Categories
Bioethics Biology Medicine Science

The animal rights radicals may have overreached this time

Yesterday, I learned of how animal rights terrorists are targeting college students as the “soft underbelly of the vivisection movement.” As an example of their new strategy, these thugs gloated over the “recantation” by a Florida Atlantic University student named Alena Rodriguez, who, because of her e-mail to a Negotiation Is Over editor named Ghazal Tajalli rejecting her request to become involved in an animal rights event, was targeted for a campaign of intimidation, smears, and harassment. As a result, Rodriguez was sufficiently terrified that she basically gave the thugs what they wanted: An apology and statement promising not to do animal research. The animal rights loons at NIO had won using logic like this:

Or so it seemed to them.

Perhaps they should not be so confident. Their despicable and cowardly attacks on Rodriguez have mobilized support for her. Also, as Speaking of Research points out, students are not the easy targets that Camille Marino and Ghazal Tajalli apparently think that they are:

Though NIO may refer to students as the “Soft bellied target of the vivisection complex” who “can be shut down with relative ease,” they should study their history. In the winter of 2005, the ALF launched a campaign that targeted students at Oxford University in the UK, declaring them to be “legitimate targets”. Did the students bow to the threats and arson attacks on their facilities? Not a chance! The students responded by launching the Pro-Test movement in support of animal research, and gave the ALF a drubbing which helped to turn the tide against AR extremism in the UK. The hate and lies of the ALF were simply no match for the solidarity shown by students and scientists at Oxford.

Similarly, the extremists at NIO may claim one victory, but they fail to see how much dedication they create at the exact same time.

Moreover, NIO is apparently too deluded or fanatical to realize that threatening college students could backfire on them spectacularly. First off, if NIO ever directly harms a student, it is likely to cause far more revulsion in the very people that Marino and company think they can persuade. Second, such threats are likely to goad universities into action in a way that they haven’t been goaded in the past. As Earle Holland points out :

In recent years, universities have been moving away from a historic role of “in loco parentis,” where the institution served in lieu of parents far away. Students, as well as administrators, are more comfortable now with the notion that students are young adults.

But if Camille or others think that universities will stand idly by while animal rights activists abuse and harass their students, they are sorely mistaken. The fact that institutions have been reserved on this issue in the past isn’t evidence that they will allow acts against students.

Camille’s miscalculation may well awaken sleeping giants.

I certainly hope so. It is not clear how much support FAU has provided Alena. Perhaps it was not enough. Perhaps FAU has never faced a situation like this before. What NIO has done, however, should arouse university administrators at every university that does significant biomedical and biological research. NIO has revealed its hand, and that hand is wearing brass knuckles. Universities need to act now to protect their students before those brass knuckles are covered in blood.

ADDENDUM: Former ScienceBlogger Janet Stemwedel points out the vile nature of Camille Marino’s tactics.

By Orac

Orac is the nom de blog of a humble surgeon/scientist who has an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his copious verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few probably will. That surgeon is otherwise known as David Gorski.

That this particular surgeon has chosen his nom de blog based on a rather cranky and arrogant computer shaped like a clear box of blinking lights that he originally encountered when he became a fan of a 35 year old British SF television show whose special effects were renowned for their BBC/Doctor Who-style low budget look, but whose stories nonetheless resulted in some of the best, most innovative science fiction ever televised, should tell you nearly all that you need to know about Orac. (That, and the length of the preceding sentence.)

DISCLAIMER:: The various written meanderings here are the opinions of Orac and Orac alone, written on his own time. They should never be construed as representing the opinions of any other person or entity, especially Orac's cancer center, department of surgery, medical school, or university. Also note that Orac is nonpartisan; he is more than willing to criticize the statements of anyone, regardless of of political leanings, if that anyone advocates pseudoscience or quackery. Finally, medical commentary is not to be construed in any way as medical advice.

To contact Orac: [email protected]

361 replies on “The animal rights radicals may have overreached this time”

All this animal talk is making me hungry for some Vietnamese Pho with dog. Mmmmm.

Think that will be my lunch for today.

