Thursday June 4, 2009, 2:20 pm
He suspected immediately that it was the work of animal rights activists.

"Enough of my colleagues had been attacked that I had a feeling they were responsible," Jentsch said about the March 7 torching of his car. "Two days later the Animal Liberation Brigade took credit for it. The irony of the whole situation is that no one had ever approached me about my research before, not one harassing e-mail or phone call."

Jentsch, who experiments on monkeys and rodents in his studies on mental disorders like drug addiction and psychosis, is one of a growing number of victims in a renewed and intensified campaign by animal rights activists. In what law enforcement officials are calling a wave of militancy, groups like the Animal Liberation Front and another called The Justice Department are going after scientists personally, both at work and at home, and threatening the safety of their families.

"There is an upswing," said Laura Eimiller, a FBI spokeswoman in Los Angeles. "What's really concerning is the tactics that are being used. Previously it was non-violent, mostly harassment or vandalism. Now we're seeing the increased use of incendiary devices to target individuals."

Over the past 18 months, there have been at least 39 criminal actions undertaken in the name of animal rights, according to data compiled by the Foundation for Biomedical Research, an advocacy group for researchers. That represents a significant rise from 2006 and 2007, when there were only 25 incidents.

Much of the recent activity has been focused in California, which has seen labs destroyed, scientists' cars firebombed, public officials' cars vandalized and animals kidnapped and then released into the wild. Activists have claimed to have sabotaged the cars of UCLA football players, and six masked activists burst into the home of a researcher at the University of California-Santa Cruz.

"A lot of activists are frustrated. They've exhausted the legal means, and they've decided to take it to the next level," said Jason Miller, a press officer with the North American Animal Liberation Front, which acts as a mouthpiece for the militant animal liberation movement but claims no direct affiliation with the groups themselves.

"As with any social justice movement, when met with resistance from the state, violence becomes inevitable. There is nothing unique about this movement."

In 2006, President Bush signed the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, which expanded federal jurisdiction over crimes against animal testing facilities to include attacks on persons and institutions that facilitate but are not directly involved in animal research, a group including financers and the suppliers of scientific equipment.

"If (an animal liberation group) saw a plumbing truck going into a research facility, they'd firebomb the plumbing company," said Frankie Trull, president of the Foundation for Biomedical Research. "If they're going to go after the banks and the insurance companies, we're worried this will mean less resources for research."

Trull can run off a laundry list of medical developments made possible by animal testing. But activists, both mainstream and underground, maintain such research is not only unethical, but unreliable.

"The animals are not similar enough to humans to provide accurate results," said Miller. "I do not believe animals are here for us to use and exploit. When you're talking about drug addiction (research), I find that abhorrent that we’d take non-human animals roaming the wild and subject them to what I would consider torture."

In southern California, militant animal rights groups are already seeing some "success" in their efforts to stop research.

Dario Ringach, a neurology professor at UCLA who is developing a device to restore vision to the blind, suspended his research on monkeys in 2006 after what he said were repeated harassment of his family and an attack on a colleague's home. "They will go after people working with mice or even fruit flies," he said.

UCLA has seen 11 attacks on its facilities and faculty since 2006, with the home of one psychiatry professor flooded with a garden hose and then nearly set on fire by an incendiary device five months later.

The university has beefed up security, in some cases providing professors with 24-hour protection. Last week the school won a judgment from a Los Angeles County superior court judge prohibiting animal rights activists from coming with 50 feet of researchers' property during the day and 150 feet at night.

But drawing a distinction between legal protesters and the groups' violent members can be difficult.

Jentsch, who outraged animal rights activists when he led a rally in support of the scientists last month, said that most of the protesters outside his home on Sunday afternoon were were wearing masks and chanting slogans like "rot in hell." Such events have become so routine that he has drawn a chalk line on the street to mark the court-ordered boundary.

"I'm a little more sensible about looking over my shoulder now, but I'm not [going to] quit," he said.

"I'm not going to be a helpless victim. The work we do is critical research that society asks us to do, and there's this tiny group of people who decide they're going to set the agenda."

In recent years the FBI has increased its attention on animal rights activists and environmental groups, which they estimate have caused over $110 million in damage since 1979. While agents have achieved some success, with indictments against 30 individuals from 2005 to 2008, halting the attacks is a near impossible task.

"It's one of our biggest problems in terms of domestic terrorism. It's not just California, its everywhere," said Rick Kolko, an FBI spokesman. "Our best defense is to disrupt them, getting into these groups before these crimes occur."

Made up of independent cells spread across the United States and Europe with no centralized leadership, groups like the Animal Liberation Front are both deeply committed to their cause and difficult to trace, Miller said.

"There's no real leadership. Decisions are made by the group, which tend to be very loosely organized," he said. "Nobody really knows who else is in the organization."

Thursday June 4, 2009, 2:24 pm
These people who do this are criminals..and no one should back off or bow down to them..But I do hope those who are victims of these rediculous antics and crimes..will always be protected by the law..

Thanks Bill..
Noted..

Thursday June 4, 2009, 5:46 pm
I find the comment in the article by "Jentsch" ironic when he said he wasn't going to be "a helpless victim" of animal rights activists. What this idiot fail to see is he's staunchly supporting the cause that subjects animals as the TRUE "helpless victims".

While I don't condone violence towards other humans, I can fully understand and appreciate the frustrations of animal rights activists when peaceful demonstrations only get us so far.

Friday June 5, 2009, 5:17 am
If you understand frustration Janina, which I believe you do, imagine the frustration of trying to find an unknown when that unknown destroys human children, or when that unknown is how to stop cancer or AIDS.

I for one am tired of people believeing they have the right to destroy, steal and harm life just because of their emotional need. There are no heros in the ALF only criminals, the heros are the people who use the law to change the law.

Care2 needs to make a decision, do they support the ALF and their actions or not? The Care2 policy says no, but they turn a blind eye when they allow featured bloggers to place things on their front pages that clearly say it is OK to destroy in the name of "animal rights" IMO turning a blind eye makes them complicit. One blog even minimizes destruction of medical equipment specificly, I dare say 100 million in damages is real and the fact is the humans suffer when the ALF blows up a fur lab but destroys a DNA lab right beside it that was designed to reduce the need for animals in labs thru DNA use.

The ALF called that damage "collateral damage" I call it setting research back many years and likely killing many people totally because the efforts where fruitful and the ALF was such they made sure they destroyed even the back up files on computers before they burning the place down.

Research saves lives, modern medicine is based on the positive results of the live model. Research is a venture into the unknown to benifit human and nonhuman animal life, there needs to be number caps, species caps and no redundancy in medical testing but the fact is a computer can only tell us what information we give it, it cannot tell us how a live system will respond.

We need to use everything in our skill list to beat disease.

The fact is Jentsch is not helpless, you are correct....he is fighting what is terrorism, he is standing up for what he not only believes but is educated in. When I see the aggressive animal rights folks who are arrested what I generally see is emotionally charged folk who are not educated in the field they speak as the ones doing the things that will ruin their life and the lives of their famlies.

What research does is legal, overseen and regulated. When we get to the point we feel its OK to harm another who dedicated a lifetime of education and work, many times on one or 2 projects, then we open the door for every person to act out of emotion over law and supporting the concept through ommission equates to showing a kid how to make a fire bomb with a fuse for under 2$ and when they use it declaring your right to free speech and some form of innocence.

The ALF tried that also, Rodney Coranado went to prison for it. Even Coronado now regrets what he did when he bombed Michigan State he said recently that the violent animal rights activists were proving the government was right calling them terrorists when they act like terrorists and like his action their actions harm the animals.

Effect peaceful and legal change, and Care2 where do you stand about the ALF?

Saturday June 6, 2009, 10:43 am
what a crock. the fbi statement is misleading because these groups clearly target property, not people. jentsch addicts monkeys to meth and then cuts them open to study. here's an idea. give all that research money to after school programs and stop the addiction before it starts. trull said "medical developments have come from animal research", but how many of those developments simply required animal research to get approval. and ask the victims of thalidomide what animal research did for them. we have to progess.

Saturday June 6, 2009, 11:45 am
While you asking, ask the victims of leprosy and multiple mylemoa victims what thalidomide does for them.

The grouos target people, setting fire to ones home while your in it is targeting people, hitting people with a pick axe in the head is targeting people.

Your very uninformed.

Saturday June 6, 2009, 12:56 pm
the majority don't target individuals. the point of the FOX article is to play to their audience and create something out of nothing. liberals do it too, and i get on them just as much. and the point of bringing up thalidomide is that animal research can also lead to false conclusions and cause tremendous harm.

Saturday June 6, 2009, 1:42 pm
The ALF does nothing legal, absolutely nothing, yes giving thalidomide to pregnant women was a mistake and harmed many most likely because we did not study it on pregnant animals.

All research is not successful, but what has been proven is we live over 25 years longer now thanks to it, we have beat many diseases and we owe our children and grandchildren the same gift our parents gave us.

They did not have vaccines for polio, antibiotics, organ transplant....they discovered it, researched it and gifted it to us. As all science advances do we not gift the growth of that science to our kids at all levels?

No one has the right to destroy or harass anyone whose job is lawful. They have the right to protest, protest is not setting fire to a car or a home or raiding a farm and stealing; that is terrorism when its done in the name of animal rights as it is a criminal felony.

Saturday June 6, 2009, 2:06 pm
Bill,

I hope you are not misinterpreting my post. I do not and will not support violent acts perpetrated against other humans by radical activists as I believe they are hurting rather than helping their cause. The point I was trying to make is that animals are ultimately the real victims here as they neither have a say nor are willing participants in animal testing.

And yes, I fully understand the "frustration of trying to find an unknown when that unknown destroys human children, or when that unknown is how to stop cancer or AIDS (as per your words). I work in the medical field and see this frustration day in and day out. From MY experience, the horrendous side effects of many drugs given to sick people ruins their quality of life. We've had a lot of patients turn down "life saving" treatments because they don't want to put up with side effects. Just because a group of animals react favorably to a clinical trial does NOT automatically equate to humans reacting favorably to the same agents or drugs. In my opinion, testing on animals have one fundamental flaw: It doesn't address the issue of specificity.

I have volunteered in a few clinical trials held at the hospital where I work. What we have found are reactions differ even from one human volunteer to the next. Thankfully, the reactions weren't life threatening to warrant a trip to the ICU. The real problem here is we don't have enough human volunteers to test a drug's efficacy on humans, thus we resort to using animals.

Saturday June 6, 2009, 3:17 pm
"Human volunteers" might be found in the thousands held in prisons for life and/or on death row . . .No?

Saturday June 6, 2009, 8:10 pm
Great points Janina. I agree with a lot of what you said.

MyKinK Star, I wish we could do that. I've thought about that too but it will undoubtedly open up a new can of worms, not to mention the outcry from human rights activists it would generate.

Sunday June 7, 2009, 6:39 am
First we use prisoners all the time, everyday. We use paid humans as well as volunteers also.

The issue is violence and you can't support groups like the ALF and say you don't support violence as it is all they do. Please note I am not saying anyone on this thread supports violence but obviously those who attacked did. I support change thru change in law.

As far as medicine and side effects, I am very aware of the issue. I worked in Psychiatry and practiced for over 30 years and am old enough to remember when drugs like Thorazine, Stelazine, Mellaril or Trilifon were the best choices, but it was a choice and people choose to deal with the side effects to be sane. I am well trained and did exams everyday to target side effects and deal with them and have placed myself as a research tool.

Animals in research have given psychiatric patients hope, new targeted drugs many with no side effects, drugs specifically targeted and they work.

I also have experience in research at a world known Lemur center. Please adopt a Lemur http://lemur.duke.edu/

"Activists" want that shut down also, sadly without the genetic research lemurs will go extinct. Most people have no idea what goes on in research, they act on a 1 min PeTA or youtube manipulative video, that is out of context or outright fraud.

Stand up for what you believe, no one wishes animals in labs but reality is no computer can act as a live system.

For the prisoner question did you know it was an executed prisoner who donated his body to make "Virtual Man", he was sliced in paper thin slices after being frozen and each image was placed in a computer to allow med students to be able to "tour" a human being that was intact. It is an amazing program and an amazing gift from such a violent man.

Sunday June 7, 2009, 9:39 am
it is illogical to treat sentient beings as inanimate objects. the use of slaves was productive and profitable and totally unethical. as the world becomes ever more mindful, we must thoroughly investigate alternatives. as of now, in this field, we don't do this because people are detached and accept the status quo. we can cure disease and not torture animals, but the majority has to want to do it.

Sunday June 7, 2009, 9:54 am
Catherine I went to your page and clicked on your blog, the first entry is a plea to halp an individual thru stem cells treatment.

You can't find any treatment that involved animals more than stem cells, so how can you expect it both ways? Stem cells were discovered in the 50's and it took years of research with animals to discover what the potential was and research with animals is the only way to see its full value.

So if its torture, your asking to help somone receive the rewards of said "torture". We are always looking for and using alternatives and will continue.

Sunday June 7, 2009, 10:05 am
i view it the same way i view leather shoes in a thrift store... the damage is done. throwing out the finished product is wasteful. also, in my college days, i worked in a lab that used rats. i now own two rats, and the difference in treatment is vast. i'm sure witnessing what actually goes on in a research lab is part of the reason why i am so concerned with animal treatment.

Sunday June 7, 2009, 12:09 pm
Stem cells aree not a finished product, if anything it is the begining of a new venture. Do we stop and say it's OK to use what we know but we should now stop learning anything new?

I can't do that, and can't expect anyone who is fighting disease to do that.

