Pepper

Congress viewing film, Dealing Dogs

Kelev3 — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 15:34:52 GMT

"Mike Doyle, D-Pa., introduced the film: "It's hard to believe that someone would steal people's pets and treat them this way." These type comments always dismay me, while these commentors would never say, "Its hard to believe that someone could treat animals this way - like the torture PURPOSELY carried out by the "White Coats" (legalized animal abusers who are funded and protected by governement) in research labs across our nation, at any given moment. Exactly WHAT do these exhalted Congressmen/women think goes on in a research laboratory wherein animals are imprisoned, restrained and blinded/maimed/surgically cut open/inserted with devices which bring elongated, unbearable physical and emotional pain?

At least they were made to LOOK at the film! "Mans Best Friend" has few friends in congress/the White House or in any government power in USA. EVERY elected official who supports the use of animals as tools/things in research should be forced to spend a week watching the experiments/procedures/tests that they encourage and promote.

Ridiculous nonsense.

Apostrophe — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 14:23:12 GMT

Animal research is a necessary part of medical advancement. Period. If you don't have the stomach for it, don't do it, but don't try to pretend that; a. animal research is of little value, b. that somehow animals are capable of empathy - no matter how nice their fur looks or how soulful you think the look in their eyes is, or c. that you aren't a complete hypocrite because you eat meat and wear leather shoes.

Monkeys are not our cousins. Their genetic line diverged from ours millions of years ago. They are not capable of empathy - they are only too happy to rip people's faces and genitals off when antagonized.

Grow up Mr. Engber.

Animal Rights? I think not

dedeeboru — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 15:02:25 GMT

I really don't see how Pepper's case had anything to do with animal rights.

It's still a case of property rights. These dogs were clearly stolen from the owners and destroyed, and laws about how animals could be procured for testing changed because of it. Not how the animals were treated, what types of animals could be used (dalmations would still be allowed) or what tests could be done to them.

Nothing here changed with regards to animal rights. However, MY rights as a dog owner have been protected slightly by stating that it would be illegal for someone to do this to my dogs...not that it can't possibly happen, just that it's not legal.

animal experiments- misleading & dangerous

antivee — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:01:02 GMT

Animal tests do not minimise the risk for volunteers and patients in clinical trials .92 per cent of new drugs that pass animal tests go on to fail in clinical trials, causing side-effects in humans that did not show up in animals. Far from weeding out dangerous drugs, animal testing allows consumers to be exposed to them because they were safe in animals. The withdrawn arthritis drug, Vioxx, caused 140,000 heart attacks and strokes, though tests in mice suggested Vioxx was good for the heart.

Animal tests were not responsible for the polio vaccine or many of the other the breakthroughs propagandized by the pro vivisection lobby.Dr Albert Sabin, who invented the polio vaccine, swore under oath that the vaccine "was long-delayed by misleading experimental models of the disease in monkeys." Penicillin was delayed for years by misleading experiments in rabbits - and would have been abandoned if it had been tested on guinea pigs, which it kills. Sir Alexander Fleming himself said: "How fortunate we didn't have these animal tests in the 1940s, for penicillin would probably never have been granted a licence, and possibly the whole field of antibiotics might never have been realised." Today, animal tests continue to hinder medical progress. For example, hormone replacement therapy increases women's risk of heart disease and stroke, though monkeys predicted the opposite. Adverse reactions to prescription medicines - all tested for safety on animals - are the fourth biggest killer in the western world. Trials (such as microdosing) could prevent many of these deaths. The recent UK clinical trials disaster should confirm any doubts about the efficacy of animal tests. It is clearly the results of the human tests which tell us if drugs and therapies are safe or not. Those in favour of animal tests who advocate that anti-vivisectionists refuse medical treatments because they couldn't have been developed without animal experiments should now be putting themselves forward for the first clinical trials.

Hypocrites at the Hospital

j78 — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 16:18:25 GMT

So, Pepper's story is very touching, yet very telling at the same time. What type of research was she (assumed to be) used for- perfecting pacemakers. What other horrible research were dogs used for- proving the possibility of transfusion. Which of you is going to refuse either when it becomes a medical necessity?