If NIO ever harms a student (or anyone else), they’re also up for legal action of a much more vigorous sort than vague threats of “direct action” would get them.

If there’s State line crossing involved (even in communication, which makes it almost certain), it’ll be Federal legal action, too. And then there are conspiracy charges. Hell, there might even be RICO Act stuff to throw at them.

The last thing they should ever want is to get the sort of attention that actually harming someone, but especially students will get them.

It’s a shame that the most vocal and visible animal rights groups always seem to be insane.
I would like to see a push for science based animal rights. As most people here I believe that animals should be treated as humanly as possible whilst using animals in the most efficient smallest number that will provide useful results and only in situations where the animal as a model has been shown to be accurate and reliable. I also support research to finding alternatives to animal testing.

It’s just so frustrating when you see these groups stating obvious falsehoods and claiming that its science. This also seems to happen in the environmental groups more than it should given that the evidence is already on their side.

It’s also fairly telling when you look at the numbers of animals used worldwide for testing and then compare it with the number that are exterminated, poached or eaten. Wish I still had the graph for that.

WHEN INJUSTICE BECOMES LAW..REBELLION BECOMES DUTY…BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY.

1) Less than 2% of human illnesses (1.16%) are ever seen in animals. Over 98% never affect animals.

2) According to the former scientific executive of Huntingdon Life Sciences, animal tests and human results agree “5%-25% of the time.”

3) Among the hundreds of techniques available instead of animal experiments, cell culture toxicology methods give accuracy rates of 80-85%

4) 92% of drugs passed by animal tests immediately fail when first tried on humans because they’re useless, dangerous or both.

5) The two most common illnesses in the Western world are lung cancer from smoking and heart disease. Neither can be reproduced in lab animals.

6) A 2004 survey of doctors in the UK showed that 83% wanted a independent scientific evaluation of whether animal experiments had relevance to human patients. Less than 1 in 4 (21%) had more confidence in animal tests than in non-animal methods.

7) Rats are 37% effective in identifying what causes cancer to humans – less use than guessing. The experimenters said: “we would have been better off to have tossed a coin.”

8. Rodents are the animals almost always used in cancer research. They never get carcinomas, the human form of cancer, which affects membranes (eg lung cancer). Their sarcomas affect bone and connective tissue: the two are completely different.

9) The results from animal tests are routinely altered radically by diet, light, noise, temperature, lab staff and bedding. Bedding differences caused cancer rates of over 90% and almost zero in the same strain of mice at different labs.

10)Sex differences among lab animals can cause contradictory results. This does not correspond with humans.

11) 75% of side effects identified in animals never occur.

12) Over half of side effects cannot be detected in lab animals.

13) Vioxx was shown to protect the heart of mice, dogs, monkeys and other lab animals. It was linked to heart attacks and strokes in up to 139,000 humans.

14) Genetically modified animals are not like humans. The mdx mouse is supposed to have muscular dystrophy, but the muscles regenerate with no treatment.

15) GM animal the CF- mouse never gets fluid infections in the lungs – the cause of death for 95% of human cystic fibrosis patients.

16) In America, 106,000 deaths a year are attributed to reactions to medical drugs.

17) Each year 2.1 million Americans are hospitalised by medical treatment.

18) In the UK an estimated 70,000 people are killed or severely disabled every year by unexpected reactions to drugs. All these drugs have passed animal tests.

19) In the UKs House Of Lords questions have been asked regarding why unexpected reactions to drugs (which passed animal tests) kill more people than cancer.

20) A German doctors’ congress concluded that 6% of fatal illnesses and 25% of organic illness are caused by medicines. All have been animal tested.

21) According to a thorough study, 88% of stillbirths are caused by drugs which passed animal tests.

22) 61% of birth defects were found to have the same cause.

23) 70% of drugs which cause human birth defects are safe in pregnant monkeys.

24) 78% of foetus-damaging chemicals can be detected by one non-animal test.

25) Thousands of safe products cause birth defects in lab animals – including water, several vitamins, vegetable oils, oxygen and drinking waters. Of more than 1000 substances dangerous in lab animals, over 97% are safe in humans.

