ANIMAL RESEARCH T A K E S LIVES
- Humans and Animals BOTH Suffer
<< previous page | next page >>
contents | Chapter 10 index | index
The author has demonstrated extensively, with logically presented medical evidence, much of which is taken from Hans Ruesch's One Thousand Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection, that the use of cats, dogs (and other animals) retards the objective of experiments. That the animal researcher, frustrated and unable to apply to the human circumstance the information acquired in his vivisection laboratory, eventually, (if his goal is medical progress as distinct from financial gain) changes direction towards human investigation and observation. This evidence indicates that the unsubstantiated claims of ARSL are contrived to boost the publishers' credibility as the public begins to realise that vivisection is a fraud which threatens their health and well-being.
|Professor Henry J. Bigelow, Professor of Surgery at Harvard University:|
"Any person who had to endure certain experiments carried out on animals which perish slowly in the laboratories would regard death by burning at the stake as a happy deliverance. Like everyone else in my profession, I used to be of the opinion that we owe nearly all our knowledge of medical and surgical science to animal experiments. Today I know that precisely the opposite is the case, in surgery especially, they are of no help to the practitioner, indeed he is often led astray by them."
(Hans Ruesch, One Thousand Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection.)
In section Heart Surgery, this Chapter, is recorded the scientific differences between man and his best friend, but for the benefit of ARSL's producers we elaborate further:
(Courtesy of Hans Ruesch in Slaughter of the Innocent):
Even Great Britain, the bastion of vivisection, refuses to allow surgical trainees to try their manipulatory skills on dogs... because to do so blunts their sensitivity for operations on their own species.
The Austrian Ministry of Science has banned ALL experiments using dogs.
(PeTA News, Vol. 7, No. 4.)
Despite the evidence cited, which is a mere fragment of that at fingertips, breeders, dealers in stolen/lost pets, the manufacturers of the vast array of essential paraphernalia, (listed in Chapter 1 - The Vivisection Industry), all of whom have their fingers in the vivisection pie, and last but not least the vivisectors, continue to uphold the torture of dogs, ostensibly in the glorification of human advancement, but in reality for the advancement of their affairs. And they are willingly aided and abetted by the politicians who refuse to consider legal petitions to abolish vivisection, the news-media which has insufficient space to report abolitionists' activities and twists the facts on the rare occasions that it does, or insufficient time to report on our television screens NZAVS campaigns, though it has sent crews to film them, and others, like the respectable and stolid librarians who "lose", "fail to locate", or "have no remembrance" of receiving abolitionist material, which, though donated to the public and not to the library censors, seldom finds its way to the library shelves. Without a single exception all the above share complicity in the perversion of experiments like the following two examples, which, inconceivable as they may appear to the innocent reader, are no exception from the rule but merely routine workouts in the everyday life of your friendly vivisector who carries them out in your name... and with your money.
1. VIVISECTION OF DOGS IN STUDIES OF THE AGONY OF CHRIST ON THE CROSS
On May 9 1988, Turin's daily Stampa Sera scooped the entire Italian press with a front page story titled: "They are Experimenting on Dogs the Passion of Christ. Doctors and Experts Want to Demonstrate that the Holy Shroud was Stained During Resurrection."
With neither the space nor the inclination to reproduce all the details, the author of a book on the studies of Catholic scholars believe that the Holy Shroud was stained by blood issued from Christ's body during his resurrection and not immediately after his death. "Such blood", he claimed, "would have contained a much higher number of red corpuscles than normal blood". Hence the necessity to demonstrate, through experiments (not on each other of course) on dogs, that it could circulate and stain the Holy Shroud. Consequently at a secret location, the God-fearing vivisectors set out to reproduce the passion and resurrection of Jesus Christ on five unfortunate dogs. The vivisectors were respected clinicians of the Catholic University: Prof. Paolo Pola, titular of the Chair of Angiology (blood vessels) and Dr Augusto Borzone, of the Institute of Clinical Surgery. A Jesuit father, Domenico Chianella who was in touch with the vivisectors said in an interview with the weekly Gente in November 1987:
"The fundamental and unequivocal proof that the blood on the Holy Shroud is not the blood of the dying Jesus comes from the precise and incontrovertible physical law called lyperfibronilitical syndrome, which appears when a living being suffers intensely from a grave and multiple trauma, in which case the blood fails to coagulate. Knowing in what condition Christ died on the cross, after a long passion, the terrible flagellation and ritual of crucifixion, it can be assumed with certainty that His body contained abundantly all the premises that lead to a very grave and irreversible hyperfibrinolitic syndrome, absolutely impeding his blood to coagulate."
One thing all parties were mutually agreed upon however was that the success of the experiment depended on the intense suffering of the dogs, for only that could reproduce the condition in which Jesus Christ was during the crucifixion.
The reader who is put in a dilemma by the sheer insanity of these goings-on behind the scenes is in good company. The mighty Ruesch himself subsequently admitted that the Preface of One Thousand Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection, being sectionalised under seven headings: Historical, Medical, Sociological, Religious, Legal, Psychopathic and Mercenary, he had been in a dilemma as to which heading this experiment should go under. Finally, deciding the experiment was a mixed bag producing a script which would discredit any fiction writer as having turned mad and addle-brained, he decided on the Psychopathic section, where it can be found on page 21.
2. VIVISECTION OF DOGS IN STUDIES OF THE HOLE IN THE OZONE LAYER
Sponsored by ICI, and involving no less than 15 chemical companies, vivisection programmes costing fifteen million pounds sterling are being carried out in Great Britain to "try to find a way to save the ozone layer" by producing alternatives to the CFC chemicals which eat away at the Earth's protective cover. Though experts agree that drastic action must be made to stop producing poisons that damage the environment, gases are being manufactured and "tested" by forcing beagle puppies to inhale them to make their hearts beat faster, and daubed on their shaved skin to study the damage. Thousands of puppies are being used. All die horribly and their organs examined for signs of cancer. Thus the vivisectors ignore the evidence running thick and fast that there is no correlation between dog and human hearts, and that dogs' skin, being tougher than human skin offers no correlation in that area either. Unperturbed by such spoil-sports the vivisectors to whom these experiments represent a tidy nest-egg defend them by saying "there is no other way of finding environmentally-friendly gases needed for products like aerosol sprays, fridges, foams and solvents". And so nature itself in all its forms is being abused in order to preserve the environment. Crazy? Yes, but also lucrative.
(David Jones, Environment Editor, exclusive article in Great Britain's Western Daily Press, February 28 1992.)
The wealth of information demolishing ARSL's claims that dogs are suitable models for human beings is available in similar context and volume exposing the vast difference which makes the cat the most unreliable of all human models. Instead however of repeating a similar formula of evidence the writer refers the reader to the article by Hans Ruesch, written as an introduction to his CIVIS Bullet-In Nr 2 (The Infiltration in Animal Welfare) which is reproduced in Chapter 20 Head Clamps.
<< previous page | next page >>
contents | Chapter 10 index | index