All most all advancement in surgical techniques requires an animal larger than a mouse or rat. Some researchers use the much less charismatic pig, but why is a dog's life more sacred than a pig's? And not all animal research is even for the benefit of humans. Some animal research helps (gasp) animals, but makes test subjects ill or uncomfortable or non-living. When you bring poor Spot in for hip replacement surgery for the hip dysplasia we humans bred into him, just how do you think vets perfected the technique?

I am all for insuring that research animals are obtained legally and cared for properly. But medical research is sometimes an ugly place. To benefit from the results while condemning the process is pure hypocrisy.

-A scientist

Everything dies, Daniel,...

tracker — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 13:56:00 GMT

and for humans, when guys and gals get very old, they'll say things like, "well, I've lived my life. What do I want to have that surgery for? Why should I live another 10 years? What's the point?"

For humans, life is a project (read some existentialists), ... we ask kids "what do you want to be?" Kids then start planning their future. When you have a future, and are trying to shape it, life is at its best. We see the death of such a one as a tragedy ... not so much the death of the old.

While I think the life of just about anything is beautiful, and we have then a prima facie duty to avoid killing anything, even the ants on the sidewalk we can just as easily sidestep, I don't think such duties are based on respect for the subjective or conscious beings within such animals; it seems to be based on aesthetic value. What any such consciousness is like we can only argue analogically for based on human development ... we become self-aware sometime in early childhood, and becoming self-aware, according to Daniel Dennett and his ilk, creates the self rather than recognizes it. Self-awareness is necessary for second order desires (desires to have certain desires), and all that then seems necessary for personhood, and that for personal projects and the opportunity for tragedy.

There seems to be so much illicitly read into the lives of monkeys and cats in this article its value is very low for me. Is your baby monkey's life that much different from an old humans? Any plans getting derailed while working in the lab? What life is the monkey imagining that you are depriving him of?

I have a dog. He's a happy little guy who wouldn't nip or bite no matter how much you pulled his tail, tugged his ears, or reached in his mouth to take away his bone. His death would be sad to me, but I wouldn't think it a tragedy. He has no plans. He lives in the moment. One moment is pretty much like the last, happy and satisfied. When he dies, it'll be less of a good thing, and so a bad thing, but not a tragedy. It won't mean that much to him, I think, because it can't. It will mean more to me, or my son or wife.

It sounds unkind, but the animals you describe don't have that much to live for. If the scientific understanding of them is right, they struggle for life based on instincts rather than consciously in order to find or create some meaning for their lives (despite Disney's best efforts to the contrary). That makes them radically different from humans. And that should be kept in mind when worrying about their welfare, and when forming a conception of animal welfare.

A very conflicted opinion

Eigenvector — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 19:40:53 GMT

Intellectually I understand why animals are used for research, emotionally it produces a stain that just won't wash off my conscience.

There's a conundrum that has to be settled in our society. Animals are unfortunately a necessity if we wish to continue improving our medical research and product safety. As ugly and callous as it may sound, we need them to sacrifice themselves for the betterment of all. But what we don't need is monetary transactions for them. Selling of animals for research, breeding animals for sale at pet shops. I don't just mean dogs and cats either, even livestock and cattle should be given their due consideration as living breathing feeling animals. The exchange of money only fuels the circle of cruelty to animals. Dog fighting the world over would end if people couldn't gamble on them.

The story of Pepper really makes you see how shitty people can be. People who cage them, people who chain them up and leave them alone all night, people who abuse them in the name of scientific curiosity. People who abandon their pets after the kids get bored with them. You wouldn't treat your family this way - so why treat your animal companion this way?

cranks - the parts that cause revolutions

antivee — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:48:07 GMT

. Before anyone says that the majority of scientific opinion favours animal research and that those who say otherwise are cranks let me remind you that Wilberforce was a lone voice crying in the wilderness in the battle to abolish slavery. Now we do not understand how he could have been opposed. I believe that day will come when we will not understand why those who wished to spare sentient beings agony and fear were so casually dismissed.

Blacks were considered not to have the same feelings or intellect as white people. Today we know this to be utter rubbish. Throughout history various groups have fought for their rights - the right to live free from persecution, fear and constraint. Now it is the turn of other sentient beings sharing the planet with us - but we have to campaign for them as they don't share our language or system. But that doesn't make them any less worthy; we give these rights to people in a vegetative state, the mentally handicapped, babies and even violent criminals. Until we stop the abuse of other animals for our own gain we cannot call ourselves truly civilised.

Pffft. We don't even treat humans well

shamwow — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 16:57:42 GMT

We don't even treat people well (especially people who don't look like us) but our hearts are supposed to bleed for macacas? I swear Americans have the weirdest set of values.

Sqeamish ingrates need not apply

im1 — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 05:22:33 GMT

So I'm an animal researcher (mice) and I do wish some regulations were tightened on animal housing inspections. As a researcher I want my animals healthy, happy, fed just right, never mixed up or "lost" but the university's animal care staff has more control over these issues than me and more inspections, better training on techniques, and higher quality facilities would suit me just fine (my experiments would be more reproducible).

But to people who want to call a halt to ALL animal research I want to know:

What scientific discoveries are you willing to forgo? What treatments were worth it? Which were not? What basic biology that led to treatments do you want to give up, for yourselves and for your children?

I strive not to be cruel to the animals I use in my research and here I am down in the trenches, getting peed on and occasionally bitten by mice and it seems some high and mighties just want their scientific discoveries without the science. Unless folks against animal research include in their discussion EXACTLY what science they want to forgo, I will not be getting over feeling like these people are squeamish ingrates. You want to talk about better housing, better inspections, better training, better technique? I am all for it, let's talk. But if you just want to moon about the poor sweet animals whilist you enjoy the all medical science has to offer, well that's gonna piss me off everytime.

Also why does nobody ever talk about how people treat the animals in their homes. Those glue traps people use? The mice die by dehydration, unspeakable cruelty. On the two occasions mice have been found in my home they were put outside (since my husband and I work with mice, we're pretty good at catching them by the tail).

Plus does no one watch nature videos? People idealize the "life in the wild" vs "a whole life spent in a cage" but life in the wild is full of disease, injury, harsh elements, and predators. I honestly believe a well cared for lab mouse leads a nicer life than a wild one.

Pepper

Liane — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 04:07:32 GMT

So sad...and unfortunately, still going on today. Just not in the huge numbers as before (thank God!). To help stop ALL of this, please support: PCRM (Physician's Committee for Responsible Medicine) and/or other anti-vivisectionist charities. We owe this to these poor animals who have come before...and hose poor souls who are still being experimented on today.

We still look into the past

EASYRIDER — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 13:56:06 GMT

While many benefits are discovered through animal experimentation today, we must still acknowledge that a great deal of what we know today about human tolerance is a direct result of Nazi German scientists hideous experiments on humans during WWII. Like the rocket program America developed with direct help from ex-Nazi scientists, medical doctors did in fact retain and use the meticulously kept records and data from Nazi experiments. As horrible as it was, those records actually benefited human medical advancement in some cases. While we can hope something like that never happens again. We can be thankful we only have animals to advance science.

OK, how's THIS for necessary research

cassandra — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 17:52:17 GMT

I read about an experiment where rats were forced to swim until they nearly drowned several times, then were rescued. The idea was, to see if the ones who survived the longest would try the hardest next time. In order to complete the experiment, as the head researcher reported, "Of course, we finally had to let them all drown." Of course.

Also of course, the idea was to apply this to human behavior. But there was a problem here. No rat would ever do anything so completely, senselessly vicious and utterly repulsive.

Welcome to the New Atheism

john h. w. doe — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 19:22:50 GMT

Yup, we humans are just a more complex pile of meat than our animal friends. Slice and dice, cut and paste - who cares? So long as my DNA gets passed on, I've done my job. Have a nice life.

I manage without them.

cassandra — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 13:26:12 GMT

I have often heard the arguments that animal experiments are needed to help cure human beings. They are also used to test cosmetics...by putting them in the animals' eyes.

Now, I have severe allergies and asthma and must use hypo-allergenic cosmetics only. I am the one who would presumably benefit from these cruel tests...except that my hypo-allergenic lines, Almay, Clinique and Eucerin, manage without animal testing. And they are the ones who are most responsible for protecting the health of women like me. So people who defend animal testing on this basis are full of night cream.

Animals in the Lab

Chanrazig — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 09:30:22 GMT

This article really hit me in the gut. I remember my own experience in a prestigious neurophysiology lab, as a grad student with a cat. I was shocked to discover the cats were sentient with a wide range of emotional responses and obvious needs for comfort and attention. They purred when I approached and clearly wanted to be touched. My cats lived with electrodes encased in plaster of paris atop their heads, sometimes so heavy they slanted to the side. Years later I can tell you the research didn't warrent this treament. And even if the results had been great there is really no justification for treating animals this way. It is another indication of how out of balance our civilizaiton is. When we subdue our best instincts that would have us live in harmony with all life we desensitize ourselves and the entire human community....needless to say, I found my life's work elsewhere.

surgery without animals

antivee — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:36:01 GMT

In 1899, Prof. Lawson Tait, M.D., Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons, the most distinguished surgeon of his day, said: " LIke every member of my profession I was brought up in the belief that almost every important fact in physiology had been obtained by vivisection & that many of our most valued means of saving life & diminishing suffering had resulted from experiments on the lower animals.I now know that nothing of the sort is true concerning the art of surgery: and not only do I not believe that vivisection has helped the surgeon one bit, but I know that it has often led him astray." ( 1000 Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection) by Hans Ruesch. In the UK surgeons are trained by accompanying & observing a surgeon in practice & gradually operating under supervision. Today there there are many technological options for practising surgery such as virtual cadavers. Veterinary medicine & research should also be ethical.No animal, or group of animals, should be deliberately harmed in an attempt to advance the health of another group of animals - just as we would oppose invasive experiments on any group of people for the supposed 'greater good'. It might be less convenient for researchers to develop surgical techniques and drugs by collecting data from animals suffering naturally-occurring sickness and injuries, but it is the only humane and civilised option. Equally, data obtained from animals in a 'real-world' environment will often be far more valuable than that extracted from those held captive in an artificial setting.

will the rab lat really cure cancer?

antivee — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:31:25 GMT

http://www.straight.com/article-229606/john-pranger-will-lab-rat-really-cure-cancer Straight.com. 10 June 2009. Will the lab rat really cure cancer? By John Pranger

“People are very complacent with their animal models. But this begs the question of whether there exists a good model of cancer.” — Andy Maniotis (University of Iowa), American Journal of Pathology, 1999 Cancer! It’s our Grim Reaper, today’s Black Death, a dark and terrible health threat and destroyer of lives. We hear about it, read about it, and fear it more deeply than any other present disease. Ominously, projections indicate that one in every five of us will die of cancer, and 40 percent of us will have a diagnosis of cancer sometime in life. Considering that there are more than 200 different forms of human cancer alone, the hope for a “magic bullet” that will cure all is just pie in the sky. The disease first went political in 1971, when the Nixon administration declared the “War on Cancer”. We all know the war has not yet been won, even with billions poured into it every year. In fact, cancer deaths have increased steadily. This humiliating defeat is in large part due to our addiction to animal experimentation. It is an open secret in scientific circles that animal-modeled biomedical research yields results that can’t safely and reliably be applied to humans. Yet it stonewalls and stubbornly persists, misleading doctors and diverting research grants that should be going to clinical (human-based) methods of curing disease. Dr. Albert Sabin, famed developer of the polio vaccine, had this in mind when he said: “The cancer research bodies cause pain and suffering to hundreds of thousands of animals every year by inducing in the animals, through chemicals and irradiation, large cancerous growths in their bodies and in their limbs. Inflicting cancer on laboratory animals has not and will not help us to understand the disease or to treat those persons suffering from it...laboratory cancers have nothing in common with natural human cancers. Tumorous cells are not unrelated to the organism that produced them. Human cancers are greatly different from the artificial tumors caused by the experimenters in the laboratories.” (Vivisection Unveiled, by Tony Page [Jon Carpenter Publishing, 1997]) Repeatedly, distinguished outspoken authorities such as Dr. Sabin—respected, vested scientists—have insisted that assuming similarities in physiological and pharmacological response in different species is wrong, unscientific, and irresponsible. Nevertheless, testing chemicals for carcinogenicity in animals drunkenly persists, as governments and charities continue lavishing money on those trying out new anticancer medications on animals. The years are filled with uncounted hope-inspiring “miracle drugs”—such as interferon, interleukin, and taxol—that worked well in animals, mostly mice. They were hyped to the public with great hullabaloo and promise, but when actually given to human patients they did not live up to expectations. Dr. LaMar McGinnis, an oncologist and medical consultant to the American Cancer Society, stated: “We thought interferon was ‘chicken soup’ in the early ’80s. I remember how excited everyone was; it seemed to work miracles in animals, but it didn’t work in humans.” Johanna Dwyer of Tufts University agreed: “The major problems of animal studies are the validity of cross-species comparisons and relevance to the human disease.” (Fundamental and Applied Toxicology, 1983) Commenting on a media pronouncement of yet one more “fantastic breakthrough”, G. Timothy Johnson, medical editor for ABC News and WCVB-TV news in Boston, wrote in a letter to the editor of the Boston Globe, on May 22, 1998: “My own medical perspective is that animal cancer research should be regarded as the scientific equivalent of gossip—with about the same chance of turning out to be true, i.e. truly effective in humans. Some gossip turns out to be true, but most of it does not...and gossip can cause great anguish for those affected, in this case millions of desperate cancer patients worldwide.” Animal experimentation can’t cure or prevent cancer, but personal responsibility can—people taking control of their destiny through prevention. Prevention isn’t glamorous and is viewed by some as not even scientific. We as people prefer to continue in our less healthful habits knowing that “Science” is at work on a cure for our dissipated systems. Plus, it must be said that prevention doesn’t finance the charities, the universities, and the institutes as animal experimentation does. It is pointless and dangerous to continue following the old, worn-out paths, for the difference between animals and humans is so great that vivisection leads us mostly into error. The high standard of medical care we enjoy today was made possible not by animal vivisection but by clinical observation and research; antisepsis and hygiene; in vitro research with human tissue; post-marketing drug surveillance; serendipity; mathematical modeling; autopsies; computers; epidemiology; pathology; specialization of medical care; technology; genetics; basic science research in fields such as chemistry, mathematics and physics; and prevention. But the momentum of non-human experimentation has such thrust, such habit, and such money behind it that it will die hard. For this reason, legislation banning animal testing may be required to halt its havoc. Perhaps only outlawing of animal research will have the force to contain the experimentation contagion. John Pranger is the director of communications for the Animal Defense & Anti-Vivisection Society of British Columbia. For more information, see the Humane Charity Seal of Approval, Dissection Alternatives, and Animalearn Web sites. ==============================================================

The Solution

cannon1229 — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:44:49 GMT

Here's my solution to the animal testing debate: Let's start using guys like Micheal Vick for medical experiments. Works for me!

This article is too long...

here2help — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 16:23:08 GMT

This article is too long, and it starts out really gross. I don't mind going to a second page to give Slate a higher page count, but four pages is too many. Also, if an article starts out with writing about eviscerated dogs, please warn me in the teaser so I don't click on it in the first place. What's up Slate? There used to be funny, playful yuppie/hipster fair on this site like comparisons of robot vacuum cleaners... now its dog guts and waterboarding. It's like some left wing sadists took over the site. Uh oh, this comment is starting to get kinda long and

Animal Testing Makes Me Sick....I have an idea!!!

ala860 — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 02:49:42 GMT

Here's a radical idea......if they need to do scientific experiments on animals, why don't they use the "animals" on death row. These people on death row will probably never receive the death sentence they were given. They are a liability to society and to taxpayer dollars and they should have to give something back for the lives they have taken. If scientists need to determine how medications, etc. affect humans, why not use humans instead of inflicting this inhumane treatment on God's innocent creatures. To me, animals, especially our domestic pets, give unconditional love. That's more than we as humans give. I would rather take my chances using beauty products, etc. that haven't been tested on animals and still put out there in the market place. I have nine cats, all muts, but if someone took any one of them for scientific experimentation, I wouldn't be responsible for my actions. Animal testing needs to stop now!!

I am FURIOUS

hateanimalabuse — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 01:43:56 GMT

I am stunned beyond adequate words. My mind feels overwhelmed with story after story of humans proving themselves to be the absolute cruelest species on the face of this earth. First, I had no idea that the Pavlov I grew up hearing about in school was such a sadistic, monsterous animal abuser performing the cruelest most unthinkable acts against animals in the name of "basic science" as one of the authors put it. And speaking of basic science, the monkey man put it brilliantly when he in short questioned WHAT IS THE POINT regarding the unthinkable abuse he inflicted on Clayton the primate. Over EIGHT YEARS of living like that?!? I am so furious, I almost can't begin to describe my anger over this or the other stories. It is quite possible I have never been this angry. Or helpless.

Here's a great quote from one of the authors, which is at the heart of animal abuse: "What's true for Pepper must be true for us; her heart must beat like mine." Hmm, YES. That is CORRECT. Animals CAN feel and experience pain and dread- wow, just like us, who would have imagined! Though they cannot speak like us intelligent, all-surpassing humans, they too have beating hearts...just like OURS! Amazing. And why not take it a step further? How about some scientific experimentation to scientifically prove that science is correct in the theory that all living creatures feel pain and deserve "humane" (funnily enough a word derived from "human") treatment. Why not experiment with humans in cages undergoing the exact same treatment and document their reactions just to prove that this theory is in fact true? Would humans like to be attached to cages 24/7 with open fistulas while licking up their own stomach acid for a lifetime or until their captors decide to murder them? Would humans experience suffering if they sat in cages every moment of their lives when they were not being deformed by a scalpel or undergoing some Frankenstein nightmare without anesthesia? Would they? Why not further experiment in the name of science and document our findings? Seriously, someone tell me WHY NOT?! WHY. NOT. Well, because. Because humans are the superior species and therefore deserve superior treatment, do we not? We can inflict the most evil sufferings upon animals in the name of "basic science" because though animals do have feelings, they are not humans. It is the most disgusting, twisted logic and I cannot begin to fathom it. Nor is there anything I can do to change it. Animal abuse otherwise known as "experimentation" will always occur at the hands of humans on this messed up planet. I will seriously, seriously try to forget that I ever laid eyes on these articles.

THE DALMAITION STORY-PART 1

veeka — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 02:52:27 GMT

I am hooked and I have to read the next installments. The fact that it is a true story makes this nightmare all the more compelling. can't wait to read more.

Inhumanity against animals

ragab1 — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 19:18:06 GMT

As I read Pepper's story; I came close to tears. When I saw pictures, the tears came. There is no domesticated animal more faithful, more loyal, and more intent on pleasing it's "people", than a dog. For me, seeing images of abused animals is more gut-wretching than of hungry people - why? Because animals don't have a choice when they are subjected to this treatment and there are far more organizations that help people than there are ones that help animals.

I try to speak and encourage local help - to anyone who will listen - on behalf of animals and children; because they can't speak for themselves.

Sometimes, I think PETA loses its credibility when it goes to extremes to make a point - but, sometimes you HAVE to do extreme things or people won't notice or listen.

For people who think it's ok to partake in dog fighting and other practices; you don't have the right. Animals are living beings and are NOT here to use as you wish - especially not for your wallet.

For people who criticize animal lovers and speakers; because they feel that people are more important - think again. Dogs have been trained to tell when diabetics are low on sugar levels; cats and birds and dogs have been credited with saving their families by alerting them to a fire within the house; dolphins have been credited with saving the lives of other species - like humans... (2003 or 2004 - New Zealand) putting themselves at risk, to protect a group of swimmers from a Great White. Furthermore, animals have emotions - they aren't just instinctive. Animals are capable of forethought, of feeling emotional pain and grief. Of course, the degree to which animals exhibit this, varies with the species; as well as the individual animal... but, dogs, elephants, and dolphins are among those of whom 'higher intelligence' has been observed and recorded.

I hope this article will motivate and move people to be more dilligent in their efforts to stop and prevent inhumane acts that are imposed upon animals.

Pepper's legacy

OnPoint — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 17:57:18 GMT

This is a very painful article to read, but I'm really gratefull that you have taken the time to research and write it. People need to know about the atrocities committed against animals in the name of science. By the way, there are many scientist speaking out against the cruelty and needlessness of these experiments i.e. Phycisians Committee for Responsible Medicine