26) One of the most common lifesaving operation (for ectopic pregnancies) was delayed 40 years by vivisection.

27) The great Dr Hadwen noted “had animal experiments been relied upon…humanity would have been robbed of this great blessing of anaesthesia.”

28) Aspirin fails animal tests, as do digitalis (heart drug), cancer drugs, insulin (which causes animal birth defects), penicillin and other safe medicines. They would be banned if vivisection were believed.

29) Blood transfusions were delayed 200 years by animal studies.

30) The polio vaccine was delayed 40 years by monkey tests.

31) 30 HIV vaccines, 33 spinal cord damage drugs, and over 700 treatments for stroke have been developed in animals. None work in humans.

32) Despite many Nobel prizes going to vivisectors, only 45% agree that animal experiments are crucial.

33) The Director of Research Defence Society, (which serves only to defend vivisection) was asked if medical progress could have been achieved without animal use. His written reply was “I am sure it could be.”

“First off, if NIO ever directly harms a student…”

… the public outry is likely to be so loud that we won’t need to do vivisection with animals anymore. We’ll have NIO members to practice on.

@sean michael

cite please. Otherwise it’s just crap.

sean michael:

Nice try with the Gish Gallop.

As Gray Falcon requested, please provide sources to support your claims.

Otherwise, they will be treated as spurious garbage.

Surgeons General claims that over 70% of disease is diet related. Humans continue to poison themselves and the environment. The side effects of our destructive lifestyle are cancer, diabetes, and other diseases. Instead of doing what’s logical, by eating healthy and cleaning up the environment, we continue to pump billions of tax payer dollars into research so the pharmaceutical industry can sell us drugs. Big pharma just wants to treat disease, not cure it.

It’s inexcusable that other species must suffer for our own negligence.

I tried, Sean. I really did.

3) Among the hundreds of techniques available instead of animal experiments, cell culture toxicology methods give accuracy rates of 80-85%

You don’t have the faintest clue what you are talking about, do you?

5) The two most common illnesses in the Western world are lung cancer from smoking and heart disease. Neither can be reproduced in lab animals.

Are these the “facts” you are talking about?

(Yes, I gave up. I would really like to see your sources as well – at least for those of your claims that aren’t purely anecdotal)

hahaha..citation for what?

Jesus christ.

He doesn’t even know what a citation is, does he?

If I could supply a name for every FACT would it make a difference?

Yes, then we could check them to see. You still haven’t given us any reason to trust you.

i’m not here to debate..

You posted a long series of claims. That’s like making catcalls at someone’s girlfriend and saying you weren’t looking for a fight.

just know..we’re done asking nicely, there’s more of us than you think, and we are watching EVERYTHING!

Just know this. There are those of us who believe in love and justice, and the wicked like Tajalli will not stand.

@#5 25)Thousands of safe products cause birth defects in lab animals – including water

How would you ever prove that?

Copy/pasting the first 3 points of Sean’s list into google brings up as the first hit an interesting (citation-free) PDF. You can see by clicking my name.

I wouldn’t ask Sean any specific questions for citations, as it seems likely that commenters who actually know how to think critically have read the list more closely than he has.

“there’s more of us than you think”

Good. We’ll need a decent sized pool. Do you breed well?

never post on blogs, and I never knew that was a rule in the “blogging community”

Well, when you do a dump of 33 different assertions and statements without any citations or sources to back them up and allow us to evaluate whether these statements have any scientific validity, expect to be called out for it. Please provide references for those 33 assertions.

If I could supply a name for every FACT would it make a difference?

It depends. Who cares who said these things? Opinions are like proverbial assholes, everybody has one. What I care about are facts, but those facts have to be backed up by science. So far, you haven’t been able to do that. All you’ve done is cut and paste a regurgitated list of quotes and factoids that very much resemble the regurgitated lists of quotes and factoids that creationists, anti-vaccine loons, anthropogenic global warming denialists, and all manner of other cranks like to vomit into discussions as though it’s compelling evidence.

i’m not here to debate..

That much is painfully obvious. If you are here to debate, you’re getting your ass kicked. Badly.