I believe in species caps, testing only for medical need (no cosmetics) no redundancy and open doors for qualified people to review what is already overseen by independnt parties to protect an animal welfare. I believe we do that now, and have greatly reduced the numbers used, that said my issue is violence and aggression as a means. Not acceptable.

I get what animal abuse is, we run a farm for recued large farm animals and have rescued hundreds, all free range never will be used for food. Right now we have over 200 animals and over 120 of them are large animals, very happy animals that are alive because we did the right thing.

We as human beings can seperate our emotion from medical need, if we could not no nurse would ever inject a child with a drug when they know their action hurts the child.

Sunday June 7, 2009, 5:47 pm
if animal testing were banned today, researchers would not give up. they'd simply find other ways to learn. you think the end justifies the means and i don't. we can agree that violence is not the answer. but, i don't consider it violent to rescue animals or destroy the instruments of torture. i wouldn't do it because it hurts the cause by scaring average people, whose support is required to change laws. i view the radical alf members as i do the researchers. they both cause pain because they think they're helping. it's like comparing a drunk to a pothead. one is legal and the other isn't, but essentially they're the same thing. i do see a distinction between hurting an individual for its own good versus hurting one individual to help another.

Monday June 8, 2009, 12:31 am
“Animals in research have given psychiatric patients hope, new targeted drugs many with no side effects, drugs specifically targeted and they work.”

You see Bill, that is the kind of thinking I have a problem with. Animals in this day and age continue to be used as “tools” mostly for human benefit. Why is this? Is it because some scientists still regard them as non feeling, non thinking, disposable beings? Or is it because animals can't speak our language to tell us they don't want to be participants? You can't deny that animals have been used for human convenience since the ancient times; much longer than we've used them for the sole purpose of benefiting their fellow animals. The only thing those two have in common is that both still use animals in research and the latter is more specific to the cause.

I agree with you that we need to change the law on this but how well do you think the USDA is going to enforce this "new" law? I realize that a computer can't act as a live subject and that is why I volunteered for clinical trials on several occasions and will continue to do so. I believe that if humanity is going to benefit from research, another human should be a willing test subject

I don't support ANY extremist organization hell bent on trying to harm another human through violent means solely for their cause and that includes the organizations you mentioned above and for that matter, pro-lifers willing to kill another human being to prove their message. How ironic is that? And PETA? They're almost a joke. Most of their tactics do more harm than good as they serve to turn more people off of their cause.

Monday June 8, 2009, 5:50 am
Thank you for your response Janina.

I will be honest and precise I love animals, help a family farm for rescued large farm animals and have set up 2 no-kill shelters and been a part of a mobile spay and neuter program but other than as a biological life form, for me that is where equality ends. I believe that we as humans have and always will use animals for food, I also believe that we have the right to make medical advancement.

My guess is your correct about some things and incorrect about others, we assign human emotion to animals in the same way we experience emotion, dare say they have emotional response but nothing like we do and were both right as there is no way to "prove" either view. If a male lion kills the young our response is, nature is hard, we are not sending grief notices to the mother and siblings, we are not arresting the lion, we accept it, we don't do that for humans so equality seems selective. I know a few parents who would have loved a teenager roast, likely for different reasons than the lion but the thought was there, a thought they did not act on but the lion did.

I understand the biologic value of a live system and see it as a necessary evil, an evil no one likes but they love human life and the pain of seeing someone face a torturous existence is a strong motivation. I have such an incurable disease, I am cripple and greatly restricted. My life for the last 20 years is surrounded by illness and illness is why I had to stop practicing medicine, last year my Mom died after Alzheimer's took her bit by bit over 5 years and my father has lymphoma, I get disease, I get human pain, I get frustration and I get the desire to never wish it to happen to another human.

I helped a great number of human and non human animals in my life, I specialized in homeless mentally ill refractory to treatment, throw away people who were never treated as good as lab animals by their own species. Not that I am special but had there been a solution to my problem I would have been able to continue, I would not wish my situation on any living being but it is the hand I have been dealt.

We see the same issues from different places, as far as PeTA, they are less than a joke they rob people and since 1994 when they affiliated with the ALF they have done nothing but harm the cause.

I have seen the lives of people change overnight thanks to research and in medicine I have seen more lives saved than were ever harmed, yea its bad to use numbers but numbers don't lie. I respect your position and I also know that if we follow the trend that has happened over the last 50 years we will continue to reduce numbers of live animals used, but at this point of our very short medical development we need them. Fact is there is no drug that goes on the market that has not been tested on humans, that said I do not see the life of a zebra fish, fruit fly or rodent equal to that of a human and in that my choice would be to use them as we do until the application can be tested on humans, not because it may kill the human as many die in human trials but because of the genetics and ability to reproduce quickly and have a pure testing arena.

Monday June 8, 2009, 9:12 am
people may always eat animals, not because they need to, but because they like the taste and don't care that they're causing pain. you don't have to prove to what degree animals interpret their pain to know that when you cut them, the scream you hear means it hurts. i too have a disease that will kill me and i single-handedly took care of my paralyzed, cancer stricken mother. i wouldn't use other less intellectual, less aware beings like babies or the mentally-challenged to try to cure myself either.

Monday June 8, 2009, 10:38 am
I am sorry for your illness and your mothers death, do you take any medication for your illness (?) did your mother?

Life is a 2 way street and my guess is you did or do use medication discovered thru research, medication our parents could not use as it was not available, I don't think you have the right to deprive future generations of the same right nor hope.

As far as I know we do not use babies or mentally-challenged in research unless said research is a human trial and to compare them, to a fruit fly, zebra fish or rat is total emotion and has no real value. Your quite wrong about our diet choices. Humans are what we are because of the high quality protein we get from animal products and we discovered fire to cook and make the meat very digestible. Fact is Chimps regularly eat meat in the wild, they have not made fire......yet.

Humans are not designed to be vegetarian, we are omnivores; we choose to be vegetarian. Vegetarians are the only diet group that has different names that allow you to eat flesh which defeats the concept of eating plants and makes you an omnivore. There is no such thing as a true Vegan, even US currency is coated with animal glue and Vegans who say they will never use a product that uses animals will never go to using coinage totally for their daily money need simply because it not as easy a bills are. It is the same line we get from PeTA when we ask about the millions of small animals killed in mass grain harvest, if your Vegan and love to tout it, grow your own food and be a gatherer, but you will not because that's too hard.

All being Vegan amounts to is trying to avoid animal products, good for you it is a personal diet choice, no more no less and I have no issue with your choice. Just like people think cruelty free or not tested on animals on cosmetics actually means the product ingredients have never been tested, does not mean that at all and never has, it amounts to being uninformed and advertising manipulation.

I did not respond to you because your last comparison of the ALF breaking the law and terrorizing people equating to highly educated people who dedicate their life to help others thru research, it is failed logic just as the concept of mentally challenged being equivalent/compairable to a lab rat.

You may think lowering a mentally challenged human child somehow fit your design is acceptable, if it were your child, it would be abusive verbiage that any Mother would respond in a very negative fashion to the person who remotely considered the comparison; I personally find it offensive but respect your right to believe it.

If you do not wish a cure or medical assistance for your illness, refuse it, it's your right. I worked in medicine for a very long time and have seen people refuse treatment on religious belief, not once have I ever seen anyone refuse it based on animal rights.

You control you and no one else, you control your choices no one else's and you nor anyone has the right to say their rights exceed another because your rights end where mine begin.

Monday June 8, 2009, 11:03 am
vegans do the best they can in a non-vegan world. and the comment comparing the intellect of certain animals to that of babies or mentally-challenged is based on logical observation. i watch disabled adults, and they would not be able to figure out how to break a stick and put it down a hole to better extract termites, as chimps do. being offended by that comparison is an emotional response. and i'm trying to deny people the right to use animals (not to continue research) because i don't think causing intentional pain is a right. good debate. we'll just have to disagree.

Monday June 8, 2009, 7:59 pm
Bill,

First, I would like to say I'm sorry to hear of your disability and illness. I can appreciate your position on this. We have patients who come in the hospital with a myriad of chronic/incurable diseases who share your frustrations. My own father shares this frustration as well. He has a history of significant diseases that require him to take several pills a day, everyday for the rest of his life (pills that were undoubtedly tested on both humans and animals alike and have awful side effects). I realize it's easy for someone like me, who isn't going through chronic major medical ailments, to seem dismissal of what another person is going through simply because I'm not in that same, exact situation. I certainly hope I didn't come across as someone who is trying to minimize the plight of people who are dealing with incurable diseases because that is/was not my intent.

Vegetarianism/Veganism IS a choice but so is eating meat and animal products. People make their choices based on different factors and reasons. For me, it's the thought of eating a once living, sentient being just so I can satiate my appetite for its flesh, is what turns me off of meat altogether. But...that is my reason and the next person may share that same reasoning or differ completely from mine. Is it illogical or irrational? I guess the answer depends on who you're asking. Either way, I don't care. And while we're at it, I won't dispute what you said about attaching and projecting our own feelings unto animals, because I'm guilty of it myself. However, I don't view anthromorphising as a bad thing. You may not agree with it, but that's okay. I just find it hard (if not impossible) to view any animal, who happens to be a live, breathing being just like you and I, as a simple instrument to be sacrificed solely for my own existence.

As far as using cosmetics or products not tested on animals: You're right. We really have no way of knowing 100% if every single ingredient contained in a particular product was not tested on animals even if the final product on the shelf wasn't. The only real way of knowing fully is if we made the products ourselves but obviously that isn't a practical solution for all of us. It's not a far stretch to assume that a lot (if not most) companies will tell you just about anything to get you to spend money on their product, especially if it's a new product without a consumer-based track record. However, this is not entirely the consumer's fault. Here in the US, there is no current law banning the use of animals for cosmetics. As far as other countries who DO have a ban, how well is this ban enforced? Manufacturers can and do slip through the cracks simply because they can.

Finally to conclude, you and I also agree about the importance of using live, biological beings for research because as of yet, there is no computer system to substitute for it. Where we disagree on is how we hold animals in that regard. I happen to prefer humans as test subjects to benefit fellow humans and not have animals used in this fashion. You prefer the opposite based on your reasons and experiences. So I guess what it comes down to is we will just have to agree to disagree on that and that's okay too. To me, what matters is doing my part in contributing to the cause I believe in, even if it means using myself in place of animals in research.

Tuesday June 9, 2009, 2:04 am
Animal research does not only help humans..but it helps animals as well..Recently through this research contributing to the new cancer drug specifically for animals..

The medically care for animals in itself has come such a long way..and again.. this is possible only through the research..I think people just take for granted all the care that is there for their pets..never thinking about all of the research that went into every step of that care for them..

To be a vegan..vegetarian..or carnivore..is all a personal choice..However..and even though it is also a choice..when we or our pets need medical attention..drugs..surgery..we make the choice to save them or ourselves..I cannot imagine even the most active rabid animal advocate refusing medical attention needed for their pets..and or themselves or a loved one..
That is just the way it is for now..Yes.. hopefully someday soon.. this will change..That there will be no need to test on animals or humans for the better of life..but until it changes..we need this research..

And those who oppose..well.. that is a personal choice and is one that each individual can only make for themselves..No one has a right to make that choice for another..
And no one has the right to blow up cars..buildings..any personal property destruction is against the law..

And back to the subject of this article..those that continue to strive to do this research for the good and well-being of both animals and humans..are indeed victims of these extremists and..very criminal animal protesters..And they need to be stopped..

Wednesday June 10, 2009, 4:57 am
they torture animals to death to find drugs to help people, tests that prove the drugs are harmful, yet they still get them put on the market. the testing is just money in the pocket of the abusers, there are alternatives to vivisection, and even if we had no alternative, we still have no right to use and abuse another living creature for our own sake. Americans have used people for testing without their consent, without their knowledge.
vivisectors will do what they have to regardless of the outcome. stop torturing and killing animals and there will be no need to be their voice.

Wednesday June 10, 2009, 7:40 am
No Shelia..they do not torture animals to death..That is such a foolish thing to say..These researchers are not animal abusers..

Wednesday June 10, 2009, 8:36 am
poking an animal over and over, or giving it a disease it didn't already have, is torture. and cutting off their heads is death. sheila, your comment isn't foolish. and bill and dee's comments aren't foolish. we just have different perspectives on what has been done and what is acceptable.

Wednesday June 10, 2009, 9:36 am
i want to clarify my comparison of animals to babies and disabled people, in case any parents do come across this thread. i tend to be succinct, even when i should expound. i see a distinction, but there are commonalties: helplessness, less capable and intellectual than an average human, and an inability to consent (all to varying degrees). these qualities don't make them less important. i defend anyone and anything that can't defend itself. i have deep concern for all beings, which is why i've done thousands of hours of free babysitting for multiple families with disabled children and adults.

Wednesday June 10, 2009, 7:17 pm
yes, Dee they do torture them to death, they are abused, if you think what happens isn't abuse then why aren't the tests conducted on humans?
resort to name calling, how childish.

Thursday June 11, 2009, 2:46 am
Dee,

What about when they purposely break rats' backs during spinal chord injury research? Isn't that a form of torture? Not to mention the many invasive procedures performed on many different kinds of animals and like Catherine said above, they give them diseases they don't already have. All this in the name of research to benefit humans (mostly). Besides, what do you think they do to the animals once they're done with them? Either the animals die during these often tortuous procedures or they euthanize them afterward. If you don't think this is torture then I don't know what your definition of torture is. No wonder Bill C said it was a necessary evil.

Thursday June 11, 2009, 4:59 am
Then what are your solutions? We use everything that currently exists, so if you have something not known tell us.

I hear emotion from "animal activists" not solutions. There are some very simple facts. 1. 99.999% of those who scream very loudly about animals in labs, have never seen the inside of a lab, the are manipulated bye groups like PeTA. 2. 99.999% of those against animals in labs benefit from them and I do not buy into the concept "since it is already invented it's OK to use it", all that is amounts to personal convenience. It is exactly the same as why you buy "cruelty free" cosmetics, you buy them because your choice is your personal vanity verses testing, "cruelty free" does not mean never tested on animals, it never has, it is a marketing ploy you buy into. FDA regs are very clear, unless your making your own cosmetic it has been tested on animals.

I have yet to see 1 animal activist do a legal document to stop any use of any medical advancement gained thru any animal in any lab for themselves or their family. I never will, because if you have ever worked in an emergency room there is a certain reality that is condensed to "save my life". If people will not stop using eye liner for their "cause" over personal vanity, they are not going to shun emergency medical care. There is nothing you get from the ER not tested on animals but the bill, there is no such thing as a cosmetic product not tested on animals that is not a certified organic with USDA logo (certified as food quality), I know the law very well.

I said it was a necessary evil because no one wants any animal in any lab. You seem to think scientists are some evil torturous humans when reality is they are trying to save your life.

I believe in choice and you certainly have the choice when the issue is a legal one, that provides a product you can refuse, that choice is your choice and it effects only you. You do not have the right to remove that choice from another human being as long as what is being done is legal, you have the legal system to change law. I have no issue with legal protest or for that mater any legal action, I do with harassment property destruction and endangering human life.

Thursday June 11, 2009, 8:44 am
i often think of how i would have reacted when the majority felt slavery was necessary and that africans weren't as smart as whites and didn't have the same feelings. i wouldn't have waited to protest the use of slaves until we had machines ready to replace them. i think some people don't turn down emergency medical care because there is no alternative. many do use alternative medicine, so i imagine they would go to alt. er if it existed. and you may be right that cruelty free products in their finished form aren't tested on animals, but that their individual ingredients are. however, you can't unring a bell. you can only move forward and insist on no testing in the future. people pay more for cruelty free precisely because animal treatment is more important than their vanity. if they're not getting what they think they're getting, that's not their fault. the pcrm just filed paperwork trying to stop the military from using live animals in their medical trauma training (they slit the throats of goats and then try to patch them up). they suggested the students go on rotations at real trauma centers and employ simulators. in theory, this training (as it is currently done) could save the life of a pcrm family member, yet the group still wants to stop the practice.

Thursday June 11, 2009, 9:10 am
PCRM is PeTA, and trauma simulators are not their idea. As I said where alternatives can be used they are being used, Harvard still uses live animals, the also use the trauma simulator and have an entire department dedicated to finding ways that don't use the live animal. So did Michigan state until the ALF blew up the lab.

People buy cruelty free products to apease their guilt. You say in the same breath "some people don't turn down emergency medical care because there is no alternative. many do use alternative medicine", makes no sense which is it?

People use alternative medicine all the time, but not when what they have will kill them in the next few hours. I practived for 33 years and the group used everything from modern medicine to accupuncture, smart means using the best of both.

I believe your right we have to move forward, medicine included.

Thursday June 11, 2009, 10:44 am
i didn't mean to imply that pcrm invented trauma simulators. as far as appeasing guilt, i think when people come to the conclusion that they've been doing something unethical, they do what they can to change it. also, to clarify, alternative medicines exist, but alternative emergency rooms do not.

Thursday June 11, 2009, 1:52 pm
Why do you think alternative ER's don't exist?

Doctor of Natropathy can be licensed in Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Montana,New Hampshire, Oregon, Utah, Vermont and Washington. they have just as many rights to open an emergency treatment facility as any.

I worked in medicine a long time and I refused to do anything unethical, research is not unethical.

Thursday June 11, 2009, 6:04 pm
at this point, there probably wouldn't be enough patients to make it profitable. although i imagine there will be some sort of 24 hour alternative care facility in los angeles in the near future. clearly, we have different ethical standards. i think addicting a primate to meth and cutting open its head (even for a good cause) is unethical.

Friday June 12, 2009, 5:49 am
There would be lots of patients, fact is our government used your taxes to the tune of billions to study alternatives. I can direct you to many clinics outside the USA that practice emergency alternative medicine, those clinics exist because modern medicine is not available, as far as things like setting bones, they do as well as our ancestors did before modern medicine, as far as saving life, you die like our ancestors did.

Sadly you need increased knowledge of medical research and need. As far as science and research was it wrong to send 2 chimps into space (?) they were the first primates and fueled the space program, is it wrong to discover HIV came from chimps to open doors to find a cure? Why focus on primates other than they look like us (?) DNA has nothing to do with it. Less than 1% of research involved primates, I can 100% guarantee if primates were removed (which they very well may be if the laws change) that will only fuel the violent "activists" to stop the use of all animals. The ALF blew up a researchers car that ONLY used fruit flies, it's not compassion for them its fun with terrorism, I totally respect any legal non-harassing method of change.

I get the emotional response and 100% respect your opinion, but when I see a person type the written word and compare a disabled human and chimp I see someone who can't grasp they are comparing a diseased/injured human brain to that of a normal chimps. If you can't see the value in brain studies of an addicted primate, how many babies have you seen born addicted to methamphatamine or crack (?) how much of our health care cost goes to addiction treatment (?), I believe Nancy Reagan proved "Just Say No" is not effective.

Currently kids in the AIDS ravaged areas of Africa are smoking Efavirnez which is an AIDS anti-viral, it apparently produces a "high", problem is that tiny amount of the anti-viral will end up making a new strain of AIDS resistant to anti-viral medication because of addiction. That could pretty much wipe out the worlds population so to figure out how addiction works, seems fairly important and urgent.

Try speaking about your passion without the graphics and debate your point with fact and not emotion, it will go much further in the real world.

Thank you for your input.

Friday June 12, 2009, 9:00 am
you keep calling me emotional, yet all of my points are clearly based on logic. i brought up primates because jentsch uses them. you can compare a chimp and a human with an injured brain based on their ability to function. and calling people uninformed is counter-productive and stems from frustration. we all know more than some people, less than others. some of the info we have is sound, some unsound. if everybody had to be an expert, or have first hand experience, in order to make judgements, there'd be no point in discussing anything outside of one's career field.

Saturday June 13, 2009, 8:54 am
i'll add that i've read thousands of medical journal articles, and continue to read incessantly. debating the advances made is not germane to the issue. it's like debating the torture of prisoners to gain information. you don't decide whether or not it's ethical based on how much information you extract. you make the ethical decision first.

Thursday July 2, 2009, 11:12 am
Sheila you go girlfriend:)
I'm so sorry I missed this one.

Friday July 3, 2009, 9:43 pm
The Escalating Obesity Wars

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601259.html

The Escalating Obesity Wars
Nonprofit's Tactics, Funding Sources Spark Controversy

By Caroline E. Mayer and Amy Joyce
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, April 27, 2005; Page E01

The full-page newspaper ads shout "Hype" at readers, warning them that they have "been force-fed a steady diet of obesity myths by the 'food police,' trial lawyers, and even our own government."

The sponsor, the Center for Consumer Freedom, is a "nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting consumer choices and promoting common sense," the ad notes.

The group was founded about 10 years ago with tobacco-company and restaurant money to fight smoking curbs in restaurants. Back then, the group called itself Guest Choice Network. But it changed its name in 2001, as it shifted its focus to food and beverage issues, raised by concerns about obesity, mad cow disease and genetically modified products.

The group and its ads are the brainchild of Richard Berman, a Washington lobbyist and lawyer who is the center's executive director. Berman is also president of Berman & Co., a public affairs firm that in 2003 received more than $1.1 million in compensation from the nonprofit group -- more than a third of its revenue that year, according to its most recent tax returns.

Berman, 62, also is the founder of two other restaurant-supported groups: the American Beverage Institute, which fights restrictions on alcohol use, and the Employment Policies Institute Foundation, which has argued against raising the minimum wage -- a move that would hurt restaurants because of their large staffs of low-wage workers.

Philip Morris USA Inc. pledged $600,000 -- most of the seed money -- for Berman's group in 1995. The company said it needed a consultant who was both a "hospitality industry insider as well as a legislatively astute individual," according to documents collected as part of the multi-state lawsuit against tobacco companies. Under the 1998 settlement, the documents were made public. Philip Morris continued to give money to Berman for several years, as did restaurant firms such as Host Marriott Corp. and Brinker International Inc., which owns the Chili's Grill & Bar and Maggiano's Little Italy restaurant chains. Neither firm returned phone calls about their ties to the Center for Consumer Freedom.

Berman declined to give specifics about who funds the Center for Consumer Freedom. He said only that it is funded by a coalition of restaurant and food companies as well as some individuals. "It doesn't add anything" to give details, Berman said.

According to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a watchdog group funded by several educational foundations, Berman and his firm have received more than $7 million since 1997 from the Center for Consumer Freedom and one of the other groups he founded. Last fall, the watchdog group asked the Internal Revenue Service to revoke the Center for Consumer Freedom's 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status. The watchdog group said Berman has used the center to funnel money to himself and his company, a violation of federal tax law that bars companies or individuals from running a nonprofit for their private benefit. The organization also said that the group's activities were solely to promote the causes of restaurants and food producers, not consumers. Its activities, the organization said, are "not remotely charitable."

Jeffrey S. Tenenbaum, a Washington lawyer who specializes in nonprofit tax law, said that generally, for a group to qualify as a 501(c)(3) educational organization "there has to be bona fide education of the general public on given issues as compared to advocating particular industry positions." Otherwise, the group should qualify as a 501(c)(6), a trade and professional group. While both are both tax-exempt, a 501(c)(6) cannot receive tax-deductible charitable contributions.

Berman called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington's charges "a silly thing . . . totally and factually false." It's not unusual, he said, for public affairs firms to manage nonprofits, and the expenses his firm received were to "buy all sorts of things, including employee time, rent, phones." Berman said the Center for Consumer Freedom is a legitimate, nonprofit educational group. "I haven't heard from the IRS, and I don't expect to; there's nothing to it."

"It's pretty obvious we're advocating from a point of view," Berman said. "But you can advocate and educate at the same time."

Berman said the charges are the "cost of doing business" of criticizing well-known activist groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Center for Science in the Public Interest and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. "It's to be expected when you give people a little heartburn, they don't like what you're doing."

Berman is not shy about going after groups his organizations oppose. A Web site sponsored by the Center for Consumer Freedom, ActivistCash.com, includes in-depth profiles of groups, including Mothers Against Drunk Driving, detailing their funding and key players. "Despite their innocent-sounding names, many of these organizations are financial Goliaths that use junk science, intimidation tactics, and even threats of violence to push their radical agenda," the Web site says.

Berman himself has said these groups have "a violent side to them" and will try to shut down firms whose activities run counter to their goals. He said that is why he won't name the companies who support his organization.

The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine scoffed at that assertion, saying its "policies would specifically exclude anyone promoting violence or illegal activity from functioning as a spokesperson or having any role in the organization."

"I'm troubled by this message and this industry that sells unhealthy things and are so willing to sacrifice the health of consumers," said Neal Barnard, president of the physicians group.

PRWatch, a nonprofit critic of the public relations industry, lists what it claims are the Center for Consumer Freedom's sponsors on its Web site. Those companies include Brinker International; RTM Restaurant Group, the owner of Arby's; Tyson Foods Inc.; HMSHost Corp.; and Wendy's International Inc.

Few of those companies returned phone calls seeking comment. A Tyson spokesman said the company does "not share lists of organizations we support." A Wendy's spokesman, Denny Lynch, said the company has supported Berman's group in the past but declined to say when or how much. Lynch said Berman's group provides "a balancing perspective . . . another voice" in the increasingly loud debate over obesity.

Berman called PRWatch's list inaccurate and said the only reason the group is criticizing him is because he had criticized some of its leaders for a book they wrote about mad cow disease and its chances of occurring in the United States. "They have had it in for me for a long time," Berman said.

Sheldon Rampton, co-author of the book and research director of the Center for Media & Democracy, which owns PRWatch, said his group first learned of Consumer Freedom when the group attacked the book. But "we write about a lot of groups and would have reached the same conclusion about him if that had not been the case," he said.

Food industry officials who spoke only on the condition that they not be identified by name or by where they work said that by keeping the sponsors anonymous, Berman's group can be more vociferous, provocative and irreverent in its criticisms than a trade association. Berman's "stuff is factual, but everyone chooses the facts they represent," one executive said.

Berman agrees that his group can be edgier. "There's no doubt about that. Most trade associations try to insulate individual companies and brand names from cutting-edge rhetoric."

Over the years, the group's attacks on food critics have intensified. Last fall, the group ran a television ad featuring the "Seinfeld" Soup Nazi character barking at an overweight consumer, "Nothing for you! Come back when you're thinner." The ad asks: "Has the war on obesity gone too far?"

In February, immediately before and after the president's State of the Union address, the group broadcast another ad, showing a lawyer grilling a Girl Scout for selling cookies. "Learn more about lawyers cashing in on obesity," the ad said, calling on viewers to check out the group's Web site.

The center's campaign comes as Americans are bombarded with books and documentaries criticizing the fast-food diet. While many restaurants have introduced healthier fare to address these concerns, some are also offering consumers even bigger portions, such as the Enormous Omelet Sandwich at Burger King, the Monster Burger -- two one-third-pound patties -- at Hardee's and the Ultimate Colossal Burger -- two half-pound burgers on a triple-decker bun with cheese -- at Ruby Tuesday.

The immediate catalyst for this week's $600,000 newspaper advertising campaign was an announcement earlier this month by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that it had vastly overestimated the number of deaths caused by obesity. The ads appeared in six major newspapers, including in Atlanta, where the CDC is based. Ads will soon appear in Washington's Metro system to get the attention of the nation's "opinion leaders," congressional staff members and other key government employees, according to the group's spokesman, Mike Burita. In March 2004, the CDC published a report linking obesity to 400,000 deaths a year in the United States. Three months later, the Center for Consumer Freedom began challenging that statistic, issuing its first of many statements saying the deaths were vastly overstated.

Last week, the CDC announced new estimates, linking 112,000 deaths to obesity.

Now, Berman said, the CDC needs to "come clean, to say it made a mistake," one that led to school boards, state legislatures and even members of Congress calling for all sorts of restrictions on food sales.

The CDC needs to announce its mistake "loudly and often," Berman said.

But so far, the CDC appears to have no such intentions. "We still consider obesity to be a major public health threat, although there's uncertainty about the number of deaths from obesity," said Karen Hunter, a CDC spokeswoman. "There is no debate in our mind that obesity plays a role in increasing the risk of serious chronic disease like diabetes, heart disease and certain cancers."

Friday July 3, 2009, 9:52 pm
http://www.bermanexposed.org/facts

Richard Berman

Richard Berman is the longtime president of the Washington, D.C.-based lobbying and consulting firm, Berman & Company, Inc. ("BCI") which specializes in strategic research and communications. Throughout the years Berman has been a stalwart supporter of business and industry over consumer, safety and environmental groups. Berman has fought unions, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, PETA and other watchdog groups in their efforts to raise awareness about obesity, the dangers of smoking, mad cow disease, drunk driving, the minimum wage and other causes. He has been described in the press as a "notorious D.C. lobbyist."

Berman founded and runs four tax-exempt front groups and a number of linked projects, focusing on food, tobacco, alcoholic beverages and labor. He is well-paid by the represented industries to serve as the executive director of all four organizations. Berman then uses his own lobbying and public relations firm to do work for the organizations, thereby channeling between 49% and 79% of all donations made to the groups into his own pocket.

These organizations include:

The Center for Consumer Freedom ("CCF", formerly Guest Choice Network, "GCN"), which attacks anyone who criticizes smoking, fast food or alcohol;
The Employment Policies Institute ("EPI") which opposes increasing the minimum wage and promotes the specious concept that an increased minimum wage would drive the poor and uneducated out of the job market;
The American Beverage Institute ("ABI") which fights laws designed to curb drunk driving;
The Center for Union Facts ("CUF") which promotes disparaging information about unions;
Bowling Proprietors Association of America, which lists the same word-for-word issues as the ABI on their lobbying disclosure forms; and
First Jobs Institute, which promotes personal finance advice to young people from a pro-business perspective.
Berman was also executive vice president of public affairs for the Pillsbury Restaurant Group and was once director of labor law for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.



Berman's Career Highlights
Berman was honored by the food service industry as "Motivator of the Year" at the 19th annual Elliot Leadership conference for foodservice executives. When accepting his award, Nation’s Restaurant News reported that, "For a moment the usually voluble Berman seemed at a loss for words...But once seated before the audience with Elliot Group founder Alice Elliot, he again was warning the audience about how the industry needs to defend itself against attacks by ‘self-interest' and consumer groups. ‘In all of these debates, whether minimum wage or health care, the activists are always making the problem larger than it is,' he said. ‘We need to argue effectively about the nature of the problem. For example, obesity is the only epidemic that you could cure by keeping your mouth shut.'"


CENTER FOR UNION FACTS / EMPLOYEE FREEDOM ACTION COMMITTEE
Launched in 2006, the Center for Union Facts aims to influence public opinion against labor unions, running provocative paid media campaigns against organized labor and working against legislation making it easier to form unions.

A spin-off of Berman’s Center for Union Facts, the Employee Freedom Action Committee (EFAC) emerged in 2008. While the organization has c4 status, its work appears to have been focused on a number of election-related activities. In addition to a national “nonprofit,” EFAC established ’local’ organizations in several states with contested Congressional campaigns. EFAC aggressively targeted candidates who supported the Employee Free Choice Act, spending millions of dollars in several states.

Multi-million dollar campaigns.

When Berman & Company officially launched the Center in 2006, Berman planned to spend $5 million on an initial launch of print, radio, television, and internet ads to spread the campaign’s anti-union messages to national and regional markets.
In 2008, CUF & EFAC planned to spend $30 million on television, radio and print advertising in states with competitive Senate races, according to a news report. Berman’s groups produced TV, radio, and print ads, direct mail, robocalls and tracked candidates with video cameras—to smear candidates who supported the Employee Free Choice Act.
Corporate connections.

Berman has consistently refused to disclose his funders, but CUF has been repeatedly linked to corporate interests.

State Chamber of Commerce supporting CUF. According to The New York Times, "A.F.L.-C.I.O. officials said the president of a state chamber of commerce told them that at a conference in Florida on Jan. 26, the state chambers had pledged several million dollars to back Mr. Berman's effort. … "
Unionbusting Companies. Coinciding with a notorious anti-union campaign by Smithfield Foods, CUF ran a website called “UFCW Exposed,” smearing the union organizing at Smithfield. Berman was retained by Smithfield Foods, and CUF pays Berman and Co. for “management services,” according to The Hampton Roads Business Journal.
Richard's Positions
President, Berman and Company • Executive Director, Activist Cash • Executive Director, FishScam.com • Executive Director, Center for Consumer Freedom • Executive Director, American Beverage Institute • Executive Director, CSPIscam • Executive Director, Employment Policies Institute • Executive Director, Interlock Facts • Executive Director, Mecuryfacts • Executive Director, SunLightScam • Executive Director, TeacherUnionFacts • Executive Director, The Center for Union Facts • Executive Director, The Employee Freedom Action Committee • Executive Director, Econ4U.org • Executive Director, IncomeTaxFacts.org • Executive Director, Rotten Acorn • General Counsel, Employment Policies Institute




GUEST CHOICE NETWORK/CENTER FOR CONSUMER FREEDOM
Guest Choice Network founded in 1995 with Philip Morris seed money. GCN was formed in 1995 "to fight bans on smoking in restaurants and bars" and received considerable funding from tobacco companies, including $600,000 in seed money from Philip Morris. "The company said it needed a consultant who was both a ‘hospitality industry insider as well as a legislatively astute individual,' according to documents collected as part of the multi-state lawsuit against tobacco companies. Under the 1998 settlement, the documents were made public. Philip Morris continued to give money to Berman for several years." In fact, according to Philip Morris documents, Berman has received at least $2,950,000 from the company.

GCN attacked Mothers Against Drunk Driving, calling MADD a group of "professional fund-raisers" who try to "scare us away from even responsible drinking."
GCN characterized former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's proposal to confiscate the vehicles of people convicted for drunk driving as a "car-theft ring."
GCN criticized the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for its warnings about salmonella-related food poisoning, stating "For nearly three decades, [CDC] has been whipping up fear over food while remaining virtually unchallenged by the press or the scientific community. By generating more heat than light, [CDC] helps create fear . . . over . . . food products."
In an editorial appearing on Center for Consumer Freedom's website, Berman referred to a "lack of evidence that second-hand smoke causes cancer."
GCN became CCF in 2001, shifted focus to food & beverage issues. Guest Choice Network changed its name to the Center for Consumer Freedom in 2001 and shifted its focus to "food and beverage issues, raised by concerns about obesity, mad cow disease and genetically modified products."

CCF: "primary propaganda arm" for food & dairy industry. According to the American Prospect, the group is "the primary propaganda arm for the food and dairy industries in the emerging battle over the politics of food."

Berman admits bulk of CCF's funding comes from food & restaurant companies. Berman admits that CCF is "financed by the food and restaurant industries" and that some of those who fund CCF are also clients of his lobbying firm. However, he "has always declined to name the specific companies that support Consumer Freedom. He said in an interview that there were roughly 100 companies, including some that control very large brands, but that identifying them would serve no purpose." Berman said the organization collected about $2.7 million in contributions in 2003.

Food industry officials seek to keep donations anonymous. The Washington Post reported that, "Food industry officials who spoke only on the condition that they not be identified by name or by where they work said that by keeping the sponsors anonymous, Berman's group can be more vociferous, provocative and irreverent in its criticisms than a trade association. Berman's ‘stuff is factual, but everyone chooses the facts they represent,' one executive said."
Donors include Coca-Cola, Wendy's, Tyson's Foods, Cargill, Outback Steakhouse. According to The New York Times "A watchdog group in Washington, the Center for Media and Democracy, has posted data about Consumer Freedom's financing on its Web site. According to documents they say were obtained from a former Consumer Freedom staff member, corporate contributors to the group as of 2002 included Coca-Cola, Wendy's and Tyson Foods, each of which gave $200,000. Cargill gave $100,000, according to the documents, and Outback Steakhouse gave $164,600."
Other alleged donors include Brinker Int'l, and RTM Restaurant Group. "PRWatch, a nonprofit critic of the public relations industry, lists what it claims are the Center for Consumer Freedom's sponsors on its Web site. Those companies include Brinker International; RTM Restaurant Group, the owner of Arby's; Tyson Foods Inc.; HMSHost Corp.; and Wendy's International Inc."
Tyson's, Pilgrim's Pride & Cargill each give CCF $100K annually. According to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, "Tyson Foods Inc., Pilgrim's Pride Corp. and Cargill Inc. have been among the major financial backers of Washington lobbyist Richard Berman and his Center for Consumer Freedom." All three corporations "each give at least $100,000 a year to fund Berman and his nonprofit center, according to documents obtained by PR Watch, a Wisconsin group that monitors corporate public relations."
CCF is Berman's "brainchild" – BCI received $1.1M from CCF in 2003. According to The Washington Post, CCF and its ad campaigns "are the brainchild of Richard Berman, a Washington lobbyist and lawyer who is the center's executive director. Berman is also president of Berman & Co., a public affairs firm that in 2003 received more than $1.1 million in compensation from the nonprofit group -- more than a third of its revenue that year, According to its most recent tax returns."

CREW charged Berman and BCI received $7M from CCF since 1997. Watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) charged that Berman and his firm have received more than $7 million since 1997 from CCF and EPI. Based on that, in 2004, the group asked the IRS to revoke CCF's tax-exempt 501(c)(3) status, arguing that Berman used the center "to funnel money to himself and his company, a violation of federal tax law that bars companies or individuals from running a nonprofit for their private benefit."

CCF hired BCI in a no-bid contract. CREW charged that CCF had hired Berman and Company "on a no-bid contract, without finding out whether another firm might charge less or whether the work could be done with in-house employees." According to Frances Hill, a Miami University law professor who specializes in nonprofit groups, "This kind of arrangement should certainly trigger scrutiny" from the IRS.
CREW challenged CCF's tax-exempt status. In November 2004, CREW filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service alleging that CCF had violated its tax-exempt 501(c)(3) status in three ways: "By engaging in prohibited electioneering against presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich; by making substantial payments to the founder of the organization Richard Berman and to Berman's wholly owned for profit entity Berman & Co.; and by engaging in activities with no charitable purpose."
CCF's Actions:

CCF wages PR war against "nannies." According to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, CCF "wages public-relations warfare against animal welfare organizations and other groups that it contends act as self-appointed ‘nannies' to the American public."

CCF sponsored website attacks against MADD. CCF sponsors a website, ActivistCash.com, that features in-depth profiles of other non-profits and groups, including Mothers Against Drunk Driving, that included information on their funding and key players. "Despite their innocent-sounding names, many of these organizations are financial Goliaths that use junk science, intimidation tactics, and even threats of violence to push their radical agenda," the site says. Berman has alleged that some groups have "a violent side to them" and vowed to attempt to shut down firms whose activities run counter to CCF's goals.

CCF launched 2005 ad campaign challenging "myth" of obesity crisis. CCF purchased ad space in Washington DC's Metro rail during the summer of 2005 and ran ads charging that the obesity epidemic in the United States is a myth propagated by the "food police."

2004 CCF ad campaign was critical of nutritionists. In 2004, CCF "ran television ads that featured the Soup Nazi of ‘Seinfeld' fame ordering overweight people to eat salad -- a clear jab at what the group considers pushy nutritionists who are trying to suck the joy out of eating."

CCF attacked researcher's study on childhood obesity. CCF "trashed a seminal 2001 Harvard study co-authored by Dr. David Ludwig, director of the obesity program at Children's Hospital Boston, as ‘dubious science.'" The study found that every additional can of soda kids drink daily increases their risk of becoming obese by 60 percent. Ludwig asserted that his own research techniques were "commonly used," and that his "methodology has been validated, and can provide important and useful information if used accurately." He also said that Berman and his staff never contacted him to clarify his research before widely attacking it.

"Highly selective quoting"— Dr. Ludwig, director of the obesity program at Children's Hospital Boston asserted that Berman and the Center for Consumer Freedom engaged in "highly selective quoting" of his research.
"Missed main point"— Dr. Ludwig also suggested that Berman's extrapolations from his research "missed the main point." Berman criticized Ludwig's study, which found that every additional can of soda kids drink daily increases their risk of becoming obese by 60 percent.
"Nobody in academia takes their arguments seriously."— Dr. Ludwig also argued that CCF makes "a lot of noise, but nobody in academia takes their arguments seriously. They stand for food industry freedom, not Consumer Freedom."
CCF Maintains Fishscam.com website. Fishscam.com aims to dismiss concerns about mercury in fish. In a news report covering FishScam.com's efforts to dissuade consumers from fearing mercury poisoning from fish consumption, Berman's tactics were described as "hyperbolic, aggressive attacks. He once told a reporter his strategy is to "shoot the messenger".

Back to Top




EMPLOYMENT POLICIES INSTITUTE
EPI supports argument against employee-provided healthcare. "'Demanding employers provide healthcare will not effectively increase healthcare coverage in today's economy,’ said Richard Berman, executive director of the Employment Policies Institute, as reported in Medical News Today in 2006. ‘Instead of mandates on businesses, lawmakers need to look toward consumer-driven solutions that won't result in job loss or reduced income for the nation's low-skilled employees.’ Berman is believed to currently double as director of the Center for Union Facts.”

EPI funded by industry. EPI is described by Nation’s Restaurant News as a "research organization funded by restaurants, retailers and manufacturers."

EPI studies suggest that employer provided healthcare results in loss of jobs. On February 1, 2006, EPI put out a press release stating that "Three studies released by the Employment Policies Institute reveal mandates requiring businesses to provide healthcare coverage are ineffective and ultimately result in job loss for the nation's low-skilled employees."

EPI lobbied against the 1996 minimum wage increase. According to The Christian Science Monitor, "when Congress was busy passing a hike in the federal minimum wage in 1996, an opponent, Richard Berman, wrote to two congressmen, claiming the legislation would threaten the jobs of ‘more than 621,000 employees' across the United States. … Nothing of that magnitude happened."

Back to Top




AMERICAN BEVERAGE INSTITUTE
Berman is executive director of the American Beverage Institute (ABI), a trade association representing bars, restaurants, alcohol distributors and manufacturers. The group reportedly works against Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD).

ABI opposes drunk driving laws. According to at least one report, ABI is a group that principally "opposes drunk driving laws."

ABI opposes DUI checkpoints. During the 2005 Holiday Season, John Doyle, the group's current executive director, wrote: "Sadly, the holidays are always accompanied by an increase in alcohol-related fatalities. The American Beverage Institute believes this is due, in part, to misdirected drunk-driving policies which often fail to target the high BAC (blood alcohol content) drivers who cause the vast majority of drunk-driving accidents."

American Beverage Institute has said that alcohol-related traffic deaths dropped in the 11 states that don't allow checkpoints while they increased in Ohio.
ABI opposes ignition interlock systems for cars. In December 2005, it was reported that ignition interlock systems (a sophisticated system that tests for alcohol on a driver's breath) came under some scrutiny the U.S. in the wake of a report issued by California Department of Motor Vehicles. ABI contended that the report showed ignition interlock systems were not effective and actually increased the risk of accidents by 130 percent. The Department, however, "strongly refuted this interpretation."

The California Department of Motor Vehicles wrote "[i]t's true that our study showed that court orders to first offenders to install an ignition interlock device are not effective in reducing recidivism among that group perhaps because many first offenders tend to be in denial, resent the devices and refuse to install them. But ... the devices can have a real effect on repeat offenders who are beginning to come to grips with their alcohol problem and who often find the mechanical devices to be helpful in keeping them out of cars when they've been drinking."
Back to Top




BOWLING PROPRIETORS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA
Berman and a colleague lobbied on behalf of Bowling Association that lists same concerns as liquor industry on disclosure forms. Berman and Kristen Eastlick, both of BCI, lobbied on behalf of the Bowling Proprietors Association of America on small business issues and "any provision relating to drunk-driving countermeasures." According to Congressional Quarterly, the Bowling Proprietors Association and the American Beverage Institute list the same lobbying issues, word for word, on their lobbying disclosure forms.

Eastlick, who lobbies for the Bowling Association and ABI, denied that bowling alleys were fronting for the liquor industry.
Berman helped establish GOP-friendly political action committee (PAC). Berman and Eastlick created a Republican-friendly PAC for the Bowling Proprietors Association, which contributed $93,000 to GOP candidates in the 2003-2004 election cycle.

BCI paid $20K by Bowling Association. For its work, BCI was paid $20,000 from July through December 2004

Back to Top




FIRST JOBS INSTITUTE
In his April 25, 2005, column in Nation's Restaurant News, Berman announced that his PR firm was supporting an organization called the First Jobs Institute. According to Berman, the organization's "mission is to increase economic literacy by teaching the ‘hows' and ‘whys' of a free-market economy. The First Jobs Institute is focusing special attention on helping young people develop a more sophisticated understanding of economics. The First Jobs ECON4U program presents short economics questions and answers in unique venues frequented by youths, such as movie theaters and bowling centers. Restaurant chains are considering using tray liners to deliver the message."


Berman listed a number of individuals involved with the organization, including: "Larry Lindsey, economic adviser to former presidents Reagan and Bush, is chairman. Dell Computer founder Michael Dell, Jack Schuessler of Wendy's, former Marine Corps Commandant General RX. Kelley and oil industry executive and major Republican donor Boone Pickens are only a few of the people supporting the FirstJobs Institute."




Richard Berman has been a regular front man for business and industry in campaigns against consumer safety and environmental groups. Through his public affairs firm, Berman and Company, Berman has fought unions, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, PETA and other watchdog groups in their efforts to raise awareness about obesity, the minimum wage, the dangers of smoking, mad cow disease, drunk driving, and other causes. Berman runs at least 15 industry-funded front groups and projects, such as the Center for Union Facts and holds 16 "positions" in those organizations.

Each year, Berman, using his front groups to spread misinformation, spends millions of dollars distracting the public with misleading ads.

As a result of his largesse, in 2006, Richard Berman used $2,000,000 in cash to buy this $3.3 million house

Saturday July 4, 2009, 4:42 am
I am hysterical

So Kathy let me get this correct...you don't have the ability to debate the Fox news article, as the article did not come from the (CCF) Center for Consumer Freedom. The article is about ecoterrorism from Fox news, but you attack Berman who had nothing to do with any action any ALF nut job did to any researcher.

I tend to guess your forte' has little to do with reality.

Oddly you end with Berman using 2,000,000 "cash" to buy his home. Interesting.

How about commenting on the fact PeTA just spent 2.7 million of your donated money to help animals to buy a 3 story historic home in DC, they did not pay for it with any of their earned money, they paid for it with your donate money. as the house is in PeTA's name, just like the huge headquarters Ingrid live in paid for by donations to help animals. She pays no rent and if you were smart you would check the financial structure of PeTA and discover Ingrid is rich, thanks to people like you. Warms your heart to no Ingrid will be relaxing in her 2.7 million dollar home, for free, munching her carrots, also free and laughing all the way to the bank.

Not even a great house, 3 story 100 yrs old not animal friendly.

I would have your inappropriate post removed as it does not relate to topic, but hey when you have a real opportunity to show how unequipped people like you are, I will not complain and since you posted it thinking it was some brilliant move you will not remove it either.

You can copy & paste all day, copy & paste does not made brains.

Wait a min...is this a blonde joke????

Saturday July 4, 2009, 8:44 am
Oh gee I was under the impression you were all about spreading false information. (which you are) so I just thought I'd correct you on where your misinformation is coming from. And don't get me started on faux news.
And the only joke here is your insults to ALF. You are ill informed as to who and what ALF is. Further more if you are using animals for torture and fraudulent experiments and somebody damaged you car, don't expect too many animal lover to cry for you.

Saturday July 4, 2009, 8:53 am
We have a family farm for rescued large farm animals, we support over 200 and ask for no money, exactly what do you do? I have helped set up no kill shelters and free mobile spay and neuter, Bob barker gave us $50,000 bucks, we must have impressed him.

Your the joke, you sit in your little house with your bleach blond hair and press keys on a computer as some kind of activism. BLAH BLAH BLAH

I know more about the ALF than you ever will and I tell no lies, I correct the liars.

Go play elsewhere, maybe get in a chicken suit and stand outside KFC.

Saturday July 4, 2009, 9:12 am
You're too funny:)
I know who I am, though my resources might not be as grand as yours (if in fact your story is true) I do my share of rescuing the innocent animals and I NEVER advocate against animal rights groups because I've been in this long enough to know how important they are ESPECIALLY ALF.

Saturday July 4, 2009, 10:12 am
I don't even want to read the %$^&&^$*&
wasting of my time I just wanted to say
I missed you Bill

Saturday July 4, 2009, 10:12 am
OH I forgot to sign
Joanna D. - terrorist

Saturday July 4, 2009, 10:56 am
threats and bullying are not a valuable service you're providing for care2. there's a difference between dispelling misinformation and advocating violence. there's also a difference between talk and action. our government needs to realize that. nobody, other than the perpetrator, is responsible for a crime (unless there is the threat of harm for disobeying). and, it was illegal to hide jews from the nazis. i guess we know what you'd have done had you been there.

Saturday July 4, 2009, 11:26 am
i don't know they wan animals to be do nothing but to do all kinds of test to them

Saturday July 4, 2009, 12:07 pm

Thanks for the input, interesting how a dead news story that had not had a post in weeks all of a sudden is drawing attention.

Someone who assumed, may assume someone sent out mail with some call to arms, oddly that is something Care2 frowns upon. But freedom of speech is freedom of speech and I don't assume.

Supporting violence is not freedom of speech, kind of the same rationale of why you can't yell fire in an occupied theater, it places humans at risk.

I suggest you read the new bio of Rodney Coronado, its very good and he speaks to how he confused his passion with hedonism, he speaks to all the regrets he has about violence and destruction, he has not changed his goal he realizes the ONLY way to change anything is legally.

From the Book review of Bite Back:

"And yet, Coronado himself has had a change of heart, one that has involved the full spectrum of his Native American experience, from an early vision quest in sacred Lakota territory to more recent journeys on the Yaqui reservation in Arizona. While he was a fugitive during the 1990s, he issued a statement offering himself in an exchange for "grizzly bears held hostage as experimental subjects" by a particular university and asking for the suspension of tax-funded research on mink, coyotes and otters at other colleges. The sign-off on that letter was: "In the spirit of Crazy Horse." But three years ago, while serving time for freeing a mountain lion from a leg trap, Coronado sent another letter to friends and supporters. By then, he was married and had a son. The letter contained no language of retribution or anger. Rather, he renounced direct action, writing that violence begets violence and that that was not a lesson he wanted to pass on -- an echo of the old mariner, unexpectedly channeled in modern times by Iron Maiden who sang that "we must love all things that God made" -- an awesome ring tone, if ever there was one (and there is).

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/arts/la-ca-dean-kuipers28-2009jun28,0,6252540.story

Perhaps you can learn for your own warrior; perhaps.

Saturday July 4, 2009, 12:16 pm
my email is still tracking, so that's how i became aware. and i see a distinction between yelling fire (which essentially gives people no choice) and telling someone to go jump off a bridge. but, it never hurts to keep reassessing.

Saturday July 4, 2009, 12:18 pm
Hi Johanna, I do believe you get the difference, we actually have common goals but I will never support the actions of any group like the ALF, they are terrorists.

I also don't believe you would ever throw a fire bomb, can't say that for the ALF, it is what they do. I will do what is in my power to stop it, so far I am doing OK in that area.

Be well Johanna, we rescued a Mini Burro, never have I seen one so small. Was almost starved to death and removed by the State from the owner after he was arrested. Now free, fed, sheltered and with lots of critter friends. As soon as the German Shep figures out the little Burro is not a wierd dog, things will be fine.

Saturday July 4, 2009, 8:02 pm
Oh boy, more insidious CRAP from the meat/dairy/egg/hide industries using lobbyists and advertisers and slanderers to get their flesh-peddling, slave-keeping point across by vilifying those who would set the very last slave class free.

Yeah, I believe YOU...

NOT!

More propaganda and lies about organizations that do NOT target or harm human lives (not that I think human lives are any more important or "valuable" than any other life, they are NOT).

Bill C, do some research on ALF, please.

Saturday July 4, 2009, 11:45 pm
Dar D. is soooo disappointed in herself for noting this news. I clicked from my misinterpretation of the assumptions. I do not advocate for any type of violence. However, I don't take on the policing job of this vast internet. No one should, unless obligated or hired in written form by some superior government agency. Then, I better see credentials. I sense several problematic issues with this news. Freedom of Speech and Violence, in an unbalanced view. Freedom of Speech is done, when violence starts, and they should ALWAYS be separate.

Bill, I don't know which is worse the violent actions of certain activists, be it animals or abortions, or someone taking it upon themselves to monitor an activist site to turn people in for "review" with "who knows who" upon legal venues. There are government people to do this job, unless you are one, but then you would tell the Care2 community, if you were working in a government program to monitor posts that have violence, in your perception, of people's words, on the internet..., right?

I mean, sooooo much could be taken out of context, simply stating opinions or feelings on paper or on the internet IS FREEDOM OF SPEECH, and I would just hope someone would be monitoring you.

PEACE, shall come forth not from violence, after that...., I gasp at your true INTENT, Bill.

Sunday July 5, 2009, 2:39 am
I do NOT believe Our Creator, whomever you deem he or she to be, put any animal on this Earth to be experimented on! We were put here to be keepers of the animals, not mad scientists to test drugs, cosmetics and other things on these poor creatures! These animals are living breathing creatures that are happy, play, get sick, bleed and die just like humans. And yes, it is torture when you give a healthy animal a disease, put things in it's eyes while propping it's eyelids open, cut pieces out of it for vivisection; http://www.answers.com/vivisection, etc.!

I also have more than one disease that has screwed up my life in many ways but I would NEVER ask for a cure that made animals suffer to get it! NEVER!
How would you feel if an alien race came down and used you or your loved ones as lab animals?? Because they are allegedly mentally advanced over us humans! Whenever you hurt another creature you hurt humans and the universe as a whole! I understand the psychology behind people with diseases thinking it's ok to experiment on other animals because there might be a cure for them but I still can not agree. The pharmaceutical companies and medical profession to a large degree has brainwashed people into thinking if they can't find a cure, there isn't one. That is nothing but B.S.! Almost ALL medications come from natural sources, they are synthesized so they can be patented! I believe a lot of our diseases have cures from the Rainforest and other parts of the Earth but you will never know what they are from the pharmaceutical companies! If you think they are interested in curing you you are gravely mistaken, cures do not make them richer.

I do not think violence cures anything or helps any cause in the long run. Therefore I do not agree with bombing things or setting things on fire, etc. However I could care less when they go into a mink farm or something and let them all out of their cages! If you have not seen some of the vids of fox farms with people from organizations like Peta, who went undercover, you really should watch them!

We are all entitled to our opinions and I respect that and just have given mine. Have a nice day everyone!
Peace,
Marty

Sunday July 5, 2009, 2:44 am
Oh, and I would not believe much about anything that Fox news says. Do some serious research on Rupert Murdoch who owns Fox and media all over the world. Nothing but his views are reflected on Fox. He is one of the "elite" New World Order creeps! If you think he's not a big threat, think again!

Sunday July 5, 2009, 5:34 am
When we humans want to live a righteous life, should we not condemn all violence in the first place?
We desperate want to call us 'civilized', but is this nothing more than building bridges and traveling to the moon?
Is it alright to experiment on "aliens", when they do excist and when they are not looking just like us, humans?

No matter what: it is WRONG to torture animals for the sake of anything!
I have never visit a lab nor seen a lab in person, but I watch many videos where you could see the bloody torture of animals and see their fear and pain and hear their cries. (and I will never ever watch a video of the abuse of animals in labs again)
I am totally against this barbaric torture, NO aim is worth this barbaric attitude of mankind!

I have No shelter with "saved" animals, but I have saved a few and I support a few rescue organizations and animal organizations with donations.

In the first place I am a cyberactivist and I write letters, because this is necessary too, we need each other: active activists who work in shelters and take part in demonstrations and activists who are writing letters to governments, companies and so on.

I DO understand when an organization use the same violence as the researchers do to their animals, I don't say that I agree.
I will never accept any excuse to experiment on my fellow species the animals!
By the way: I don't like humans who are rude and offensive in the way you are Bill, towards Kathy C.

Quote: "I am not interested to know whether vivisection produces results that are profitable to the human race or doesnt. ... the pain which it inflicts upon unconsenting animals is the basis of my enmity toward it, and it is to me sufficient justification of the enmity without looking further" -- Mark Twain --

Noted

Sunday July 5, 2009, 6:06 am
ty Kathy, facts are always appreciated.
Suzanna, your cyber activity is a great help, so many never realized the horrible abuse of animals until the net shed the light, awareness plays a very large role in fighting all abuses, of animals, children, women, the elderly, the fight for prisioners rights, the mentally ill, it is an endless list that we can work on. please friends check here:

http://www.care2.com/news/member/525884267/1182299

the article is from Simone, vote for SHAC, you can vote for 2, I believe, in each category.

Sunday July 5, 2009, 6:26 am
as far as what each of us does for animals, Bill, whatever we do comes from the heart, not the wallet, I am so broke I wonder most months if I will pay my mortgage, but I am in the process of adopting two sick feral kittens, I am maxing out that emergency credit card once again for animal care, praying my husbands car doesn't break down, again, but we give from our want, that is just as valuable as having Bob Barker endorse me, I don't have anything to give, I have to borrow it to help animals, I have 7 in my small home, all adopted, all just as loved as any high dollar buy.

Sunday July 5, 2009, 6:31 am
What I do I do very well I am very proud of what I do.

As far as animals in research I am a member of Pro-Test, I have experience is saving the Madagascar Lemur working in a Lemur facility. I am educated in human medicine and likely know more about research than all of you, maybe not but I would bet my home on it.

My information does not come from PeTA or Faux groups like PCRM, it comes from the faces of human children with cancer, AIDS sickle cell anemia, it come from the tortured human faces with mental illness. It come from experience and seeing results with over 30 years of practice and the education to pass the testing that allowed me to practice.. I would gladly stop animals in lab if just one of you who scream so loudly had a solution. You don't past your emotional needs.

Don't start lising alternatives, we use every one.

All legit medical schools have entire departments dedicated to finding alternatives, but they still use animals. I can't tell you how many times on this site some "activist" has screamed "theses prestigious universities have stopped the use of animals in research" they proceed to list Harvard, Duke, Mayo Clinic and so on, WHY I wonder because ever single one of these universities USE live animals in research as we speak. I can even tell you each project, what is going on and why it is being done, I am informed and you are basing all on emotional issues, not medical need.

The moment a physician says to you, yes if I used the fruits of animals in research I could save your life, but I don't believe your life has more value than a mouse....you have 2 choices, death or a new physician. I can 100% guarantee if any one of you on this thread was involved in a trauma such as car accident, you would be yelling don't let me die, not don't use anything tested on animal on me to save me. Anyone says that is not true is looking at life through rose colored glass.

I know why you believe animals are not used in labs, PeTA and PCRM manipulate you. They did little things like their "declaration of freedom" where you see schools sign they do not use animals in labs, what you don't seem to know is those specific Universities NEVER used any animals in labs, not because they are against research but using animals in labs is horrifically expensive because of the human laws surrounding their care. You were duped.

The Trauma Model PeTA and PCRM declare such a victory in, all BS, PeTA and PCRM had nothing to do with the development of the simulator, medical research did. PCRM claimed victory, just like if a war ended and you said because of you war was over does not make what you said truthful. What is sad is you believe it when all you have to do is use your fingers and 5 mins to search to see if the truth is what you have been told. You don't want the truth.

The ALF are terrorists and every single one that promotes an action or does an action that breaks a law should and will go to jail, it is happening as you read and it is coming from people who report fool hardly poster who say things like "he should be killed", "I hope the scientists are killed" because if I see it you will be reported, I don't care who you are, I don't care what you feel nor do I care if you like or dislike me. It is called personal responsibility on an open format, and there are specific laws when it comes to medical research. You don't hear much from SHAC anymore do you? Mostly because all of the "leaders" are in jail for 6 years.

Maybe you should start paying attention to posts that advocate violence on Care2, they legally have to follow federal and state law, you see them disappear. What you can't see if what happens after they vanish.

Freedom of speech is not freedom to abuse, it is not freedom to advocate violence and what groups like the ALF do sets positive progressive movement back, you that support the ALF kill more animals than research ever will.

I suggest you temper you words, think before you hit enter. People are tired of violence, people are tired of those who feel they can take the law into their own hands but are too lazy to help change laws.

Times are changing, you can be a part of the solution and help change law, put species caps, stop redundancy in private research.

Those of you who support the ALF and SHAC who attack Staples because they sell paper products to HLS. In a day or 2 Michael Jackson's funeral will be held. In the Staples arena, the company the ALF has fire bombed delivery trucks in California.

Seems ironic if you really love animals you would be protesting such a thing, but you know the reality? Even before Michael is laid to rest PeTA has asked for the rights and money from the song "Ben", yea PeTA bone pickers.



“The use of animals in medical research and safety testing is a vital part of the quest to improve human health. It always has been and probably always will be, despite the alternatives available… Without animal testing, there will be no new drugs for new or hard-to-treat diseases… Rather than apologise for medicine as it is pursued today, society should be seeking to strengthen it. Animal research is an essential part of compassionate humanistic endeavour.”

Sunday July 5, 2009, 7:01 am
YOUR NUMBEROUS RAMBLING/UNINFORMATIVE/MOST BORING POSTS INCLUDING THE LAST STATEMENT SHOWS HOW "UNINFORMED" YOU REALLY ARE!

Sunday July 5, 2009, 9:41 am
your comments about your condition and the "faces of human children with cancer..." are based on emotion and designed to elicit emotion. and people with diseases have already told you that they want animal testing stopped regardless of how it will impact them, but you choose to ignore it. and many on care2 don't see eye to eye with peta and don't believe whatever they say. video doesn't lie. it doesn't matter where these experiments are happening, the point is that they are happening and they need to be stopped. you do advocate violence and abuse, just in the direction that benefits you. and you must know that it's human nature to say "i want to kill that guy" and not mean it. miilions of animals dead, and cancer is rampant. you can't learn to swim until you jump in the pool. as long as we cling to animal research, we won't find solutions (at least not any time soon).

Sunday July 5, 2009, 4:52 pm
"What I do I do very well I am very proud of what I do."

Which is what, Bill C? Spread misinformation and propaganda to keep animals in slave conditions?

Go read about Harriet Tubman and think about the parallels here, because they are more than apparent. Only a fool would miss it.
________________________

Marty - roger that! :)

Sunday July 5, 2009, 7:31 pm
Yea Rooibos I would love to see Harriet Tubmans face as you compaire her to a lab monkey.

Have you folk lost your minds?

Sunday July 5, 2009, 7:53 pm
"I can 100% guarantee if any one of you on this thread was involved in a trauma such as car accident, you would be yelling don't let me die, not don't use anything tested on animal on me to save me. Anyone says that is not true is looking at life through rose colored glass."

Bill, this is a very wrong ASSUMPTION of yours...wow. You think in your mind that EVERYONE is AFRAID TO DIE????????????????????????

Oh I see TRUTH just fine, in this dense world. No rose-colored glasses here, as there is NO DEATH possible, in my mind, of ME. Only the ego feeds the thoughts that one doesn't exist without the physical body.

Infact, there are MANY ACTIVISTS that would give their own lives to save other lives of animals or humans. Bill, in my small opinion, you don't know really that much...., and it is your emotional reaction that seems to override your ability to "see other's points of views."

I for ONE, would not want to kill or torture another sentient being for me or any family member of mine, to live. We ALL die in these human forms, and when our time comes to leave this physical world, then it is meant to be. It seems you fear death, and this might be an area you could heal with to reach peace within, regarding "death." I know there are also many who do fear death, and are willing to slaughter anything to live longer or as a fountain of youth.

It is a choice, that everyone has, and if the world's population was made to watch, WHAT REALLY HAPPENS, in the name of science, THERE WOULD BE NO ANIMAL TESTING. We can be a VOICE of change, without fear. No animal testing, and no violence..., both need to function together. So peace with change can unfold with the greatest of possibilities. They MUST stop torturing and killing these animals for the sake of MEDICAL SCIENCE. Many of us don't want to live forever or until we are 100 years old. The MOST HORRIFIC experiments have been done in the name of SCIENCE. I believe they have cures for many cancers, but for profits keep the people enslaved to a sick system.

However, violence ALWAYS begets violence. Violence against sentient beings will cause a violent reaction from some people.., violent reactions from some people will cause a violent reaction from authorities. It nevers stops, unless change happens at the source of it ALL.

Sunday July 5, 2009, 7:55 pm
Well Well!!! What ya think about this I'm a terrorist and didn't even know it lol!!! I'm all for ALF I believe all animals should not be stuck, bones broken, burned, injected with crap to see if they will die or how soon, with Aids, every stinking thing a human can get these poor animals have to suffer because of it. Heck no!!! its not right of fair they are innocent Bill if you are so worried about ALF then you go and let them test on you ech? Then you can come back and tell us how it was that is if you make it back. And your a snich here on care 2? Not a good thing to let out you know? For you know you will more than likly be black balled. I mean who wants a friend thats going to snich on them all the time I sure as to heck don't, Your not on my friends list for I have heard to many things already no worse than a few other's lol!!! about the same I would say. Noted with discuss that 2 B sur!!!

Sunday July 5, 2009, 8:05 pm
maybe harriet tubman would feel as holocaust survivor, isaac bashevis singer. he wrote, "to animals, all humans are nazis".

Monday July 6, 2009, 4:53 am
My Dear Kathy C, I know full well what you do, I have shared your tears of dismay on many occassion, I have never met anyone more dedicated to the rescue of abandoned animals, and you know how my poor Sister suffers without the basic needs, giving up most everything but a roof, to help them. You both make me so proud to know you, keep on in your struggle, your friends know and appreciate your efforts.
Prayers for Sam, people, help Kathy post to find him a home!

Monday July 6, 2009, 6:38 am
Dar your so bland it has nothing to do with fear of death it has to do with life. I have spent much time working in ER over 30 years.

If so many "activists" are willing die for animals how come not one has? None NADA Zero!

I don't even know of one that got a "BOO BOO", they got jail for breaking the law, they disserve it.

Your so full of it, you sit in your little rose colored world and play. You want to do something, go to a Ronald McDonald house and tell those kids their death will save a mouse.

You never will; just like you will never give for own life for any lab animal. Period, never.

It's Human nature just like Harriet Tubman says loudly, she saved her own species. We are not the same as animals other than biologically alive. We have art and reason, we have culture and law, we do bad things as humans like war, animals war also but its males fighting for sex. You yell animals are "slaves" but how many of you have an aquarium? Point made for the goldfish.

These animals are not "your family", just like you don't save the starving children of Africa you will let the lab animals die too. You will cry and tell other how bad you feel but while your watching that image of a starving child you will be going to the high price organic veggie store to get tofu that taste like meat. While your so upset about lab animals you will be online looking for "cruelty free" cosmetics and there is no such thing as a cosmetic not tested on animals, if you knew FDA laws you would know that. You don't want to know the truth because then people would point their finger at you just like anti-fur activists do to the fur wearers and yell cosmetic user killer of animals, because that's the truth.

I am 100% against any none medical cosmetic or any non medical use fur.

Simple fact is if you simply stopped using cosmetic and donated all the money you could save a Childs life, you could support legal change for lab animals. I bet you will not because it more important to you to look better, to please others and support your own vanity than to say, "I am me and if people don't like me without cosmetic I do not need them". I use no cosmetic product.

If all of you stopped cosmetics there would be no need for animals on cosmetic testing; I am 100% against cosmetic testing, I think a human vain enough to enhance their eyes with make up should be subject to the massive infection and potential eye loss they would face without testing, its just fine with me because it is your choice and your choice alone.

Songbird I have many activist friends, I am an activist we don't break the law. We have a private farm for rescued large farm animals, we have over 200 and we do not beg for money, the animals are all free range, vet cared for, well fed, sheltered and loved. They will never be used for food and we nor is anyone in my family Vegetarian, you yell compassion...we exhibit compassion. Seems I have as many "friends" as you and 2 times the "stars", maybe I will not be "blackballed", maybe I have the ability to choose friends that have common sense.

You all keep talking about "wait and see", I been waiting and all over the world the ALF, SHAC, Animal Brigade, Family are in jail.
PeTA has been kicked out of over 60 USA school systems, Puerto Rico passed a law that anyone from PeTA that enter their country to protest will immediately be deported; for the first time in World History Germany convicted PeTA of violation of human rights of the Jewish people with Holocaust on Your Plate.

PeTA kills 98% of every animal they touch, it's public record. Yea love the sentient being while you inject them with illegal lethal drugs.

People may fool each other but you don't fool people who have functional brains.

Facts people, not lies from PeTA & PCRM, not violence from the ALF or SHAC.

Thanks to "activist" EGO this dead thread was revived. Works for me just fine

Thursday July 2, 2009, 11:12 am
Sheila you go girlfriend:)
I'm so sorry I missed this one

Monday July 6, 2009, 7:38 am

Bill, I'm not comparing Harriet Tubman to a "lab monkey," a lifeform for which you see as disdainful. That's YOUR comparison because you refuse to see the actual parallel, which, despite your refusal, isn't mitigated in any way.

Harriet Tubman was a hero to those who were enslaved. She rescued many beings from a life of misery, and her intention was never to hurt or kill those who kept others captives, but to free captives.

Your refusal to see how this DIRECTLY parallel's ALF's work and position in no way changes that TRUTH, and in no way mitigates its importance here.

You are attempting to use red herrings to divert attention away from the aweful truth that ANIMAL-BASED TESTING GENERALIZED TO HUMAN POPULATIONS IS A MERE ESTIMATE, IT'S NEVER DEFINITE. So why do it at all? The tests are expensive, immoral, unethical, and are committed by one species for self-interest and at the expense of many species.

John Stuart Mill's now-famous utilitarian paraphrase "The needs of the many outweigh the desires of the few" is a case in point: other species outnumber us here, how dare we think it our right to destroy and subvert whole ecosystems for our short-term gain?

You and your childish response trying to denigrate the life of captive primates and downplay the role of an American HERO...how DARE you lie and misrepresent your true intentions here? Did you think no one would notice what you're really up to? Did you really think no one would see through your laughable use of "Fox News" and your attempt to push yet another human agenda, as if humans haven't already committed multiple crimes against the planet already? And here you are, in denial because people here will no longer buy the party line that humans can do whatever they wish. In 1865, Americans learned that lesson very, very well. It's now time for the very last slave class to be liberated as well and there is NOTHING you can do to stop the momentum that's in place and building for the plight of other creatures at human hands.

You need to learn this lesson and learn it well: Mother Nature decides when a creature's time comes, and that includes every last human, and if you or any other human thinks you have a right to destroy and harm others to extend your own little life, you are mistaken. That's why there's nearly 7 BILLION humans on the planet now, a product of irresponsible social policies and overbreeding.

And here you are, trying to purposefully confuse two issues to insist humans have the right to enslave, torture and abuse so they can extend their own miserable lives. How childish, unenlightened and utterly pathetic a view you take.

Monday July 6, 2009, 7:55 am
Bull "Roo", the fact is clear Tubman saved slaves her own species; humans, she saved them because they were being treated less than human.

Monkeys....not human. So to be equal monkey would have to save monkeys. Your the one who seems to feel they are equal.

Your logic is like a neologism, made up to sound good.

I love animals and will stand in harms way to stop animal cruelty, I work to change law and I will help put any law breaker who commits or threatens violence in the guise of animal rights that lives is the USA in jail.

Simple fact.

Monday July 6, 2009, 8:48 am
the people i know who care this deeply about animal suffering also do a tremendous amount for children, elderly, disabled, and homeless. in fact, they completely over-extend themselves and sacrifice to the point that they jeopardize their own security.

Monday July 6, 2009, 10:09 am

NO

No "simple fact" about it here, and if I have to spell it out for you either because you CHOOSE not to accept it, Bill, then so be it.

The direct parallel is that slavery, as an underlying concept, was made ILLEGAL in the USA. It's also ILLEGAL in just about every other nation, too. If the underlying concept of slavery is illegal and immoral, than by extention it applies TO ALL SPECIES EQUALLY. To cherry-pick exceptions and make up rationalizations not to do this to other humans but to allow it to other species is ILLOGICAL and HYPOCRITICAL.

Do you get it now? Clear enough for your?

You didn't offer a logical position, PERIOD. Nor are you or anyone else able to defend the indefendable and it comes right down to slavery is immoral and unacceptable, regardless of who the slave or the keeper might be.

THAT is the point, it will always be. The underlying concept of slavery is the issue, not all the rationalizations and diversions you and others keep trying to use to get around this fact of truth.

As for your logic? Circular. Interestingly CIRCULAR.

Have a nice life Bill, you and all your rationalizations.

Monday July 6, 2009, 10:21 am
Bill you aren't very informed or educated, in my opinion. You make assumptions on what EVERY activist would do..., unbelievable..., even REAL scientist wouldn't make that ridiculous assumption. You can call me any name you want, as I recognize your EGO is in control of your actions. You live from a programmed mind, instead of from the soul.

"I" have NO problem telling any fatally ill child or adult, that WE DON'T TEST ON ANIMALS. See. You don't understand what LIFE is, and you obviously don't believe in reincarnation, as you BELIEVE everyone must LIVE as long as they can.....

So, our belief systems are very different. I agree to disagree with your rantings. :)

WAKE UP, and put the kool-ade down. You are a radical and aggressive person, yourself, with an OPINION. Most of us, agree to disagree with such ridiculous statements. You FEAR too much. Smile, be happy, and STOP ANIMAL TESTING!!

Ok, now I go camping, see ya all, in a few days...much love and peace..namaste

Monday July 6, 2009, 11:17 am
For you information "Roo" there are 27 million humans enslaved right now across the world, 15 million in India alone. Highest numbers ever in world history. Try becoming informed in reality not concept. I don't cherry pick I use your convuluted logic.

I believe we use the "necessary evil" of lab animals we them to fight to save life; human and non-human.

Those of you who use cosmetics kill animals for vanity, how wonderful for you. Your so compassionate.

Simple decision, I believe saving human life and animal life thru research is allot more important than how your eyes look.

Monday July 6, 2009, 12:28 pm

Unacceptable.

There is no such thing as "necessary evil," Bill, because that's the SAME excuse/rationalization/justification that those who held humans in the USA until 1856 said as well. And it's what those in India, in your example say, too.

The problem is slavery as a condition, and if it's accepted anywhere, even once, and permitted to exist, all creatures are at risk. PERIOD. There's no way to get around that, as slavery is the underlying problem and reason that the illogical and self-serving, emotive appeals to keep some form of it are still used by you and other humans.

Did you ask consent of the other creatures you would agree to send to miserable deaths in labs? You didn't. You don't care, they don't count to you. But they are living creatures with the right to live as much as you have, and you do NOT have any right to curtail or harm their existence merely to further your own. You don't, I don't, no human does. You'd better accept that because any species that claims itself the "superior species" and declares slavery immoral and illegal but then accepts it for other species than itself is not, oh what a surprise, a superior species. And if not, than said species especially has no right to enslave one another or other creatures, end of discussion.

I am not interested in your emotive appeals and misdirections, "use for the benefits of humans" is moot and merely a diversionary tactic.

Slavery and those who engage in it in any form are guilty as charged. That means all humans, Bill. Every last one of us. The difference here is that I see it and accept my responsibility, and you refuse to acknowledge it on some hope that looking the other way will make it all go away. It won't. Get used to the guilt trip.

Monday July 6, 2009, 12:38 pm
I have no guilt, here is reality if it is unacceptable, fix it with solutions. Medicine is doing it's part every major university has departemnts for alternatives. We use every altenaive that is viable, it's not enough.

So solve it.

I challange you to deal with a child as ill s I am, yea I am very ill. Look that child in the face with no solution and you tell them they will die because of your belief not theirs.

Chew that guilt trip, Ms Tubman will wait to see what you do to your own species.

You bring up law, change law it your right and I support it. I am very active in lobby to cap species, cap numbers and stop reduncancy. I support anyone doing legal change.

So me what your made as a person who "accepts their reponsibility" because we are absolutely responsible to our own species first, no exceptions.

Monday July 6, 2009, 12:56 pm
I see soooo much heart in every post here, but please, see the rational truth Bill provides -an over load of passion has become self righteous insanity -activists -get your head on right -only then will there be change that does not come from hate -but rather wisdom and understanding -right now to many groups are no different than the political extremists -bent on destruction and even murder of their own cause -think outside the box and really do some honest, stand in front of your maker and ask for his help, good.

Monday July 6, 2009, 1:26 pm
seriously consider marty's example of an alien race. presuming they were a different species with physical and intellectual superiority, would it be perfectly acceptable that they treat us as we treat animals?

Monday July 6, 2009, 1:54 pm
I believe Catherine to seriously consider an Alien race taking over the world as a comparison of treatment of specificly bred animals, geneticly pure to find cures for disease, is so bizzare no one could seriously consider it. I dare say if they were physically and intelectual superior and needed humans, the humans would fight back to protect their species. I also am failry sure the monkey would run for the hills.

Senerio, aliens land...next move absolute chaos because that pretty much wipes out the theroy of God and our uniqueness.

Disturbingly convuluted thought and why I did not address it to start with.

I can see it how, Mr Alien we have some rules....ZAP, OK that rule has been cleared up, next....

Chicken little is still worring about the sky falling also.

f you wish to be taken seriously present real issues, AIDS, Cancer, Genetic illness.

Monday July 6, 2009, 2:48 pm
a scenario doesn't have to be likely in order to have a philosophical discussion about it. and, many facts about the universe were considered far-fetched until proven to be true. i'm sure humans would fight back and be subdued, and then cry and beg for mercy. and then ask why these aliens don't consider our obvious pain, our bond with our children, and our right to live.

Monday July 6, 2009, 3:51 pm
were they proven to be true catherine -or just the majority rules? the sky wasn't blue until somebody said it was and all the sheeple said "oh wow, this guy should be idolized for his profound wisdom" lol -the smartest people i know plead the 5th and proclaim to know nothing amongst your hypothetical hero's who were given power to make guesses fact by the indifferent.

Monday July 6, 2009, 5:03 pm

I'll continue to chew on you, Bill, because of your demonstrated illogical, emotive-laden and hypocritcal responses.

Your defensive commentaries speak volumes as to the FACT that you cannot defend your position - you or anyone else. You use the tired old "might makes right" intimidation in an attempt to end a discussion because you're clearly on the losing side.

That is very, very obvious indeed.

And I would venture to guess that if/when the "uberaliens" land and do to us what we have done to other creatures, you'd still be so self-righteously blind that it would never occur to you that there would be a lesson to be learned. No, not you. You'd kill every other creature via consumption in the name of a species that isn't "superior" and has no more "right" to anything it does save for the fact that people like you desperately try to convince one another that what they are doing is morally acceptable, that some made-up diety somewhere has no objections and even encourages the bad behaviour of humans, so on and so forth.

I doubt very seriously that Harriet Tubman would agree with you; she lived in slavery, she knew what it would like. It's very unlikely she'd wish that condition on another creatures, she seems far too mature for that. Unlike you.

Monday July 6, 2009, 5:04 pm
you still doubt the gravitational pull of the sun?

Monday July 6, 2009, 5:14 pm
Here is what I know Roo, you have benefited from animals in research and if you get ill you will benefit from them again.

You have no medical card refusing treatment based on animal research nor have you informed your insurance company government or private that your will not accept medical treatment derived from animals in labs.

That is pretty much the bottom line in the real world.

Monday July 6, 2009, 5:32 pm
i suppose murdering the enslaved animal in the name of the cause is okay, right rooibos? i suppose slavery is defined by your perception, right rooibos? funny how what is actually best for the animal doesn't matter -it's all about how we defend them -how rich -the animal is still f@#ked -like polotics it's really the war that stimulates you -typical human garbage -and unless it is a total kidnap and then released immediately -the animal is still hostage. it angers me that people feel an animal caged in a no kill shelter, dependent on self absorbed hero's to feed and water them, and maybe if they are lucky a love pat on the head once a day -means the animal is in a more natural habitat -WTF???? it angers me that humans actually assume what an animal thinks and then fights for that thought -who made you god? oh -and as far as your assumptions about bill -it is slander -it's people who utilize their mouth such as yourself that cause real wars -but hey -that's okay because your SELF righteousness is righteous, right rooibos? i know -because that's "people like you", right rooibos? i want to see your results from your way NOW -and i don't mean your little world -i mean global -because if all other options are wrong and unthinkable -then your ideology of a solution should already be showing it's fruit!!

Monday July 6, 2009, 5:42 pm

Lori - answer your OWN questions, seriously.

What angers ME is that people like YOU claim you care about other creatures and then come up with some defensive drivel to sling at humans who aren't afraid to buck the party line and call a spade a spade and the conditions we inflict on other creatures as SLAVERY - BECAUSE IT IS.

You evidently know nothing pro-humane activities, though you claim to. I don't eat animals, I wised up 21 years ago....what's YOUR excuse?

Monday July 6, 2009, 8:15 pm
Whew!!!! Talk about long winded, ego must be stroked, get every word out of head before everyone gets a chance to give a comment/opinion. Sheesh!!!! Bill are you really a member of care2, or are you our mind police???

Monday July 6, 2009, 9:43 pm
Roo,
I don't know what it is about people and attitudes that brings their nastiness out of the woodwork.
We got one that attacks right out of the shoot before anyone can comment, and we have another who hasn't een been a member for a month they claim to know everything about everybosy everywhere.
How nice it must be to be them.
HAVe they walked in your shoes Roo, Black T, or mine for that matter?
Hell no. I learned long ago never to judge a person before getting to know them, and never to assume that I am a knower of all things.
I was raised to treat everyone with respect up until they stopped deserving it, and now a days people don't have manners worth a crap.
We got Lori here judging before she even knows anyone, and we got Bill who now claims to be the knower of all things and people.
Powers that be...bless us all!
We have gods among us.
Threats of the law coming after good people the they don't like them, and mind police, and arrogance so immense that its amazing they found this place without a map.
Well, until the powers that be come knocking on my door, and their names are Bill and Lori, I think I'll trust Randy Paynter to the legalities on this website, and to whom we all are indebted to for having this site open TO ALL OF US WHETHER YOU TWO LIKE IT OR NOT.
You two are the most hostile commenter I've come across in a very long time, and the attacks come from your comments not from anyone else except in self defense.
Own up to your own actions before you cast another rock or misbegotten comment out at people you know nothing about...UNLESS OF COURSE YOU NOW CLAIM YOUR GOD'S AS WELL.

Tuesday July 7, 2009, 5:52 am

Bill, thank your for your ad hominem attacks as they mean nothing.

You believe in the slavery, plain and simple. You are unwilling to admit that you commit the lives of others as worthless because you are too scared and selfish and afraid to endure what you would consign others to suffer.

You are attempting to divert people away from that underlying concept that slavery is wrong by using rationals and excuses and justifications to condemn anyone who doesn't tow the party line and works against the use of other creatures for involuntary, captive test subjects.

Did I miss anything?

Oh, and as for reality check? You're not there because you're continuing to willingly believe that torture and slavery are acceptable at any level. You can't deny this, you admitted it, and everything you continue saying will not change the fact that you showed your cards already and all you can do is attempt to attack me personally instead of explain you own behaviours, which you haven't. That speaks volumes, too.

You self-righteous claim that humans are entitled to do anything they wish - because that's what slavers always insist - clearly negates any claims you make that you understand and accept your responsibility and culpability towards other creatures, and what you have done and would condone.

We gave you the rope, you hung yourself by trying to defend the indefensible - slavery - and by resorting to emotive appeals, intimidation arguments, and ad hominem attacks.

And that is the end of that!

Tuesday July 7, 2009, 6:20 am
Na its not the end Roo your ego can't let it be the end.

Salvery is a concept you don't get. You don't get humans and non-human are not equal other than biologicly alive. You don't get you decide that because you choose it is OK to neuter your "friends", it is no different than a lab issue, did you get their permission?

Your so ego driven. You asked me did I get permission for a lab esperiment, did you get permission to wack off their testicles?

Hipocrisy at its finest.

Tuesday July 7, 2009, 6:23 am
OH just for your education, your reusing your "key" words too much, as a "speaker teacher" you should know that discredits you.

Tuesday July 7, 2009, 7:16 am
To Whomever Thinks This Applies To Them: You Can't Argue With Ignorance. ZZZZZZZ

Tuesday July 7, 2009, 9:11 am
there is a difference between doing things to animals with their best interest in mind vs. another's best interest. also, veg and vegan lifestyles are full of sacrifice and energy expended trying to do the least amount of harm. when i discover i'm contributing to animal harm, like cosmetic testing or small animal farming death, i make changes. i now buy my produce from a local charity based farm that employs manual harvest. and i do grow my own as well. i have recently switched from face lotion to straight single ingredient oil. it all takes time. you can't do everything at once. but veg and vegans examine their actions routinely and make adjustments in order to live as close to their ideals as possible. it's much easier to simply justify everything you do.

Friday July 10, 2009, 9:35 pm
I have been a vegetarian for about 52 years..I have never once viewed it as a sacrifice..or felt a need to express at any great level of energy used.. I don't know..I think it is sort of self-serving to call it a sacrifice..and talk about all the energy one supposedly puts into it..but that's just me maybe..And then again I have never felt the need to put myself above anyone who doesn't see or choose as I do..
And I think that is a big part of the whole issue with those who have that holier than thou..attitude..

As for there being a difference in the reasons for animal research..saying that it is okay if it serves the animal in their best interest..but not humans..Well..all I can say is.. thank goodness that is not your decision to make..It may indeed be your personal choice..and you alone can make it for yourself..however you.. nor I have the right to make that choice for anyone else..But clearly and without a moments hesitation..my child..my loved ones would and do always come first..

If animal research can save or benefit their lives..or even mine..I make no apologies..have no guilt..no shame.. and never.. ever feel a need to justify that choice..though there are many out there who feel people like me or Bill..or the many that benefit from it.. should justify it..No we don't..and I certainly will not..not ever..

Do I hope someday and soon..there will be another way..of course I do..but until that day..the research that is done is necessary..and it will continue in spite of threats and bombings and all the criminal activities against it..That is why the laws are getting tougher on these extreme criminals..I refuse to even call them an animal activist..they are not..at least not in my eyes..

I do not like everything I see and hear and know of in this world..but I have no right to tell another that they must see and do as I do..Yet most here feel that they do have that right..Pretty self-serving and talk about an ego..that is a quite the ego..

This is no different from an abortion debate..any debate..we each think and feel..and do differently..Why is that such a problem for some..

If anyone wants to choose to not use any medicine/treatment that derives from animal research..fine..that is your given right to do and choose as you will for you..but no one here has the right to choose for others..

Lately the newest thing to say is "why are you afraid to die" Who said anyone was afraid to die..I know personally speaking.. I am not..however that does not mean I want to die..and certainly if something can help me to live..and to live better..healthier..well of course I am going to choose life over death..My time will come..and when it does..I am ready..There are meds that many in my family and amongst my friends must take to be well..I don't want to see them die and suffer..and through research I can be thankful for that..

And when my pets have had to go to the vet..meds..treatment..many surgeries..again I can thank animal research for that..and I do..It is as simple as that..

What Bill presents here is nothing more than a simple fact of life..Period..And sadly..as I read this whole thread..and those that disagreed..have done so in such a disrespectful way..there is no respectfully agreeing to disagree here..There have been nothing but insults and rudeness..and attacking..and it has certainly gone off topic..

This news story was not about veg or meat eater..It is not about ones lifestyle..or the so called sacrifices anyone makes..And it certainly doesn't matter where you buy your produce..or if you buy it at all..Not about slavery..
All that is doing is showing that some think/feel they are better than others..because they make a "different" choice..

And it really is sad to see so many still cannot tolerate someone thinking differently from them..And that is about your ego's..nothing more..nothing less..

Read the title again..
"Animal Rights Terrorism on the Rise in U.S."

And is not only wrong that they are doing this..but more importantly..it is against the law..and rightfully so..

Saturday July 11, 2009, 1:18 pm
i think it all falls under the heading of animal treatment. and i don't think i've made any derogatory comments despite being called ignorant and "unable to grasp" scientific concepts. i consider standing in the store, staring at an ingredient list for what seems like days, expending energy for the cause i believe in. and because i really liked the taste of meat, it is a sacrifice of enjoyment, for me. i don't think i'm special, because anyone can do it. and lots of people do far more than i do for the environment, etc. the difference is that if they called me on it, i'd admit i could probably do more to help. the reason i advocate to end animal research and don't think it should be a personal choice is the same as you might advocate that people shouldn't be allowed to kick dogs or light cats on fire to get out their pent up anger. it may serve a purpose for those people, but it infringes on the animal's right to exist.

Saturday July 11, 2009, 2:54 pm
To remotely compare kicking a dog or lighting a cat on fire to legal research could be the reason people say you do not grasp the concept of research, if you really believe any scientist gets enjoyment from the use of lab animals your very mistaken. They feel just like you do, and they still strive to improve the human and non-human animal.

Since you use standing in the store looking at the ingredients and you understand you like a product buy you make a personal choice to not use that legal product. All anyone has aside from personal choice, is rights, and you have the right to legal protest, you have the right to change law.

You do not have the right to violence, threaten violence or harm another human being to achieve any goal surrounding animals and yes people are here to stop it.

You have the right to work to change an animals legal status from "property", good luck on the legal front with that, 95% of the world eats meat or dairy and that has absolutely nothing to do with lab animals. You will never be able to establish a non-property status of all animals until you pass laws that say there is no criminal action to using them for food, but you can choose not to eat them. Until you accomplish that for food, you have no hope of declaring lab animals any differently.

I have the right to the fruits of legal medical research as do you. I also have the right to refuse such advancement or product exactly as do you, we are human, we invented rights, had we not, there would be not animal abuse laws, there would not be humane euthanasia.

The reality is that as far as medicine goes, the people who yell loudly they are against it also enjoy the fruits of the research.

Happens every day and IMO hypocrisy at its finest. I once walked through a large group of protesters, 90% young female, screaming PeTA supporters about the horrors of animals in labs. I very quietly handed them a sheet of paper describing how birth control pills were developed, the research and the effectiveness.

Question was simple, did you remember to take your pill? I continued to walk.

Lots of quiet occurred one by one. They all knew they had alternatives from being the abstainer to condoms, but they choose, and they choose a product that essentially liberated women's reproductive rights in this century, overnight, thanks to research involving animals. That research open the door to change the world.

You will not find women willing to give that back. What you will find is that same excuse from the self righteous, it's already invented. Yes it is thanks to animals, just like antibiotics, vaccines for human and non human, surgery, organ transplant even aspirin was standardize using the live model. RH factor stands for Rhesus from Rhesus monkey. How many are alive thanks to the Rhesus monkey, newborns just as innocent as any, just human.

Can't have it both ways under "absolution of stop animals in labs". So do what you can't to make it better, do what you can to help.

Without animals in labs, where would millions upon millions of human lives be aside from in the grave. You think abandonment of cats and dogs is cruel try it large scale with human babies, maybe human slavery will be the recipient of the unwanted.

You can advocate from your computer, you can be smart and advocate for moderation, species caps, a downward spiral of numbers. In that realize we are doing that and not just small numbers, but numbers in the millions over a 50 year period.

Medicine is doing its part, "activists" are not because of hedonism, a totally human failing.

Saturday July 11, 2009, 9:13 pm
kicking a dog and animal research both involve degrees of harm, however remote you may feel they are. i doubt intent matters much when you're on the receiving end. and the women in the protest line may not have known where their pills came from, but i dare say they still felt they'd rather do without whatever future products animal research might provide than see more animals hurt. and standing in the beating sun with a giant sign for eight hours doesn't sound too hedonistic to me. it may not be productive, but at least it's not sitting idly by, complaining without acting, as so many do.

Sunday July 12, 2009, 4:57 am
How tangential, giving birth and being run over by a car both involve degrees of harm also, does their comparison make any sense in the real world?

Standing in line for eight hours for animal rights (ludicrous as it will not happen, an hour or 2 maybe) is called feed my EGO. It is extremely hedonistic, it's look at me look at me. I am so wonderful I am standing in the sun with my bottled water, sunscreen, and stylish sunglasses.

If it is done in a chicken suit at KFC the end result is every single who sees them pretty much mumbles idiot, crazy or fool. When PeTA does it at a circus what is left is thousands of glossy flyers all on the ground, does PeTA pick them up? What expect them to actually do anything? What a joke, they leave their mess and pat each other on the back after scaring children and accomplishing absolutely nothing for any animal. It amounts to organized littering with money that could be giving a dog or cat health care, helping defer the cost for a senior who is ill to keep their companion.

Why does PeTA not take it million in donations and try education and not lies. When a group goes so far they create PCRM, a group with 4% physicians to tell so many absolute lies to feed the EGO of the sheep that follow them it is very interesting to watch from a psychological view. They use many therapy techniques, but they don't use them to help, they use them to manipulate. Proof is clear when you see people on this site say they have proof Harvard, Duke, Mayo and too many other research hospitals to count do not use animals in labs thanks to PeTA and PCRM, while every single one 100% use animal in labs you see how well the manipulation of the minions works.

You want to do something that is actually doing something? Spend that "8 hrs" and give it to a Ronald McDonald House and volunteer, give it to a Hospice and write letters and read newspapers or simply talk to people. Touch their hand, the hand of a human you do not know anymore than a lab rat, look in heir eyes and give them as much compassion as you claim to have for the "voiceless" because they have no voice either....disease took that.

Put your morals on the line not the researchers, see what your made of. Hold a child's hand or any dieing human you don't know and be with them when they die, spend time learning what happened and why. Then you will get my positive attention.

Sunday July 12, 2009, 10:51 am
if you were comparing pain in relation to natural or somewhat unavoidable events of life, you could compare child birth and car wrecks. it all depends on what you're examining. and i don't totally disagree with you about peta. although i can't think of any group that doesn't try to manipulate supporters. i'm sure there are protesters that are just hanging out with their friends or enjoy the attention, but there are also devoted advocates who would rather be laying on the beach, but desperately want to make a difference and think protesting is the way to do it. i told you i've spend thousands of hours giving free care to cancer, alzheimers, epileptic, and mentally challenged patients. i don't want them to suffer and i'd like to see them get better. i just want it done in a way that doesn't involve animals. it's not impossible.