doctors and scientists.

The blood transfusion argument against animal experiments is flawed because safe transfusions require knowledge of human blood groups.

Hence for this argument to have any weight it has to be **postulated** that the human blood groups that were first discovered by Karl Landsteiner in 1900 would have been discovered very much earlier had animal experiments not been conducted. And this is pure speculation.

The web site referenced by CatrinaC initially looks objective in calling for the animal testing issue to be properly researched but it soon becomes clear that it is pushing this from an an anti animal testing stance.

Which is a pity.

The blood transfusion argument against experimenting on other species 'because safe transfusions require knowledge of human blood groups' isn't flawed...

not least because other species simply don't have human blood groups and it required failed 'experiments' on humans, the study of humans and technology to discover them.

When considering the issue of animal experiments it is important to bear in mind that they didn't know the successful transfusion results from other species were entirely misleading for humans until AFTER failed transfusions IN HUMANS...

this is the way it is for all treatments/drugs, they simply do not, and due to immeasurably complex species' differences cannot, know until AFTER 'experimenting' on humans whether or not the results from the animal experiments apply to humans...

further though, because of tiny, tiny genetic variations between individual humans, even results from humans do not apply to all humans - a drug that 'works' in one human can be useless, or harmful and even fatal in another human.

We have been experimenting on other species for around 2000 years - it is, I feel, patently obvious that if over the last 2000 years, or last 500 years or even last 100 years, we had put as much time, effort and resources into studying humans as we have into studying other species, our medical knowledge of humans would be far, far, far more advanced than it is now.

It doesn't have to be postulated that human blood groups would have been discovered very much earlier had animal experiments not been conducted to show that experimenting on other species is scientifically flawed and gives dangerously misleading results for humans - our knowledge of genetics and simple observation show that.

However, it is, rather, for those who say animal experiments are 'necessary' etc to support their claim by providing a strong theoretical and evidence-based foundation for their claim...

they do not do that though, they can offer only emotional blackmail (eg 'your child's life or a rat's life') and appeals to authority - which are clearly not logical, scientific, fact-based arguments!

Anyway though, as I said before it matters not what happened in the past, what matters is whether experiments on other species can be scientifically justified in light of our knowledge now -

our knowledge now of genetics shows that we need scientific, human-relevant research/treatments with personalised medicines based on an individual's genetic makeup...not results from experiments on entirely different species.

Regarding the Safer Medicines website, yes they are anti-animal-testing on scientific, fact-based grounds -

as it says on the website "Safer Medicines Campaign is an independent patient safety organisation of doctors and scientists whose concern is whether animal testing, today, is more harmful than helpful to public health and safety. Our goal is to protect human health by promoting human-specific medical research.".

The fact that their goal is for human-relevant medical research is not 'a pity' as regards their call for an independent inquiry into the validity of animal testing -

the call is for an Independent inquiry, for a neutral, unbiased inquiry into the scientific facts and evidence...this means it can and should be supported by everyone genuinely concerned about safe, effective medical drugs/treaments for humans, regardless of whether they are pro or anti.

Also, that Safer Medicines is calling for such an inquiry shows they are willing to, that they are actively seeking to, have their arguments independently and publicly scrutinised, put their test, and in the public arena...

the pro-animal-testing lobby, however, continue to oppose an independent inquiry, are opposing an inquiry which would mean their arguments being independently and publicly scrutinised...ask yourselves why.

Btw, in 2002 the Lords Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures (Toxicology Working Group) recommended that “the reliability and relevance of all existing animal tests should be reviewed as a matter of urgency.”.

So, I urge everyone who wants safe, effective medicines/treatments to support the call for an independent inquiry, the link is

www.safermedicines.o
rg/edmform.shtml

Catrinac,

The claim by Pauline Burgers (PB) was that "blood transfusions were delayed more than 200 years because of misleading results of animal tests". PB evidently believes that safe human blood transfusions would have been possible in 1700 or earlier if experiments on animals had not been conducted.

It is this specific claim that I refute. In my view it is inconceivable that the knowledge needed for safe blood tranfusions in humans would have been found as early as 1700 irrespective of whether animal experiments had, or had not, been undertaken.

So I continue to see this argument as flawed and nothing you have said convinces me otherwise.

CatrinaC,

You ask why those who are pro animal testing might not want their case to be pubicly scrutinised. I can think of one good reason.

If I was a pro animal testing professional in this business, I think I would be against such an enquiry because it would put those who testify in favour of animal testing (and their families and friends) at very serious risk from the extremists in the animal rights lobby.

"The claim by Pauline Burgers...It is this specific claim that I refute"

Apologies, i thought you were referring to my subsequent post.

"In my view it is inconceivable that the knowledge needed for safe blood tranfusions in humans would have been found as early as 1700 irrespective of whether animal experiments had, or had not, been undertaken. So I continue to see this argument as flawed and nothing you have said convinces me otherwise"

Leaving aside that specific argument would you agree that if the resources put into experimenting on other species over the last 2000 years had instead been put into studying humans, our medical knowledge of humans would be far, far more advanced than it is now?

Do you support the call for an independent, transparent inquiry into the scientific validity of testing on other species?

"You ask why..."

Any such argument against the inquiry is easily countered though, for example...

the RDS exists specifically and solely to promote/defend animal experiments, so, obviously, does have pro-animal-testing professionals who are not afraid to 'testify' in the public domain...

the names of many such people are already widely known in the public domain via them happily appearing in the media...so clearly they are not afraid to 'testify' in the public domain...

the group Pro-test has pictures and names of pro-animal-testing professions on its website and some of its members court the media for publicity - so clearly they are not afraid to testify in the public domain...

and of course if anyone wants the names of pro-animal-testing professionals they need only do a quick search on the net!

As a last resort - if, mysteriously, none of the usual pro-animal-testing lobby were able to make themselves available to have their claims scutinised in an independent, transparent inquiry...then pro-animal-testing professionals could give their evidence anonymously...

the point of an independent inquiry would be to scutinise the scientific validity of their arguments...

and that's what they are really afraid of.

CatrinaC: "Leaving aside that specific argument would you agree that if the resources put into experimenting on other species over the last 2000 years had instead been put into studying humans, our medical knowledge of humans would be far, far more advanced than it is now?"

No, I am afraid that I don't agree with this.

For example, one of the most important advances over the past 100 years has been our understanding of genetics. This offers the prospects of major advances in human medicene.

But we wouldn't be where we are now on genetics had Gregor Mendel not experimented on pea plants. And countless millions of fruit flies have died in order that we understand how genes work.

The need to study genetic effects over many generations has made it necessary to use species, such as fruit flies, with short lives.

With one human generation every 20 years or so compared with a few days for fruit flies, it would have taken millions of years to develop this knowledge had we restricted our research to our own species.

Moreover, where another species attacks the human species (mosquitos for example), I am doubtful that we can always mount an effective defence without experimenting on this species.

Of course I am assuming here that you would wish to ban experiments on plant and insect species as well as animal species.

So I don't think that simplistic arguments work well here. I don't think we can ban _all_ forms of experimentaation on _all_ living species. In my view we have to be more specific about what sorts of experimentation are ethical and what are not. Which is where we are now.

However, I am inclined to think that some forms of experimetation that we now allow should not be allowed. But I would be strongly against an absolute 'unthinking' ban on all experimentation on all other species. If I accept a ban on animal experiments, which I might be persuaded to support, would I then be hypocritical in not extending this ban to insect and plant species?

You ask if I would support an independent inquiry. My inclination would be to say 'yes' but I am not as confident as you are that this would not be adversely affected by the antics of the animal rights extremists.

Sadly we are being forced to spend hundreds of millions of pounds to defend democratic decisions on animal testing in the face of the criminal actions of a few extermists in the animal rights lobby. I would much prefer _this_ money to be spent on an open public inquiry but I don't have this choice.

Sadly it is the criminal antics of animal rights extremists that have led me to take a mildly pro-testing stance on _animal_ testing when I might otherwise have been persuaded that a ban was desirable.

"For example, one of the most important advances over the past 100 years has been our understanding of genetics. This offers the prospects of major advances in human medicene."

I agree, but, as with all advances, our understanding has relied NOT on experiments on other species but on study of humans and technology.

"But we wouldn't be where we are now on genetics had Gregor Mendel not experimented on pea plants."

Medel happened to notice something that was already all around, ie evidence of heredity factors - and if we had been putting resources into studying humans the same observations would have been obvious.

We didn't *need* to experiment on pea plants to notice heredity factors but no-one was studying humans, in all likelihood the heredity influences would have been obvious far, far sooner HAD we been studying humans.

"And countless millions of fruit flies have died in order that we understand how genes work."

Well they've died but remember how a few years ago those who had been experimenting on other species were confidently claiming humans had around 100,000 genes? They hadn't 'understood' at all how genes work from their experiments on other species!

"With one human generation every 20 years or so compared with a few days for fruit flies, it would have taken millions of years to develop this knowledge had we restricted our research to our own species."

As above though, millions of dead fruit flies Didn't give them an understanding of how genes work, the very fact that fruit flies have far, far shorter lifespans that humans shows their genes are simply not working as ours are - and this is the crux of the issue, it is the arrangment of genetic material that makes all the difference, I'll give a very brief explanation on a separate post tomorrow (sorry delay, in a rush this evening).

"Moreover, where another species attacks the human species (mosquitos for example), I am doubtful that we can always mount an effective defence without experimenting on this species"

Around a million people are still dying each year from maleria so, despite all the experiments on other species, despite around 2000 years experimenting on other species, we still don't have 'an effective defence'.

Interestingly, humans with the sickle cell or thalassaemia traits have far greater immunity to malaria, if we studied humans this could have been noticed far sooner and perhaps to greater effect.

"Of course I am assuming here that you would wish to ban experiments on plant and insect species as well as animal species"

I wouldn't ban experiments on plants but would on insects - humans of course are neither!

"So I don't think that simplistic arguments work well here. I don't think we can ban _all_ forms of experimentaation on _all_ living species. In my view we have to be more specific about what sorts of experimentation are ethical and what are not. Which is where we are now"

We need to establish any scientific validity before any decisions re ethics. It is pointless making such ethical decisions when we haven't even established whether or not experiments on other species are scientifically valid for humans - which is why we need the independent, transparent inquiry.

"However...I would be strongly against an absolute 'unthinking' ban on all experimentation on all other species."

To say that though you are assuming there IS a strong theoretical and evidence-based foundation to support your claim...please do enlighten us if you know of any such foundation...the usual pro-animal-experimen
ts lobby never tell us of any such :)

"If I accept a ban on animal experiments, which I might be persuaded to support, would I then be hypocritical in not extending this ban to insect and plant species?"

Morally - it Would be hypocritical not to ban experiments on insect species but it wouldn't be hypocritical not to ban experiments on plant species. Scientifically - the same.

"You ask if I would support an independent inquiry. My inclination would be to say 'yes' but I am not as confident as you are that this would not be adversely affected by the antics of the animal rights extremists"

Think about it though, if they want to 'do something' they don't have to wait around for an inquiry and there is simply no reason for anyone anti-animal-testing/
experiments to disrupt such an inquiry - it would be an unprecedented opportunity for the public to hear the facts (rather than pro propaganda), getting the hard facts into the public domain is something ARAs very, very much want and would very, very much welcome.

"Sadly we are being forced to spend hundreds of millions of pounds to defend democratic decisions on animal testing in the face of the criminal actions of a few extermists in the animal rights lobby."

Hmmmm - 'democratic decisions'? Hardly fitting the ideological viewpoint of those who call themselves 'anarchists'! Anyway, as the scientific validity of experimenting on other species for human medical research has never been independently scrutinised/evaluate
d any such decisions can hardly be called 'democratic' - all else aside we'd need the hard facts in the public domain before we could call any decisions on animal experiments 'democratic'.

"I would much prefer _this_ money to be spent on an open public inquiry but I don't have this choice."

Think though of all the billions and billions and billions that have already been spent, and continue to be spent, on experiments on other species - surely it is ridiculous and unthinkable to continue to spend all that money, and input all the resources, without independent evaluation of scientific evidence as to validity of same?

"Sadly it is the criminal antics of animal rights extremists that have led me to take a mildly pro-testing stance on _animal_ testing when I might otherwise have been persuaded that a ban was desirable."

That is an illogical position though, although I appreciate at least you recognise you are so influenced - many do not seem to, in fact many seem more interested in being anti-AR than they are in having safe/effective treatments/cures for humans.

I would say that the issue of medical research, of safe/effective treatments/cures for humans, is of such crucial importance to us all that people need to face up to whether they would Really rather be anti-AR than be pro-safe/effective cures for humans.

"Medel happened to notice something that was already all around, ie evidence of heredity factors - and if we had been putting resources into studying humans the same observations would have been obvious."

Mendel noticed patterns of inheritance and went on to _experiment_ in order to define these patterns in more detail.

This is absolute factual evidence of how our initial knowledge of genetics was obtained. To then say that we would have obtained this knowledge much earlier had we studied human inheritance alone is PURE SPECULATION.

""And countless millions of fruit flies have died in order that we understand how genes work."

Well they've died but remember how a few years ago those who had been experimenting on other species were confidently claiming humans had around 100,000 genes? They hadn't 'understood' at all how genes work from their experiments on other species!"

Our knowledge of how genes work has been obtained by studying many species. And some of this research has certainly involved experimentation. To discount the value of this research for humans is bizarre. We are evidently not going to agree on this.

"I wouldn't ban experiments on plants but would on insects - humans of course are neither!"

Some people believe plants have emotions and feel pain so why allow experiments on plants?

"We need to establish any scientific validity before any decisions re ethics. It is pointless making such ethical decisions when we haven't even established whether or not experiments on other species are scientifically valid for humans.

I believe that the validity of knowledge gained from experiments on other living species for the human species is beyond doubt. Again we are not going to agree on this.

" "However...I would be strongly against an absolute 'unthinking' ban on all experimentation on all other species."

To say that though you are assuming there IS a strong theoretical and evidence-based foundation to support your claim"

This is not a claim, it is my position based on the evidence as I see it.

"please do enlighten us if you know of any such foundation...the usual pro-animal-experimen

ts lobby never tell us of any such."

All you have done in the face of such evidence is to SPECULATE that we might have discovered the knowledge in question in some other way. In my view, this denial of reality does not help your cause.

" "Sadly it is the criminal antics of animal rights extremists that have led me to take a mildly pro-testing stance on _animal_ testing when I might otherwise have been persuaded that a ban was desirable."

That is an illogical position though, although I appreciate at least you recognise you are so influenced."

I can assure you that it is not illogical from my perspective. When logical argument is replaced by physical violence and mindless criminal intimidation, I see that some in the animal rights movement accept that logical arguments alone are not sufficient to achieve their aims. In consequence I feel the need to support those who are pro animal testing even if I don't fully accept all their arguments.

"Mendel noticed patterns of inheritance...To then say that we would have obtained this knowledge much earlier had we studied human inheritance alone is PURE SPECULATION."

It's blindingly obvious, it anyway cannot have been a 'new' idea, and also of course his 'discovery' was in plants not as a result of experimeting on animals.

"Our knowledge of how genes work has been obtained by studying many species."

So why from their experiments on other species were they claiming that humans have around 100,000 genes? I'll explain re genes in a following post.

"Some people believe plants have emotions and feel pain so why allow experiments on plants?"

Because there is no strong theoretical nor biological, fact-based evidence to support that plants are sentient.

"I believe that the validity of knowledge gained from experiments on other living species for the human species is beyond doubt."

I can see you do believe it but the question is WHY do you believe it? Is your belief properly based on a strong theoretical and evidence-based foundation - and if so please share it with us! - or do you believe it purely because the 'establishment' says it is true? I'll explain in the next post why it isn't true.

"This is not a claim, it is my position based on the evidence as I see it."

Please tell us though exactly what actual evidence has so convinced you.

"All you have done in the face of such evidence is to SPECULATE that we might have discovered the knowledge in question in some other way."

In the fact of what evidence? We know we have been experimenting on animals for around 2000 years but that - that 'x' did 'y' - does not of itself prove anything, does not explain nor prove any causal link to outcome 'c'. (Or, that all vivisectors wore clothes ('x' did 'y') does not Prove any causal link between wearing clothes and outcome 'c'.)

Those who support experiments on animals need to explain and prove what is the causal link to support their claims.

Remember that after all the time and resources wasted on studying other species it is ALWAYS upon humans that drugs/treatments are actually tested...

because they NEVER know if the previous results from other species will or will not Predict effects in humans...they can never know either way until AFTER they've 'experimented' on humans.

"I can assure you that it is not illogical from my perspective."

Hmmmm...I wonder if you would have thought it logical if someone had said to you 'I'm going to support apartheid because I don't like Mandela/Spear of the Nation'.

"When logical argument is replaced by physical violence and mindless criminal intimidation, I see that some in the animal rights movement accept that logical arguments alone are not sufficient to achieve their aims."

Unfortunately, as history shows us, it is true that logical arguments alone are not sufficient to achieve aims when those aims are against the vested-interests of the wealthy/powerful - as 'anarchist' you should know this ;) As with the inquiry the 'establishment', those with wealth/power, dictates what 'arguments' are in the public domain, ie their own.

"In consequence I feel the need to support those who are pro animal testing even if I don't fully accept all their arguments."

I ask you though, did you similarly support apartheid because Mandela/Spear of the Nation 'resorted' to criminal acts and strategic violence? Would you have similarly opposed suffrage for women because the suffragettes 'resorted' to criminal acts and strategic violence?

As it is late, and because this explanation is better than I could put it!, I'm going to paste the info - some very brief info - re genes, happy to discuss any points -

"Genes, the basic units of inheritance, which determine an organism’s characteristics, are composed of DNA....

DNA is a nucleic acid sequence composed of phosphate, a sugar called deoxyribose, and compounds called bases.

There are four different bases - adenine (A), guanine (G), thymine (T), and cytosine (C).

A always pairs with T, and G always pairs with C....

all species, from insects to humans, plants and animals, follow the same design; not only are they formed from the same DNA units (A, T, C, and G), they are also assembled using the same process.

But while all plant and animal species share the same genetic material, it is the composition, or arrangement, of this genetic material that makes all the difference....

Genes can be divided into structural and regulatory genes. The structural genes...are responsible for building the proteins the body is made of. The regulatory genes turn the structural genes on and off, thus affecting the development of the embryo and the organism, as well as the physiology of the organism....

In the human genome alone there exist 3.2 billion DNA base pairs -- GC and AT combinations. There is a lot of potential for variability there. These three billion base pairs are segregated into 30,000 or so genes, and each gene is a code or recipe for a specific protein made of amino acids. The individual proteins may be from as few as several amino acids in length to as many as hundreds....

So, whereas all plant and animal species share much of the same genetic material, it is the vast composition, or arrangement, and switching on and off of this genetic material that makes all the difference....

Very small differences on the cellular and subcellular levels translate into huge differences on the gross or macroscopic level....

It is not just between species, but also within species that small differences present huge discrepancies....(Sp
ecious Science - How Genetics and Evolution Reveal Why Medical Research on Animals Harms Humans, R Greek MD, 2002)

So, having very briefly outlined re genes the following is a brief outline of the basis of the scientific case against, these facts show why animal testing is pseudoscience and dangerously misleading for humans - I'm happy to discuss any points -

- each species is defined by its reproductive isolation due to its unique genetic make-up

- this determines all biological activities of individuals of that species

- each species is, has evolved to be, different at the cellular and molecular level, which is where disease occurs

- this means no species can stand as a reliable biological model for another species, no matter how close both species may be in evolutionary terms.

- sometimes two species might happen to display comparable biological reactions but, equally, also sometimes display entirely different, even opposite reactions....

- BUT it is impossible to know if the effects do or don't correspond until AFTER testing on both species....but of course, once you have so tested on the target species (humans) anyway, the testing on the other species was pointless and the results are irrelevant

- causal/functional asymmetry - we can infer differences in causal properties from differences in functional properties but we cannot infer similarity of causal properties from similarity of functional
properties

- the evidence, statistical and hard, documented evidence, shows that animal testing does NOT Predict effects in humans

- further, due to the tiny, tiny genetic variations between individuals within a species, even the results from humans cannot be scientifically/safel
y applied to other humans (so how can they possibly be doing so from other species to humans?)

- they cannot take the results from human adults and scientifically/safel
y apply them to human children, biologically human children are not just small human adults

Also, see genetic variations between humans -
Pharmacogenetics: ethical problems and solutions
http://www.nature.co
m/cgi-taf/DynaPage.t
af?file=/nrg/journal
/v5/n9/full/nrg1431_
fs.html

This quote concisely sums it up -

"No species can stand as a reliable model for another species, however close
in evolutionary terms.

The reasoning is logical: the biological activities of the individuals of a given species are UNIQUE, because these activities are fully controlled by the unique make-up of each species...

the very definition of a species being its reproductive isolation."
(Dr Claude Reiss, President, Doctors and Lawyers for Responsible Medicine)

And the following quote says it all! -

"The vast majority of drugs - more than 90 per cent - only work in 30 or 50 per cent of the people," (Dr Roses, then-head of genetics at GSK, 2003)

The reason more than 90% of drugs DON'T work in 50%-70% of the people is tiny, tiny genetic variations between humans - it's why we need scientific, human-relevant research and individually tailored drugs/treatments...n
ot experiments on completely different species.

anarchist:
"I believe that the validity of knowledge gained from experiments on other living species for the human species is beyond doubt."

CatC:
Please tell us though exactly what actual evidence has so convinced you.

As far as I can see I am wasting my time in answering this question since you either ignore the answer when I give it or make purely speculative claims that the knowledge could have been found in some other way.

But I repeat: our knowledge of genetics has been obtained by studying and experimenting on many different species (two examples of many: pea plants and fruit flies).

This is an objective fact but because it does not suit your case you simply ignore it and speculate that it might have been obtained in some other way. It might have, but it wasn't, it _was_ obtained in part by experimenting on other species.

Nobody believes that any other species is a reliable model for the human species but a model doesn't need to be completely reliable to be useful.

Some knowledge applies across different species and some does not and this meaans that where we are confident that some aspect of medicine is common to different species we caan use experiments across species to increase our confidence in the correctness of our knowledge. It doesn't have to be perfect to be useful in such circumstances. Of course, this does not mean that it is invariably ethical to do this.

To give an extreme example, if we knew nothing about blood, we could discover that animals died when their blood was removed and this knowledge _would_ be applicable to humans.

"Unfortunately, as history shows us, it is true that logical arguments alone are not sufficient to achieve aims when those aims are against the vested-interests of the wealthy/powerful"

So are you condoning (or supporting through silence) the criminal actions of the animal right extremists?

For myself there is a world of difference between civil disobedience, which targets the government, and the deliberate, criminal intimidation of individuals who are acting within the law.

Had the protests been restricted to civil disobedience I would not take the view I do. But once a subgroup of the animal rights movement targets individuals rather than the government (e.g. digging up bodies and creating great distress for individuals), I then see the need to show solidarity with those who are being targeted in this way.

I use the pseudonym 'anachist' primarily because I object to the 'database state' and I will willingly get involved in civil disobedience in support of this cause. But I will never act against individuals and I will strongly disown anyone who does so in the name of this cause.

"CatC - Please tell us though exactly what actual evidence has so convinced you.

anarchist - As far as I can see I am wasting my time in answering this question since you either ignore the answer when I give it or make purely speculative claims that the knowledge could have been found in some other way. ...But I repeat: our knowledge of genetics has been obtained by studying and experimenting on many different species (two examples of many: pea plants and fruit flies)."

It isn't that I'm ignoring your answer, you just haven't answered the question - you are simply making a statement without providing any theoretical basis nor evidence to support that experiments on other species are valid for humans, you have not explained any causal link upon which your claim is based.

For example, I could say 'our knowledge of genetics has been obtained by advances in technology and studying humans (two examples, electron microscope and Huntingdon's disease research)".

We could keep exchanging such statements just as we could exchange versions of numerous medical discoveries but what is the point? Such statements are not scientific theory nor evidence, they are just statments, unsupported by any theory nor evidence of causal links.

What both pro and anti need to provide is a theoretical and evidence-based foundation to support their claims - if anyone objectively scrutinises the pro-lobby claims they will see that all the claims are nothing more than emotional blackmail and unsupported statements.

This is why we need an independent, transparent inquiry, so same can be evaluated, scrutinised and so the public can hear the actual facts. Merely making statements as the pro-lobby do is not good enough, the issue is too important to us all.

I have briefly outlined same for the case against, ie why experiments on other species cannot be and are not valid for humans - can you provide any theoretical and evidence-based foundation to substantiate the pro claims...

and/or can you dispute any of the points in the case I set out?

Oops, hit 'add comment' too quickly, to answer the rest of your post -

"To give an extreme example, if we knew nothing about blood, we could discover that animals died when their blood was removed and this knowledge _would_ be applicable to humans."

Well no, not without a theory that blood was so necessary to sustain life - the CONCEPT is needed and having that concept no need to experiment on dogs at all, humans have been dying of blood loss since the beginning of...well humans, simple observation and autopsy would, with the concept, shown that, and think of the untold battlefields, which is in fact from where much of our medical knowledge has been gained.

Anyway though, just one example of why the the 'common across all species' argument not only fails but is a dangerous assumption to make - because most animals synthesize vitamin C it would be thought that knowledge was applicable to humans - but it isn't, humans don't.

It is similarly dangerous to assume common WITHIN species because tiny, tiny, tiny genetic variations between individual humans mean a drug which helps one can harm or even kill another...with our knowledge of this experimenting on other species, the 'one size fits all' approach, is scientifically, and morally (for humans and the animals), untenable.

"So are you condoning (or supporting through silence) the criminal actions of the animal right extremists?"

I kinda think the public prefer those involved being targeted rather than general targeting, but anyway have you ever considered this in it's true context ie that they are not the Originators of the violence, they are RESPONDING to the violence being deliberately and systematically perpetrated against million upon millions of innocent and defenceless sentient individuals?

(I would ask why you are inconsistent in your attitude towards violence (ok against group x but not ok against group y) but I'd rather we stayed with the scientific aspect because that is a matter of evidence not viewpoint.)

"I use the pseudonym 'anachist' primarily because I object to the 'database state'"

Something we agree on, I wholeheartedly share your obection.

I am not going to continue this debate since, from what you have said, it is possible that you actually support the violence and intimidation carried out by animal rights extremists.

Hmmmm...I specifically asked that we stick to discussing the scientific arguments...and you reply with the self-same tactic used by the pro-vivisection lobby to avoid discussing the scientific arguments

anti - let's discuss the scientific arguments

pro - agghhhh, shriek, 'extremists, extremists, extremists, extremists, extremists'.

anti - let's have an independent, transparent inquiry to evaluate the scientific arguments for and against and put the facts in the public domain

pro - agghhh, shriek, 'extremists, extremists, extremists, extremists, extremists'

I'm sure the public sees through the hypocrisy of those who support the deliberate, systematic infliction of violence on innocent and defenceless sentient animals BUT then pretend to occupy the moral high ground by claiming to be against violence!

For anyone objective who might be reading this comment board I'll end by debunking the pro-vivisection myth re thalidomide...

The pro-animal-testing lobby claim that the tradgedy caused by the drug thalidomide, over 10,000 human birth deformities, Couldn't have been predicted because at the time the drug hadn't been, and wasn't required to be, tested specifically for birth defects.

They tell the public thalidomide is an example of how we need more animal testing.

However, what the pro-animal-testing lobby conveniently don't tell the public is that the drug has toxic effects on the human nervous system - it caused peripheral neuritis in around 40,000 people taking it (it was orginally marketed as a sedative).

Peripheral neuritis is a serious illness which can occur thoughout the body, for example prickly sensations, numbness, muscular cramps, weakness and lack of co-ordination. Although some symptoms might improve or completely go when the user stops taking the drug much damage to the nervous system is irreversible.

The experiments on animals, on different species, did NOT predict this effect in humans and nor could the effects be replicated in animals AFTER it was known to have this effect in humans.

So, thalidomide was allowed onto the market and caused thousands of people to suffer peripheral neuritis and thousands of birth deformities BECAUSE the results from experiments on other species were invalid and dangerously misleading for humans.

I urge everyone who is more concerned about safe and effective drugs/treatments for humans than about being anti-animal rights to please support the campaign for an independent, transparent inquiry

www.safermedicines.o
rg