Clarification to #19: The list that Sean references is citation-free. There are, indeed, some citations elsewhere in the document.

Sean Michael,

So what are you proposing when you say “BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY” and “we’re done asking nicely”? Should we read those as threats of violence? Considering that threats of violence are criminal offences, should we be collecting evidence?

Just curious.

Oh, and in a science-based blog it’s well accepted that any claims should be backed up by evidence. Anecdotes are interesting, but may be misleading. Overly vague comments will tend to be challenged as well, as a very accurate and specific claim can be generalized to be entirely unsupportable.

Question: Is it possible to bring civil suit against someone for inciting violence? I’ve heard of similar things done to white supremacist groups.

@sean michael

i’m not here to debate..

You just stepped up to the plate, bat in hand, helmet on head, and took a few wild swings. When the umpire shouted “Strike three! You’re out!” you kicked dirt at him and said “I’m not here to play baseball!”

You just walked onto the track, ran for half a lap, fell flat on your face, and then told the laughing crowd “I’m not here to race!”

You just made a fool of yourself by blindly pasting unsolicited and unsubstantiated tripe, and when you got called on it you whined about how you’re not here to actually discuss the points and issues you brought forth.

What’s the matter, SM? Don’t have the brains, the guts, or the integrity to actually stand by your claims and attempt to change peoples minds? If you’re right you should be able to show everyone that you’re right.

Why can’t you?

If you’re truly out for justice, Mr. Micheal, why aren’t you in Bangkok, dealing with animal smugglers? Or Kenya, fighting poachers? Why are you only threatening college professors by proxy instead of taking on organized crime head on? What have you truly accomplished, Mr. Micheal?

i’m not here to debate..

No, you’re here to make asinine unsubstantiated claims to justify terrorism and then run away.

vivisectors are the TRUE terrorists!

And so another AR idiot tries to justify terrorism.

The worse part about groups like this and people like our esteemed troll Sean here. Is the topic gets painted as us vs. them.
When in reality most of my fellow scientists love animals and would like to see as little harm come to them as possible. How many of us got into the sciences due to our love of nature?

BTW, everyone, Dr. Jay thinks I’m “despicable” for posting the Mitchell and Webb clip above:

http://twitter.com/#!/JayGordonMDFAAP/status/53196602768232449

Of course, Dr. Jay doesn’t mention that I used that video in the context of castigating animal rights terrorists who intimidated a college girl into “recanting” through an abusive campaign of harassment and fear. Dr. Jay doesn’t mention any of that. Oh, no. He’s clutching his pearls over a comedy routine that mocks the logic of the animal rights loons by portraying a “human rights” activist getting ready to set a stuffed dog on fire.

Why do you hate young college students, Dr. Jay?

A quick run through Sean’s list reveals obvious irrelevancies and inaccuracies – like the one about “rodents never get carcinomas”.

Of course they do, and a cursory Google search will confirm it.

If animal research was as irrelevant and ineffective as Sean’s Gish-galloped list would indicate, then there’d be grounds for blasting scientists for employing it. If Sean exerted himself beyond cutting and pasting a list from an “anti-vivisectionist” web site, he could learn something important about the major contributions to human (and animal) health from such research – at the very least he’d obtain accurate information he could use to proselytize more effectively for his cause than he has done so far.

*YAWN*

killing and torturing animals is wrong anyway you look at it. I could careless if it’s in the name of science.

Could any of you inject a beagle puppy with harmful drugs??

I bet most of you couldn’t even sit in on a animal testing session without losing your fucking minds.

You guys just hide behind computers, and talk..and talk..and talk. How many of you have been to a pro-vivisection ralley? or a protest against people like me?? or a protest against the ALF??

none of you!! because you sit on blogs all day, and talk.

we know our targets, the rest of you are just toys.

He’s clutching his pearls over a comedy routine that mocks the logic of the animal rights loons by portraying a “human rights” activist getting ready to set a stuffed dog on fire.

and I see that he conveniently forgo to mention that it was a *stuffed* dog. Sounds a lot more like a dog whistle than a tweet to my ear.

Sigh. Should we prepare for company?

And, Mr. Michael, you have evidence of what we are? Or are you just blowing more smoke when it was revealed you are just a parrot doing a copy/paste of stuff you do not understand?

The general rule on a science blog is that you must support your claims, or it will be assumed you made them up out of thin air.

And we’ll keep talking, until you break. So, tell me, what have you truly accomplished, Mr. Micheal?

I bet most of you couldn’t even sit in on a animal testing session without losing your fucking minds.

And you base this on what experience?

we know our targets, the rest of you are just toys.

Exactly: you don’t care about morality, suffering, or any creature’s rights; all you care about is punishing, vilifying, and destroying others with impunity. Thanks for once again clarifying the ARAs’ mindset. You can fuck off to bed now.

Sean: Would I inject a beagle with dangerous drugs?

Absofuckinglutely. If it meant that I didn’t have to test that dangerous drug first on my grandmother who was suffering from cancer. Or my 4-year-old daughter.

What about you? Are you willing to risk your daughter’s life on a drug that wasn’t tested at all until it was given to a human being?

Your answer, I suspect, will be bullshit.

Just a suggestion; I wonder if these bullies would be willing to subject themselves to a test. I propose that groups of them tear themselves away from the picket line and draw the ultimate “moral line in the sand”, by their refusal to use any licensed medicine or medical procedure that was tested using animal models. Midnight raids on medical laboratories, refusal to wear leather, woolen and silk clothing and vegan diet is so passe. And, harassing medical students is tacky and criminal.

Just a few guidelines, no minors allowed, and no use of an analog of a medicine which was originally tested on laboratory animal models.

Now, if they would behave themselves and have some folks who really know how to read medical journals that are not available on the internet, they could go to a teaching hospital associated with State Universities, just like I did, years ago..before the internet. I think they would find that every modern medical procedure and surgery was researched using animal models.

The Physician’s Desk Reference (PDR) is available for purchase as well ($ 59.95 2011 edition) to see if any prescribed medication is available that meets their strict “moral line in the sand” criteria. Substitutes for animal tested before licensing medicines are available at homeopathy practitioners and at nutrition stores.

I guess the only medical procedure they would ever undergo is tooth extraction, with ether or chloroform…I don’t believe these anesthetics were tested on animals.

Why do you hate young college students, Dr. Jay?

Because they already know more than he does?

Sean Michael,
Is killing animals really wrong any way you look at it? Is it wrong to kill an elderly or seriously injured animal? Is it wrong to kill an animal in self defense? Is it wrong to kill an animal for food? Is it wrong to kill one by accident? Is it wrong to kill one that spreads disease? Is it wrong to kill one that has a history of biting people? Is there a lower size limit – is it OK to swat a fly, for instance, but not a newt? Or bacteria, mites, and fleas deserve protection from being killed by people?
If these things are wrong, exactly why is that?

@ilady,

Also, no hot air ballooning, either.

That was first tested on animals.

I am so tempted to feed the new troll and start playing catch with him. Must…resist…

OH he’s just so cute, I can’t resist!

“I bet most of you couldn’t even sit in on a animal testing session without losing your fucking minds.

“You guys just hide behind computers, and talk..and talk..and talk. How many of you have been to a pro-vivisection ralley? or a protest against people like me?? or a protest against the ALF??”

I have been LAT I at a teaching hospital. I have taken care of animals with electrodes sticking out of their skulls. I have helped with post-surgical monitoring. I sit on my University’s IACUC, so I review all the animal protocols that run through here. I will never forget seeing the biologist who walked the hallways cradling a post-surgery pigeon as if she were trying to rock a baby to sleep. I remember the one researcher who cut corners on rat surgery and was thrown out of the facility, with a warning sent to other facilities to refuse him space. I remember the investigation that incident sparked throughout the facility and the increased monitoring by the state.

I’ve done better then protested or attended rallies, I am the watchdog that prevents cruelty during testing.

@40…au contraire…ether and chloroform were definitely tested first on animals.

BTW: even nutraceuticals, cosmetics, and cosmeceuticals that claim to not have been tested on animals have had their ingredients tested on animals. Every single one of them. Ever since about 1938, I believe.

So, no vitamins, no face cream, no nothing.

Nor eye drops, or contact lens solution. What, you want to BLIND yourself by putting something in your eye that hasn’t been tested? (On nice fluffy bunnies, to be precise.)

I’m also curious about the code of ethics that declares killing an animal wrong “any way you look at it” but car bombs are OK.

to address a couple of things..

threats?? collect all the evidence you want. who did I threat?

troll?? not even close, this is fun for me. I knew what I was getting into when i posted on a science blog.

I’m a above ground activist I don’t get involved in anything illegal, but you can find me protesting in front of David Jentsch, and Edith London’s house once a month, or protesting at fortress investments which loaned HLS 60 million dollars. I can’t get any closer to front lines in the above ground movement WE ARE TAKING IT HEAD ON!

@gray..I made a threat against a professor?? please show me where that took place.

I bet most of you couldn’t even sit in on a animal testing session without losing your fucking minds.

And you base this on what experience?

we know our targets, the rest of you are just toys.

Exactly: you don’t care about morality, suffering, or any creature’s rights; all you care about is punishing, vilifying, and destroying others with impunity. Thanks for once again clarifying the ARAs’ mindset.

I bet most of you couldn’t even sit in on a animal testing session without losing your fucking minds.

I can and do so routinely. I think that your perception of animal testing involves only slicing and dicing (followed by evil cackling and hand rubbing…maybe some lightning for effects).

I hope for your sake then that you plan to never use any sort of medical advancement as many of them have first been tested on animals. I also hope you don’t have any little ALFers that are diabetic and rely on potentially animal-derived insulin (and as for recombinant insulin, E. coli is a living being too).

I hope you don’t vaccinate your cats against FLV or plan on getting a rabies vaccine if one of your furry friends bites you because those evil vaccines are tested on animals!!!!

@gray..I made a threat against a professor?? please show me where that took place.

You never even managed that? Well, then what have you managed to do?

troll?? not even close, this is fun for me. I knew what I was getting into when i posted on a science blog

Apparently you didn’t. If you’re having fun, you’re trolling. Perhaps you should actually look into what things mean before addressing them.

Oh, wait, I forgot. Not your style. That requires actually reading what’s before you, rather than just blindly copying and pasting it.

ether and chloroform were definitely tested first on animals

Perhaps you’d like to back this claim up.

@kevin,

so you would give something to your 4 year old girl, because it was tested on a dog?!?!?!

amazing.

and then you have to sue, because she dies. krama is a bitch.

and sorry if i’m not up to date on my online lingo, i thought a troll was somebody everybody picked on. like i said, i don’t hang out online talking shit…seems like you guys do this a lot.

nerds.

and then you have to sue, because she dies. krama is a bitch.

Which is why lifespan and infant mortality have dropped so much in the last century. No wait… they’ve improved significantly! Thank you, modern medicine! So, what have you got going for you?

Let me rephrase #56:
Which is why lifespan dropped and infant mortality has increased so much in the last century. No wait… it’s the other way around! Thank you, modern medicine! So, what have you got going for you?

The sad thing is there’s child rapists, and murderers sitting in prison right now who had the choice of taking the right or wrong path. If you want accurate test results test on criminals not animals.

threats?? collect all the evidence you want. who did I threat?

So the answer to my question “Should we read those as threats of violence?” is “no”. Thanks for the clarification.

Can you answer the question ‘So what are you proposing when you say “BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY” and “we’re done asking nicely”? ‘?

sean michael:

If you want accurate test results test on criminals not animals.

That has been done. There were also tests on disabled children (Willowbrook and elsewhere), plus poor black people. There is something called bio-ethics that you might want to actually read up on. Todd W. wrote a good historical summary, and a link to the Belmont report here <--- that is a link, click on it!

@ Kevin and Narad: Then there’s always 200 proof ethanol for tooth extraction…or psychic surgery…or faith healing.

@ Sean Michael: You have a “Teabag Party” in London…or is it a “Loose English Breakfast Tea Party”?

As most people here I believe that animals should be treated as humanly as possible whilst using animals in the most efficient smallest number that will provide useful results and only in situations where the animal as a model has been shown to be accurate and reliable. I also support research to finding alternatives to animal testing.

Err, how do you have this to show when you’re proposing to use animals, if you have to show it in order to use animals?

If you reformulated it in terms of requiring sound reasoning supporting the expected efficacy of the animal model in question, and a commitment to abandoning models that have been shown to be faulty in similar applications, this would make more sense.

But my understanding is that, at least in this country, those standards are in place pretty much across the board for animal research already.

@lilady,
I’m fairly sure that ethanol was tested on animals…

Which seems like such a waste.

“ANY MEANS NECESSARY” can mean a number of things, for me it means do whatever it takes as long as I follow the law, I can’t speak for the underground, because i don’t know any of them..nor do i want to, but let make this clear…THEY ARE THE TRUE HEROES OF OUR MOVEMENT.

sean: first you tried to tell us that animal testing was unreliable; now you’re saying we should test certain classes of humans instead? Do you have evidence that such testing would get us reliable results?

The stupidity of the ARAs is matched only by their dishonesty. And vastly exceeded by their uncontrollable bloodlust.

So, do you support them or not? And the true heroes of animal welfare include the people in China going after the gangs poaching endangered species for traditional medicine.

Question: Is it possible to bring civil suit against someone for inciting violence? I’ve heard of similar things done to white supremacist groups.

I’m not a lawyer, but as I understand it behavior that leaves a specific target credibly fearing immediate violence is a criminal offense.

So you, yourself, don’t break the law but you worship those who do.
Not judging, just clarifying.

Then there’s always 200 proof ethanol for tooth extraction…or psychic surgery…or faith healing.

Indeed. My point to Kevin was that general anesthesia was certainly discovered based on the human-reportable effects of the agents. I presume the stories of the “testing” of chloroform and nitrous oxide are similar to those surrounding ether.

@lilady,
FWIW, 200 proof ethanol typically contains harmful amounts of benzene since without it you can’t distill ethanol past about 190 proof (the ethanol and water vaporize at the same rate at that concentration, so the vapors are no more concentrated than the solution). Of course, there may be a means to produce high proof ethanol without distillation that I’m not aware of.

Okay sean.

Now tell us how you find a population of criminals that is largely clonal. Limiting genetic variability is extremely important.

Also, how do we make gene knockouts in criminals? How do we make transgenic criminals?

What you are proposing will destroy pretty much all modern developmental research. Mice are used because they are mammals that are actually genetically tractable.

and sorry if i’m not up to date on my online lingo, i thought a troll was somebody everybody picked on.

You’re totally unaware of what’s going on here right now, aren’t you?

like i said, i don’t hang out online talking shit…

No? I guess you’re actually hang gliding in the Alps right now, eh?

nerds.

Come on, Sean, grow some testicles, pump some testosterone, and be a man. Or at least go talk to some 25 year old deadbeat meatheads who still think they’re in the 6th grade. Get some real insults. What’s next? Going to call everyone “nancies”, “women”, or “ghey”? “Pencil neck geeks” is old enough to be cool again. Go on, you can do it, Sean. I know you can. Or just go back to your good old friend McGoogle there. After all, there are a lot of grade school calibur insults for you to plagiarize on the internet. You’re just a few more copy/pastes away from Awesometown, friend.

“ANY MEANS NECESSARY” can mean a number of things, for me it means do whatever it takes as long as I follow the law, I can’t speak for the underground, because i don’t know any of them..nor do i want to, but let make this clear…THEY ARE THE TRUE HEROES OF OUR MOVEMENT.

After all, it’s not illegal to incite others to violence. There’s nothing wrong with telling someone they’d BE A HERO if they threatened people you disagree with and their families.

You’re a coward, Sean, plain and simple. You can’t defend your ideas, you can’t defend your principles, but you’re willing to sacrifice the health and safety of those you disagree with and the freedom of a few unbalanced sociopaths (who you then offer up for medical testing, no less).

And for what? Some unsupported one liners you ripped off the internet?

Real nice, Sean. The underground’s got a real friend in you.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: