Holy Hell, Look what those evil PETA goons have done!

Those heartless bastards at PETA! Here's a news report on one of their evil deeds:

http://www.fox4kc.com/news/sns-ap-mo--petacompliant-catintubation,0,3457834.story

Mo. hospital switching from cats to mannequins for training following PETA protest

ST. JOSEPH, Mo. (AP) — A northwest Missouri hospital is switching to high-tech mannequins for medical training classes after an animal rights group protested its use of live cats.

A spokeswoman for Heartland Regional Medical Center in St. Joseph said Monday the hospital will hold its first class using the $46,000 mannequins on Sept. 30. The classes teach health care workers how to place a tube down an infant's throat to help the baby breathe.

The hospital had previously used cats, whose throats are similar to that of a human infant.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals in June filed a protest with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It said using live animals was unnecessary.

Hospital spokeswoman Marcy George said the change had more to do with advances in technology than with PETA's protest.

(sure, Marcy, great timing for a techno breakthru, huh?)

-----------------

Fuck those damn cats. They deserve to suffer. Who the hell does PETA think they are? They even brag about this and other evil deeds on their website...


http://www.peta.org/about/victoriesByCampaign.asp?Campaign=Animals%20Used%20for%20Clothing

Can be sorted by date, issue, etc.


Here's a sample from "Companion Animals"...

2008 - Colorado Pet Store Closed; 22 Charges Filed

When a PETA activist informed us that Jessie's Pet Paradise, a Castle Rock, Colorado, pet store, was selling sick puppies, we worked closely with her to make closing the store a priority. We assisted her in organizing demonstrations, collecting signatures from people who had bought sick puppies from the store, and publicizing her efforts.

After a demonstration against Jessies Pet Paradise sparked the interest of the local media, a television station conducted an undercover investigation at the store, and a U.S. Department of Agriculture inspector discovered a potentially deadly parvovirus outbreak and no appropriate isolation area for sick puppies.

The owner of Jessie's Pet Paradise was summoned to court, charged with 15 counts of knowingly selling sick animals and seven counts of failure to quarantine, and Jessie's Pet Paradise has been permanently closed!

2006 - Caribbean Nation Switches to Kindest Known Method for Euthanizing Unwanted Animals

PETA worked with Aruba's government to help replace T-61--an unacceptable euthanasia agent that can cause extreme burning pain and is difficult to administer humanely--with sodium pentobarbital, the most humane method of euthanizing unwanted, sick, or injured cats and dogs.

2007 - PetSmart to Stop Selling Bunnies

Following a PETA action alert and protests targeting the company, which resulted in thousands of e-mails to the company's executives, PetSmart has announced that it will no longer sell rabbits in its stores! Considering that thousands of rabbits are abandoned to die in animal shelters every year, this is big news for bunnies--and for people who care about their well-being. To read the latest on PetSmart, click here.


2007 - Raccoons Rescued From Arkansas Hellhole

PETA successfully facilitated the release of four raccoons and two coatis from a disgusting Arkansas hellhole that was disguised as a "Raccoon Rescue." These wild animals had been born and raised in deplorable conditions, and some of them had even been bred for profit. The animals are now thriving in a reputable wildlife rehab center in Texas.

2008 - Retail Chain Pet Supplies ''Plus'' Stops Confining Dwarf Frogs to Tiny Plastic Cups

Following a PETA action alert, Pet Supplies "Plus" has agreed to stop selling dwarf frogs in tiny plastic cups. The frogs now must be kept in regular display tanks with compatible fish.


-------------------


Oh, there's more, much much more. FUCK PETA!!!!!!!!!

Cats are impossible to control, and are very traumatized when one tries to do so.

over some of their worst members doing stupid things like throwing paint on vain women in fur coats and insisting on a vegan lifestyle for everybody.

I find myself getting frustrated with them almost as often as I admire their work, especially their work exposing conditions on factory farms.

PETA has some big problems.

to it. It is a TERRIBLE thing to kill innocent animals to make fur. I even used to wear fur a long time ago. Thanks to that red paint and years and years of public education, I would never touch it now nor would anyone I know. Thank-you PETA for a job well done! Nothing stupid about it at all. Stupid is not getting the message.

and fashion changed.

PETA would have done better had they focused on the conditions fur animals were being raised in as well as the inhumane slaughter of those animals.

Attacking people, even if they're silly, vain women, is never a good idea.

But PETA is not one of my favorite organizations.

Their fringe crap just earns them ill will.

The nearest medical school is Kansas City 50+ miles to the south.

Technically, KU Med is in Rosedale, KS, but you can straddle the stateline on foot there.

positive things that they accomplish. The organization could be a lot more effective.

About the bad things that PETA does besides suffering from media villification?

Thanks

I can't take such people seriously.

does not benefit humans. Clinical trials must be done on humans. Experimenting on animals wastes time and money.

Scientists wouldn't experiment on animals if there wasn't a purpose.

Clinical trials must be done on cell cultures, then lab animals, then human volunteers.

Animals are not similar enough to humans for those tests to be useful in developing treatments or products for humans. If they were, human tests would not be necessary. Instead, it's the animal testing that is not necessary, and waste time in getting drugs and other treatments to those who need them.

Miseducation.

http://www.hsus.org/animals_in_research/animal_testing/limitations-of-animal-methods.html


"As a direct consequence of shortcomings cited above, pharmaceutical regulators have reported that fully 92% of drugs that pass preclinical (animal) testing fail clinical trials, because animal studies so often 'fail to predict the specific safety problem that ultimately halts development'".

Imagine how bad things would be if people were given drugs that hadn't been tested on animals yet.

It defies common sense.

People are given drugs that are tested on animals, and are not safe for humans....because animals are not humans. What a drug does to an animal is in no way a predictor of how it will effect a human. These tests are animal cruelty for no beneficial purpose.

The purpose of clinical trials is to determine safety, effectiveness, side effects, correct dosage, etc. in ill humans.

The purpose of animals studies is to determine if the drug is even safe enough to begin testing in humans. In addition to other properties like pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics.

Studies start with in vitro cell culture, and the model progressive gets more and more human like as the trials progress. By the time they get to primates the biochemistry is practically identical.

Essentially, nothing of what you're saying is true.

in their biology and anatomy. For instance, dogs need considerably less dietary fat and protein than cats. Feed a dog cat food consistently, and the dog will die either kidney or liver disease. Feed a cat dog food consistently and the cat will die of malnutrition . Just as dogs are not cats, and cats are not dogs; rats, cats and dogs are not humans. Using these animals in testing human products waste time and resources, and is unnecessarily cruel.

http://www.neavs.org/betterscience/index.htm

"Species differences between animals and humans lead to flawed science and incorrect conclusions. (For example, forcing dogs to inhale cigarette smoke did not show a link to lung cancer; Flosint, an arthritis medication, tested safe in monkeys but caused human deaths; and the recalled diet drug phen-fen caused no heart damage in animals, while it did in humans.)"

Biochemically we're damn near similar.

And when testing drugs, that's what matters.

"For example, forcing dogs to inhale cigarette smoke did not show a link to lung cancer"

Not in early, poorly done studies no. In modern studies you do see carcinogenesis. In dogs, mice, rats and non-human primates.

"Flosint, an arthritis medication, tested safe in monkeys but caused human deaths; and the recalled diet drug phen-fen caused no heart damage in animals, while it did in humans.)"

Which is why you have clinical trials in humans before releasing it in the market. That's not an argument against pre-clinical trials.

Oh, and the cat food/dog food thing's a myth.

studies. It was released for medical use with inadequate human clinical trials. The humans who died were not volunteer test subjects, but medical patients, who believed the drug combination had tested safe. It hadn't. FDA approval was given on the strength of primate trials.

This use of non-human primate trials as the basis of FDA approval killed people. The drug combination was pulled from the market after it killed people to whom it had been prescribed--not in trials.

Drugs aren't released based on the strength of pre-clinical trials.

Drugs are moved up to clinical trials based on the strength of pre-clinical trials.

You're just digging yourself further into a hole with this stuff.

The FDA isn't as ethical as you'd like to believe, either.

Not everything is about dogs and cats.

Miseducation.

of COURSE human tests are more accurate than animal tests, but the reality is that if a drug causes death/impairment/serious consequences to an animal, then we DON'T test it on humans (generally speaking) and HUMAN lives are saved.

we've already seen quotes from PETA reps saying that animals and humans should be equal, so for those idiots, saving human lives, by occasionally killing animals is always wrong.

either you think human beings are more important than animals, or you don't. that's pretty much a litmus test thang for me.

you are a firefighter and you come into a house and you are the only one on scene. there is an unconscious person lying on the floor and next to him, an unconscious dog.

who do you choose to save? i know the right answer.


it is just staggeringly ignorant to claim that animal testing is useless.

you sound like a creationist: "the fossil record is wrong"

is to save them both, coward.

That the life of a human being is likely of more value than a lesser life form.

To each being, value remains the same.

What if those two bodies lying there unconscious, one was a black man and one was a white man?

It's funny how we humans, selfish fucks that we are, dole out "value" on the lives of other creatures like some WalMart marketer.

It has to do with intelligence (consciousness, being self-aware.).

And yes, my ranking system ranks most animals as exempt from suffering or involuntary euthanasia. Especially most of the animals that we currently slaughter on a daily basis.

Don't just assume that I am being speciesist. I put permanently incapacitated humans on the same plain as other animals with similar intelligence, or lack there of.



On edit: Peter Singer, one of the great leaders of the animal liberation movement, is where I get my thoughts from.

I'm just stating that nobody has anyplace to make judgment.

I do like Singer, and I appreciate your use of the terminology speciesist/speciesism.

it's a position that's at least open to discussion, because it does not FLY IN THE FACE OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, such as the religionists who claim that animal testing has no value.

it is intellectually honest and scientifically correct to say "animal testing will save some lives, but it is immoral to sacrifice a sentient animal, like a dog, cat, or chimp, in order to achieve these lifesaving breaththroughs. their lives are valid and we do not have the right to sacrifice them for our benefit"

THAT is an intellectually honest position. i can respect you for that.

i have no respect for those who ignore facts because they don't like the conclusions they might have to draw.

you could only save one (at a time). assume it's a 250 lb person and the dog is the biggest breed.

iow, GIVEN the scenario, i repeat the question - who do you save?

you HAVE to make a choice.

make it.

the answer is easy for me.

Would you still pull the dead person out and let a living dog die?

answer the question.

they are both unconscious. they both have a pulse and shallow respirations (i used to be a firefighter/medic, and this is not a ridiculous scenario).

WHO DO YOU SAVE?

answer MY question, and i will answer yours.

or dodge away. the choice to be intellectually honest and take a stand is presented to you. ball's in your court.

fwiw, if it was a woman and a man, i'd save the woman.

in your scenario, where the man is "dead" (you reference it as no pulse, breathing, etc.) and the animal is still alive- i would rescue the man

here's why.

just because he has no pulse and breathing does NOT mean he cannot be revived. i have PERSONALLY seen a person who had neither pulse nor respiration be recovered. science is wonderful that way.

if the guy was CLEARLY IRREFUTABLY DEAD, then i would save the dog.

but i would have to have 100% certainty.

i have a story to illustrate this. it's a true story. cops in an agency (i won't reveal the agency, but it's seattle area) respond to a murder-suicide. wife is dead, and husband has killed himself, in a tub FILLED with blood. there's huge gashes where he slit himself and he's clearly dead. patrol guys check the scene, secure it and call homicide.

hours pass... and the de(f)ectives are in the room doing the video walk through (most decent agencies video walk through most major crimes before gathering evidence) , doing the commentary, etc. when all of a sudden one of the detectives hears a moan. he tells his partner to knock it off. partner's like "knock what off?" . they look over to the "dead" guy in the tub and it was HIM. he was alive. the WHOLE FRIGGING TIME.

needless to say this is a classic fuck up on the part of patrol, the sgt, AND detectives.

my point is - no pulse and no respiration do not necessarily mean dead. people can be revived.

and sometimes, somebody who can look OBVIOUSLY dead, isn't.

but there are some you KNOW for sure. but MERELY not having pulse and respiration isn't enough to give up on them.

fwiw, yes i do.

i've explained (in my insurance posts) that i am on disability due to a sports injury. no work for me for a while.

If it's Glenn Beck, I save the dog.

:rofl:

i have read on DU in at least a week.

Never let good science get in the way of your opinion.

there are metric assloads of medical data supporting the efficacy of animal studies.

heck, even some HONEST PETA types will admit that animal testing saves lives, they just say it's not worth it.

that's at least an intellectually honest position.

but the reality is that (fortunately) the vast %age of people think that if animal testing is done with attempts to cause minimal suffering to the animal (but with the realization taht unfortunately, sometimes its going to happen), that it's worth it.

there are tons of lifesaving medications in use right now that have saved HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of lives, that were developed using animal testing.

i'll give you one obvious example: INSULIN

insulin was developed using animal testing. for example, the original researcher TIED THE PANCREATIC ducts of a dog, and then using extracts (including insulin) from the pancreas of the dog, could keep the dog alive. this is how insulin was eventually isolated and is now used to treat millions of people worldwide.

there are literally scores of examples of other meds, but insulin is one that most people are familiar with, so i used it.

science matters. your anti-scientific religion is just as silly as a creationists.

you WANT it to be the case that animal testing does not work, so you ignore scientific evidence that it does.

here's another hint. animals are different (different species), but there are numerous similarities. like, um... INSULIN

Nor have organ transplants, heart valves, cornea surgeries or vaccines. Smallpox was good stuff, and should never have been eradicated, if you ask me.

Lab animals are bred to be better models. Not worse models.

It was developed in the 1940's and bred for four primary traits - large litters, relatively large body size, docile temperment... And a resistance to the insecticide ingredient arsenic trioxide (the strain was originally used in chemical testing, obviously). Though unknown at the time, arsenic trioxide is an endocrine disruptor - it makes hormones go hayware. It's not just this particular chemical that spague-dawley is resistant to, but endocrine disruption in general. That is, its glands are very difficult to knock off-kilter. Humans, of course, are not very resistant to endocrine disruption. Chemicals like this mess us the hell up. In sufficient doses, they mess up the rats too, of course, but their resistance means that it can throw off the measurements of how much it could take to harm a human, and to what degree.

Most lab animals are bred just like any other commercial animal - they are supposed to be very fertile, very passive, and very multipurpose. You can't have a multipurpose lab animal that's also a stellar model of human systems. There are lab rats (and mice, and whatnot) that are specifically bred or engineered to be good models of human systems... But they tend to be highly specialized for a single point of research (such as the zucker rat, used for research into obesity and hypertension).

for one example. That, to me, represents hypocrisy.

the ones who got all pissy at Obama for swatting a fly?

and I love the outrage and wanton hate the meat eaters have for them. They do tons of good work.

and may they keep up the good work! :thumbsup:

from the dime store. :sarcasm: Thank God that someone is looking out for these little creatures. :thumbsup:

However, from this article:

They are against domestic pets.
They are against animals for food.
They are against hunting and fishing.

Fuck PETA, any good deeds they do are not going to change their radical agenda. Would you support Bush if he did those things? No you wouldn't because his underlying principals are the antithesis of what I believe is right.

and I don't give the slightest fat fuck what a bunch of keyboard jockeys think about them.

:thumbsup: