🚀 go-pugleaf

I don't know how the others in this newsgroup feel about this post, but I am
disgusted.

Not disgusted at the March of Dimes, but disgusted at those that posted it.

I for one worked with a woman who claimed that it was the help of the MOD
that helped to save the life of her child.  Have any of you held a child in
your arms and thought they were dying?  I have....not from a medical
problem, but from an accident...and I can tell you, it is not a good
feeling.

And if research from animals would help just ONE parent avoid that
feeling...and possibly save the lives of hundreds of people, then I am for
it.

What a lot of people fail to mention is that the animals that are used in
experiments are over 90% rodents.  The same mice we kill in mouse traps.
Those that are dogs and cats come from pounds...because careless HUMANS do
not have their animals spayed and neutered, thus causing an overpopulation
of unwanted pets.  They have to get these pets from somewhere, and they are
not grabbing them out of backyards.

Those are my personal feelings, since someone else decided to post theirs.


*Because **NYC** Could Be BETTER!! <rosaphilia@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:21833-3989D99A-32@storefull-177.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Message From: Bshoss@aol.com Date: Mon, May 1, 2000, 8:28pm  To:
action_alerts@egroups.com, CEASE@post.com, Xvegunxkidx@aol.com Subject:
[action_alerts] Kinship Circle/March of Dimes Sponsors
***For more background on March of Dimes animal experiments, and the
companies who fund them, visit the PCRM web page:
<www.charitiesinfo.org> Or
go to <www.pcrm.org> and click on March of Dimes. Please feel free to
use
these letters, or your own personalized version of them, to write to any
other companies in your area that sponsor the March of Dimes.
Digitas/Bronnercom
Dr. David Kenny, president
Bronnercom Prudential Tower, 800 Boylston Street
Boston, MA 02199
ph: 617-867-1000 . fax: 617-867-1111
email: contactus@digitas-inc.com
<http://www.sig.bsh.com/>
Dear Mr. Kenny,
I respect Digitas/Bronnercom's ongoing charitable efforts. However, I
thought
you would be interested to learn why numerous individuals and companies
no
longer contribute to the March of Dimes (MOD.)
MOD has done little, if anything, to advance the prevention and
treatment of
human birth defects. What MOD has done is spend millions of dollars on
gruesome animal experiments. In their infamous attempt to isolate birth
defect causes, MOD funded experiments to sew the eyelids of kitten shut
for
several months before killing them.
MOD has also backed studies to examine the effects of nicotine, cocaine
and
alcohol on animals-even though countless other animal addiction
studies have
proved futile. According to Science Journal (1999), a digesting drug
is
exposed to various body functions that deviate from one species to
another.
By the time a drug is excreted from a MOUSE, it doesn't look anything
like
the same drug voided from a HUMAN. Because it is impossible to replicate
human genes in another species, advances in birth defect research have
come
from human-based studies, not animal tests.
If you continue to support the March of Dimes, your dollars and time
will go
toward wasteful and cruel "research" projects such as induced brain
damage in
ferrets, the forced premature birth of lambs, or the freezing of newborn
animals. Recently, MOD nicotine experimenter Ed Levin received tobacco
industry financing for his tests on pregnant rats and their offspring.
He
received so much money from the cigarette people, his report wound up
promoting nicotine's "benefits." This is not a question of saving the
life of
an animal over the life of a child. This is a question of choosing good
science over bad science.
Human population studies and non-animal alternatives have led to most
medical
breakthroughs: Cholesterol's link to heart disease, the
smoking/nutrition
link to cancer, and hypertension's link to stroke all came from human
studies. Researchers worked with humans-not animals-to identify the
thalidomide disaster, fetal rubella syndrome, fetal alcohol syndrome,
the
folic acid deficiency link with spinal cord abnormalities, how lead and
methyl mercury effect development, and how magnesium sulfate may prevent
cerebral palsy and mental retardation in premature babies.
Now that you know about MOD's inhumane animal tests, I hope you will
voice
your concern or outrage. Please focus your company's honorable efforts
on one
of the many charities that use alternative, non-animal tests: the
National
Easter Seal Society, the Association of Birth Defect Children, or the
American Kidney Fund. (For a complete online list of charities, visit
<www.charitiesinfo.org>.)
Until the March of Dimes replaces ineffectual animal tests with tenable
research alternatives, they don't deserve your money. Thank-you for
considering this serious issue.
Sincerely,
Federal Express
Mr. Frederick W. Smith, President, Chairman of the Board
2005 Corporate Ave.
Memphis, Tennessee 38132
U.S. Mail Box 727
Memphis, Tennessee 38194-1854
ph: 901-369-3600 . fax: 901-395-4904
<http://www.fedex.com/>
Dear Mr. Smith,
I respect the charitable efforts of Federal Express. However, I thought
you
would be interested to learn why numerous individuals and companies no
longer
contribute to the March of Dimes (MOD.)
MOD has done little, if anything, to advance the prevention and
treatment of
human birth defects. What MOD has done is spend millions of dollars on
gruesome animal experiments. In their infamous attempt to isolate birth
defect causes, MOD funded experiments to sew the eyelids of kitten shut
for
several months before killing them.
MOD has also backed studies to examine the effects of nicotine, cocaine
and
alcohol on animals-even though countless other animal addiction
studies have
proved futile. According to Science Journal (1999), a digesting drug
is
exposed to various body functions that deviate from one species to
another.
By the time a drug is excreted from a MOUSE, it doesn't look anything
like
the same drug voided from a HUMAN. Because it is impossible to replicate
human genes in another species, advances in birth defect research have
come
from human-based studies, not animal tests.
If you continue to support the March of Dimes, your dollars and time
will go
toward wasteful and cruel "research" projects such as induced brain
damage in
ferrets, the forced premature birth of lambs, or the freezing of newborn
animals. Recently, MOD nicotine experimenter Ed Levin received tobacco
industry financing for his tests on pregnant rats and their offspring.
He
received so much money from the cigarette people, his report wound up
promoting nicotine's "benefits." This is not a question of saving the
life of
an animal over the life of a child. This is a question of choosing good
science over bad science.
Human population studies and non-animal alternatives have led to most
medical
breakthroughs: Cholesterol's link to heart disease, the
smoking/nutrition
link to cancer, and hypertension's link to stroke all came from human
studies. Researchers worked with humans-not animals-to identify the
thalidomide disaster, fetal rubella syndrome, fetal alcohol syndrome,
the
folic acid deficiency link with spinal cord abnormalities, how lead and
methyl mercury effect development, and how magnesium sulfate may prevent
cerebral palsy and mental retardation in premature babies.
Now that you know about MOD's inhumane animal tests, I hope you will
voice
your concern or outrage. Please focus your company's honorable efforts
on one
of the many charities that use alternative, non-animal tests: the
National
Easter Seal Society, the Association of Birth Defect Children, or the
American Kidney Fund. (For a complete online list of charities, visit
<www.charitiesinfo.org>.)
Until the March of Dimes replaces ineffectual animal tests with tenable
research alternatives, they don't deserve your money. Thank-you for
considering this serious issue.
Sincerely,
Blue Cross Blue Shield
Mr. William C. Van Faasen, Chief Executive Officer and President
100 Summer Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02110
ph: 617-832-5000 . fax: 617-832-3355
<http://www.bcbsma.com/>
Dear Mr. Faasen,
I respect Blue Cross Blue Shield's charitable efforts. However, I
thought you
would be interested to learn why numerous individuals and companies no
longer
contribute to the March of Dimes (MOD.)
MOD has done little, if anything, to advance the prevention and
treatment of
human birth defects. What MOD has done is spend millions of dollars on
gruesome animal experiments. In their infamous attempt to isolate birth
defect causes, MOD funded experiments to sew the eyelids of kitten shut
for
several months before killing them.
MOD has also backed studies to examine the effects of nicotine, cocaine
and
alcohol on animals-even though countless other animal addiction
studies have
proved futile. According to Science Journal (1999), a digesting drug
is
exposed to various body functions that deviate from one species to
another.
By the time a drug is excreted from a MOUSE, it doesn't look anything
like
the same drug voided from a HUMAN. Because it is impossible to replicate
human genes in another species, advances in birth defect research have
come
from human-based studies, not animal tests.
If you continue to support the March of Dimes, your dollars and time
will go
toward wasteful and cruel "research" projects such as induced brain
damage in
ferrets, the forced premature birth of lambs, or the freezing of newborn
animals. Recently, MOD nicotine experimenter Ed Levin received tobacco
industry financing for his tests on pregnant rats and their offspring.
He
received so much money from the cigarette people, his report wound up
promoting nicotine's "benefits." This is not a question of saving the
life of
an animal over the life of a child. This is a question of choosing good
science over bad science.
Human population studies and non-animal alternatives have led to most
medical
breakthroughs: Cholesterol's link to heart disease, the
smoking/nutrition
link to cancer, and hypertension's link to stroke all came from human
studies. Researchers worked with humans-not animals-to identify the
thalidomide disaster, fetal rubella syndrome, fetal alcohol syndrome,
the
folic acid deficiency link with spinal cord abnormalities, how lead and
methyl mercury effect development, and how magnesium sulfate may prevent
cerebral palsy and mental retardation in premature babies.
Now that you know about MOD's inhumane animal tests, I hope you will
voice
your concern or outrage. Please focus your company's honorable efforts
on one
of the many charities that use alternative, non-animal tests: the
National
Easter Seal Society, the Association of Birth Defect Children, or the
American Kidney Fund. (For a complete online list of charities, visit
<www.charitiesinfo.org>.)
Until the March of Dimes replaces ineffectual animal tests with tenable
research alternatives, they don't deserve your money. Thank-you for
considering this serious issue.
Sincerely,

To Post a message, send it to: action_alerts@eGroups.com
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
action_alerts-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
Message From: Bshoss@aol.com Date: Mon, May 1, 2000, 8:28pm  To:
action_alerts@egroups.com, CEASE@post.com, Xvegunxkidx@aol.com Subject:
[action_alerts] Kinship Circle/March of Dimes Sponsors
***For more background on March of Dimes animal experiments, and the
companies who fund them, visit the PCRM web page:
<www.charitiesinfo.org> Or
go to <www.pcrm.org> and click on March of Dimes. Please feel free to
use
these letters, or your own personalized version of them, to write to any
other companies in your area that sponsor the March of Dimes.
Digitas/Bronnercom
Dr. David Kenny, president
Bronnercom Prudential Tower, 800 Boylston Street
Boston, MA 02199
ph: 617-867-1000 . fax: 617-867-1111
email: contactus@digitas-inc.com
<http://www.sig.bsh.com/>
Dear Mr. Kenny,
I respect Digitas/Bronnercom's ongoing charitable efforts. However, I
thought
you would be interested to learn why numerous individuals and companies
no
longer contribute to the March of Dimes (MOD.)
MOD has done little, if anything, to advance the prevention and
treatment of
human birth defects. What MOD has done is spend millions of dollars on
gruesome animal experiments. In their infamous attempt to isolate birth
defect causes, MOD funded experiments to sew the eyelids of kitten shut
for
several months before killing them.
MOD has also backed studies to examine the effects of nicotine, cocaine
and
alcohol on animals-even though countless other animal addiction
studies have
proved futile. According to Science Journal (1999), a digesting drug
is
exposed to various body functions that deviate from one species to
another.
By the time a drug is excreted from a MOUSE, it doesn't look anything
like
the same drug voided from a HUMAN. Because it is impossible to replicate
human genes in another species, advances in birth defect research have
come
from human-based studies, not animal tests.
If you continue to support the March of Dimes, your dollars and time
will go
toward wasteful and cruel "research" projects such as induced brain
damage in
ferrets, the forced premature birth of lambs, or the freezing of newborn
animals. Recently, MOD nicotine experimenter Ed Levin received tobacco
industry financing for his tests on pregnant rats and their offspring.
He
received so much money from the cigarette people, his report wound up
promoting nicotine's "benefits." This is not a question of saving the
life of
an animal over the life of a child. This is a question of choosing good
science over bad science.
Human population studies and non-animal alternatives have led to most
medical
breakthroughs: Cholesterol's link to heart disease, the
smoking/nutrition
link to cancer, and hypertension's link to stroke all came from human
studies. Researchers worked with humans-not animals-to identify the
thalidomide disaster, fetal rubella syndrome, fetal alcohol syndrome,
the
folic acid deficiency link with spinal cord abnormalities, how lead and
methyl mercury effect development, and how magnesium sulfate may prevent
cerebral palsy and mental retardation in premature babies.
Now that you know about MOD's inhumane animal tests, I hope you will
voice
your concern or outrage. Please focus your company's honorable efforts
on one
of the many charities that use alternative, non-animal tests: the
National
Easter Seal Society, the Association of Birth Defect Children, or the
American Kidney Fund. (For a complete online list of charities, visit
<www.charitiesinfo.org>.)
Until the March of Dimes replaces ineffectual animal tests with tenable
research alternatives, they don't deserve your money. Thank-you for
considering this serious issue.
Sincerely,
Federal Express
Mr. Frederick W. Smith, President, Chairman of the Board
2005 Corporate Ave.
Memphis, Tennessee 38132
U.S. Mail Box 727
Memphis, Tennessee 38194-1854
ph: 901-369-3600 . fax: 901-395-4904
<http://www.fedex.com/>
Dear Mr. Smith,
I respect the charitable efforts of Federal Express. However, I thought
you
would be interested to learn why numerous individuals and companies no
longer
contribute to the March of Dimes (MOD.)
MOD has done little, if anything, to advance the prevention and
treatment of
human birth defects. What MOD has done is spend millions of dollars on
gruesome animal experiments. In their infamous attempt to isolate birth
defect causes, MOD funded experiments to sew the eyelids of kitten shut
for
several months before killing them.
MOD has also backed studies to examine the effects of nicotine, cocaine
and
alcohol on animals-even though countless other animal addiction
studies have
proved futile. According to Science Journal (1999), a digesting drug
is
exposed to various body functions that deviate from one species to
another.
By the time a drug is excreted from a MOUSE, it doesn't look anything
like
the same drug voided from a HUMAN. Because it is impossible to replicate
human genes in another species, advances in birth defect research have
come
from human-based studies, not animal tests.
If you continue to support the March of Dimes, your dollars and time
will go
toward wasteful and cruel "research" projects such as induced brain
damage in
ferrets, the forced premature birth of lambs, or the freezing of newborn
animals. Recently, MOD nicotine experimenter Ed Levin received tobacco
industry financing for his tests on pregnant rats and their offspring.
He
received so much money from the cigarette people, his report wound up
promoting nicotine's "benefits." This is not a question of saving the
life of
an animal over the life of a child. This is a question of choosing good
science over bad science.
Human population studies and non-animal alternatives have led to most
medical
breakthroughs: Cholesterol's link to heart disease, the
smoking/nutrition
link to cancer, and hypertension's link to stroke all came from human
studies. Researchers worked with humans-not animals-to identify the
thalidomide disaster, fetal rubella syndrome, fetal alcohol syndrome,
the
folic acid deficiency link with spinal cord abnormalities, how lead and
methyl mercury effect development, and how magnesium sulfate may prevent
cerebral palsy and mental retardation in premature babies.
Now that you know about MOD's inhumane animal tests, I hope you will
voice
your concern or outrage. Please focus your company's honorable efforts
on one
of the many charities that use alternative, non-animal tests: the
National
Easter Seal Society, the Association of Birth Defect Children, or the
American Kidney Fund. (For a complete online list of charities, visit
<www.charitiesinfo.org>.)
Until the March of Dimes replaces ineffectual animal tests with tenable
research alternatives, they don't deserve your money. Thank-you for
considering this serious issue.
Sincerely,
Blue Cross Blue Shield
Mr. William C. Van Faasen, Chief Executive Officer and President
100 Summer Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02110
ph: 617-832-5000 . fax: 617-832-3355
<http://www.bcbsma.com/>
Dear Mr. Faasen,
I respect Blue Cross Blue Shield's charitable efforts. However, I
thought you
would be interested to learn why numerous individuals and companies no
longer
contribute to the March of Dimes (MOD.)
MOD has done little, if anything, to advance the prevention and
treatment of
human birth defects. What MOD has done is spend millions of dollars on
gruesome animal experiments. In their infamous attempt to isolate birth
defect causes, MOD funded experiments to sew the eyelids of kitten shut
for
several months before killing them.
MOD has also backed studies to examine the effects of nicotine, cocaine
and
alcohol on animals-even though countless other animal addiction
studies have
proved futile. According to Science Journal (1999), a digesting drug
is
exposed to various body functions that deviate from one species to
another.
By the time a drug is excreted from a MOUSE, it doesn't look anything
like
the same drug voided from a HUMAN. Because it is impossible to replicate
human genes in another species, advances in birth defect research have
come
from human-based studies, not animal tests.
If you continue to support the March of Dimes, your dollars and time
will go
toward wasteful and cruel "research" projects such as induced brain
damage in
ferrets, the forced premature birth of lambs, or the freezing of newborn
animals. Recently, MOD nicotine experimenter Ed Levin received tobacco
industry financing for his tests on pregnant rats and their offspring.
He
received so much money from the cigarette people, his report wound up
promoting nicotine's "benefits." This is not a question of saving the
life of
an animal over the life of a child. This is a question of choosing good
science over bad science.
Human population studies and non-animal alternatives have led to most
medical
breakthroughs: Cholesterol's link to heart disease, the
smoking/nutrition
link to cancer, and hypertension's link to stroke all came from human
studies. Researchers worked with humans-not animals-to identify the
thalidomide disaster, fetal rubella syndrome, fetal alcohol syndrome,
the
folic acid deficiency link with spinal cord abnormalities, how lead and
methyl mercury effect development, and how magnesium sulfate may prevent
cerebral palsy and mental retardation in premature babies.
Now that you know about MOD's inhumane animal tests, I hope you will
voice
your concern or outrage. Please focus your company's honorable efforts
on one
of the many charities that use alternative, non-animal tests: the
National
Easter Seal Society, the Association of Birth Defect Children, or the
American Kidney Fund. (For a complete online list of charities, visit
<www.charitiesinfo.org>.)
Until the March of Dimes replaces ineffectual animal tests with tenable
research alternatives, they don't deserve your money. Thank-you for
considering this serious issue.
Sincerely,

To Post a message, send it to: action_alerts@eGroups.com
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
action_alerts-unsubscribe@eGroups.com

       Learn more about me & then some!
http://www.interport.net/~rugosa/index.html


GABRIELLI WINERY of MENDOCINO, CA
 http:www.interport.net/~rugosa/gabriell.html
Exquisite Hand-crafted Viogniers &
Cal-Italia wines at Homespun prices.
http://www.gabrielliwinery.com

Give to PeTA so they can continue their campaign to eliminate
companion animals?  Not bloody likely!

Lynn K.

"Brenda Conley" <blc75@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:8md9b0$3eq$1@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
> What a lot of people fail to mention is that the animals that are used in
> experiments are over 90% rodents.  The same mice we kill in mouse traps.
> Those that are dogs and cats come from pounds...because careless HUMANS do
> not have their animals spayed and neutered, thus causing an overpopulation
> of unwanted pets.  They have to get these pets from somewhere, and they are
> not grabbing them out of backyards.

While I agree with your general idea, I must correct one item.

Medical researchers that uses dogs and cats usually get them from breeders
or they raise their own. It is extremely necessary to control genetic background and
other variables. Pound animals (or yard-snatching) offer no such controls.


--
��Swamp��

Medical researchers > that uses dogs and cats usually get them from breeders
> or they raise their own. It is extremely necessary to control genetic
background and
> other variables. Pound animals (or yard-snatching) offer no such controls.


That is what I hear from this group.  I have read research saying they are
often pound animals.  I still say I'd rather have a dog than a child tested.
Swamp <����@����.com> wrote in message
news:solkucttdbm164@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Brenda Conley" <blc75@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:8md9b0$3eq$1@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
> > What a lot of people fail to mention is that the animals that are used
in
> > experiments are over 90% rodents.  The same mice we kill in mouse traps.
> > Those that are dogs and cats come from pounds...because careless HUMANS
do
> > not have their animals spayed and neutered, thus causing an
overpopulation
> > of unwanted pets.  They have to get these pets from somewhere, and they
are
> > not grabbing them out of backyards.
>
> While I agree with your general idea, I must correct one item.
>
Medical researchers > that uses dogs and cats usually get them from breeders
> or they raise their own. It is extremely necessary to control genetic
background and
> other variables. Pound animals (or yard-snatching) offer no such controls.
>
>
> --
> ��Swamp��
>
>
>
>
>
>

I'd like to hear more about PETA. I hear nothing but bad about them but not
sure why. Are they too drastic in their measures?

> Give to PeTA so they can continue their campaign to eliminate
> companion animals?  Not bloody likely!
>

Very few animals used in scientific research are "random source," which is the
correct terminology for animals derived from unknown backgrounds.

Almost ALL animals used in research are bred in commercial facilities solely for
this purpose.  This serves two purposes: to control the genetic background of
the population, and to ascertain any diseases animals may have.  For instance, a
random source animal may have a virus that could nullify the scientific
results.  All conditions must be carefully controlled for interpretation to be
valid, and most research protocols call for animals that are free from any
number of pathogens and virusses.

Some companies conducting animal testing may use random source animals, etc.,
but even then, most of these do not come from the pound.  Most shelters do NOT
dispose of animals by selling them to companies.  It is truly rare to come
across those that do.

Brenda Conley wrote:

> Medical researchers > that uses dogs and cats usually get them from breeders
> > or they raise their own. It is extremely necessary to control genetic
> background and
> > other variables. Pound animals (or yard-snatching) offer no such controls.
>
> That is what I hear from this group.  I have read research saying they are
> often pound animals.  I still say I'd rather have a dog than a child tested.
> Swamp <����@����.com> wrote in message
> news:solkucttdbm164@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Brenda Conley" <blc75@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:8md9b0$3eq$1@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > What a lot of people fail to mention is that the animals that are used
> in
> > > experiments are over 90% rodents.  The same mice we kill in mouse traps.
> > > Those that are dogs and cats come from pounds...because careless HUMANS
> do
> > > not have their animals spayed and neutered, thus causing an
> overpopulation
> > > of unwanted pets.  They have to get these pets from somewhere, and they
> are
> > > not grabbing them out of backyards.
> >
> > While I agree with your general idea, I must correct one item.
> >
> Medical researchers > that uses dogs and cats usually get them from breeders
> > or they raise their own. It is extremely necessary to control genetic
> background and
> > other variables. Pound animals (or yard-snatching) offer no such controls.
> >
> >
> > --
> > ��Swamp��
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

Tatiana wrote:

> Very few animals used in scientific research are "random source," which is the
> correct terminology for animals derived from unknown backgrounds.
>
> Almost ALL animals used in research are bred in commercial facilities solely for
> this purpose.  This serves two purposes: to control the genetic background of
> the population, and to ascertain any diseases animals may have.

This is misleading. Carefully controlled and documented genetic backgrounds are the
rule for the burgeoning genetically manipulated and engineered mouse market being
promoted by facilities such as Jackson Labs, and in a few dog and rat strains as
well, but, with other experimental animals genetic backgrounds are unknown to the
actual researcher. This is certainly the case with primates.


>  For instance, a
> random source animal may have a virus that could nullify the scientific
> results.

A common and growing criticism of animal studies is that animals used in experiments
are frequently infected with known and unknown viruses or are otherwise weakened due
to various stressors. These problems confound many results. Acknowledging this
design weakness, NIH has begun funding Specific Pathogen Free (SPF) colonies of
monkeys for research use. These are currently the minority of monkeys available to
vivisectors.

>  All conditions must be carefully controlled for interpretation to be
> valid,

Whole live animal models confound the notion of careful controll for all conditions.
Factors contributing to individuality are poorly understood and the frequently small
number of experimental animals used in any particular study make the control problem
very difficult. Trends are hard to spot.

> and most research protocols call for animals that are free from any
> number of pathogens and virusses.

This is generally incorrect. The many protocols I have reviewed have never commented
on pathogen burdens in the the animals to be experimented upon unless the protocol
is specific to a particular organism, in which case the protocol might mention that
the animals would be tested prior to the procedures to demonstrate that they were
not infected. But even this is rare. Generally the animal is assumed to be disease
free.

>
> Some companies conducting animal testing may use random source animals, etc.,
> but even then, most of these do not come from the pound.  Most shelters do NOT
> dispose of animals by selling them to companies.  It is truly rare to come
> across those that do.

This is incorrect. Most states regulate animal shelters on a county level. I have
never heard of a direct sale to a supply company, but sale to a university for
research purposes is not unusual.

>
>
> Brenda Conley wrote:
>
> > Medical researchers > that uses dogs and cats usually get them from breeders
> > > or they raise their own. It is extremely necessary to control genetic
> > background and
> > > other variables. Pound animals (or yard-snatching) offer no such controls.
> >
> > That is what I hear from this group.  I have read research saying they are
> > often pound animals.  I still say I'd rather have a dog than a child tested.
> > Swamp <����@����.com> wrote in message
> > news:solkucttdbm164@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> > > "Brenda Conley" <blc75@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > news:8md9b0$3eq$1@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > > What a lot of people fail to mention is that the animals that are used
> > in
> > > > experiments are over 90% rodents.  The same mice we kill in mouse traps.
> > > > Those that are dogs and cats come from pounds...because careless HUMANS
> > do
> > > > not have their animals spayed and neutered, thus causing an
> > overpopulation
> > > > of unwanted pets.  They have to get these pets from somewhere, and they
> > are
> > > > not grabbing them out of backyards.
> > >
> > > While I agree with your general idea, I must correct one item.
> > >
> > Medical researchers > that uses dogs and cats usually get them from breeders
> > > or they raise their own. It is extremely necessary to control genetic
> > background and
> > > other variables. Pound animals (or yard-snatching) offer no such controls.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > ��Swamp��
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >

Rick Bogle <rbogle@sonic.net> wrote:

> Tatiana wrote:
> 
> > Very few animals used in scientific research are "random source," which
> > is the correct terminology for animals derived from unknown backgrounds.
> >
> > Almost ALL animals used in research are bred in commercial facilities
> > solely for this purpose.  This serves two purposes: to control the
> > genetic background of the population, and to ascertain any diseases
> > animals may have.
> 
> This is misleading. Carefully controlled and documented genetic
> backgrounds are the rule for the burgeoning genetically manipulated and
> engineered mouse market being promoted by facilities such as Jackson Labs,
> and in a few dog and rat strains as well, but, with other experimental
> animals genetic backgrounds are unknown to the actual researcher. This is
> certainly the case with primates.

Your rebuttal, like all of your other posts, is misleading, Mr. Bogle.
Tatiana wrote that ALMOST ALL animals used in research are from known
genetic backgrounds. This is true, as you know, for mice and rats, and
as you may not know, for cattle, horses, rabbits, and sheep. Since mice
and rats constitute ALMOST ALL animals used in research (>90%), she is
right and you are wrong. You are deliberately misleading your audience,
because primates are in no way representative of the animals used in
research, and you know it.

Why the dishonesty?

> >  For instance, a
> > random source animal may have a virus that could nullify the scientific
> > results.
> 
> A common and growing criticism of animal studies is that animals used in
> experiments are frequently infected with known and unknown viruses or are
> otherwise weakened due to various stressors. These problems confound many
> results. Acknowledging this design weakness, NIH has begun funding
> Specific Pathogen Free (SPF) colonies of monkeys for research use. These
> are currently the minority of monkeys available to vivisectors.

Your failure to provide a citation, while not making the claim yourself,
is very slick and slimy. It also is a deliberate attempt to obfuscate
and deceive your audience. This clearly cannot be a major scientific
concern of those who criticize experiments on animals, since they ALMOST
ALL advocate experiments on humans as superior, and we both know that
humans are frequently infected with known and unknown viruses or are
otherwise weakened due to various stressors, and these problems confound
many results. 

You really don't have any ethical or scientific principles, do you, Mr.
Bogle?

Then, in an effort to deceive your audience, you hold up monkeys as an
example, when you know full well they are anything but. Once again, Mr.
Bogle, you know that rodents--that is, ALMOST ALL ANIMALS--used in
experiments are required to be purchased from SPF facilities, and they
are used in ALMOST ALL animal experiments.

Do your noble ends justify your incredibly dishonest means, Mr. Bogle?

Is holding up an exception as an example an ethical practice?

> >  All conditions must be carefully controlled for interpretation to be
> > valid,
> 
> Whole live animal models confound the notion of careful controll for all
> conditions. Factors contributing to individuality are poorly understood
> and the frequently small number of experimental animals used in any
> particular study make the control problem very difficult. Trends are hard
> to spot.

Using humans confounds the notion of careful control for all conditions.
Factors contributing to individuality are poorly understood and the
frequently small number of humans used in any particular study make the
control problem very difficult. Trends are hard to spot.

True or false, Mr. Bogle? Obviously, ALL conditions cannot be carefully
controlled, but anyone with a shred of common sense can see that
conditions can be more easily and successfully controlled in animal
experiments than they can in human experiments.

To deceive your audience, you took a matter of degree and dishonestly
framed it as an absolute.

> > and most research protocols call for animals that are free from any
> > number of pathogens and virusses.
> 
> This is generally incorrect. The many protocols I have reviewed have never
> commented on pathogen burdens in the the animals to be experimented upon
> unless the protocol is specific to a particular organism, in which case
> the protocol might mention that the animals would be tested prior to the
> procedures to demonstrate that they were not infected. But even this is
> rare. Generally the animal is assumed to be disease free.

But have you reviewed a sufficient number of protocols to make any
general conclusions? I doubt it. Again, ALMOST ALL animals used as
experimental subjects are obtained from SPF sources. Primates are not in
any way representative. Why don't you test your disingenuous claim by
posing as a professor at your local medical school, calling the head
vet, and asking what health-related paperwork you'd need to bring in
some mice from another institution?

You won't. You don't want to know the truth.

> > Some companies conducting animal testing may use random source animals,
> > etc., but even then, most of these do not come from the pound.  Most
> > shelters do NOT dispose of animals by selling them to companies.  It is
> > truly rare to come across those that do.

> This is incorrect. Most states regulate animal shelters on a county level.
> I have never heard of a direct sale to a supply company, but sale to a
> university for research purposes is not unusual.
 
You dodged Tatiana's point, as you did in every other case. You didn't
even make a claim to rebut Tatiana's point, just an argument from
ignorance.

Let's discuss all of your other posts to this group--deliberate
misrepresentations of the scientific goals underlying primate
experiments. Does your end (abolishing primate experimentation) justify
your means (deliberately lying about the reasons for which individual
studies were done)?

If the resolution of this ethical dilemma is so obvious to you, why not
argue with the truth, Mr. Bogle? After all, if your argument is that
society's end (better human and animal health) doesn't justify the means
(experimentation on animals), why lie about the ends? Can't people judge
for themselves? Are you afraid they won't see your POV if you present
the truth?

When do the ends justify the means?

In article <398B87E2.BCFBC093@sonic.net>, Rick Bogle <rbogle@sonic.net> wrote:

> Tatiana wrote:
> 
> > Very few animals used in scientific research are "random source,"
> > which is the correct terminology for animals derived from unknown 
> > backgrounds.

          Correct.  The majority of dogs and cats used are
          "random source" animals.  But dogs and cats are
          in the distinct minority of all animals used.

          So ... I guess I don't see anything erroneous in Tatiana's
          comment to this point ...

> > Almost ALL animals used in research are bred in commercial facilities
> > solely for this purpose.  This serves two purposes: to control the 
> > genetic background of the population, and to ascertain any diseases 
> > animals may have.

          Correct - I would add the minor qualifier "try" to change
          the wording to:  "... and try to ascertain ..." (like
          everything "of this world" errors sometimes occur, new
          discoveries are made, etc.).

          And the commercial facilities are remarkably successful 
          in doing just this.

          How long could they remain in business were they
          distributing animals right and left that produced
          consistently inconsistent results??????

> This is misleading.

          What is misleading? 

> Carefully controlled and documented genetic backgrounds are the
> rule for the burgeoning genetically manipulated and engineered 
> mouse market being promoted by facilities such as Jackson Labs, 
> and in a few dog and rat strains as well, but, with other 
> experimental animals genetic backgrounds are unknown to the
> actual researcher. This is certainly the case with primates.

          Yeah ...

          So ... perhaps we could agree that Tatiana's comment
          "Almost ALL animals ... is correct and properly qualified.
          And we could also agree that Tatiana's comment "Very
          few animals ... are 'random source'," is completely
          correct and properly qualified ...

> > For instance, a  random source animal may have a virus that 
> > could nullify the scientific results.

          Tatiana is absolutely correct.  Still, it is possible for 
          animals to carry a virus load without that affecting 
          the results.

          And it is also possible that random source animals
          might actually be preferable for some experiments
          specifically because they "rule out" the influence
          of genetic similarity on the end-point.

> A common and growing criticism of animal studies
> is that animals used in experiments are frequently infected
> with known and unknown viruses or are otherwise weakened due
> to various stressors.

          The animals are frequently infected with unknown
          viruses ...

          I guess the obvious question is this ... if the
          virus is unknown, how can we know that the animals
          are infected by it?

> These problems confound many results.

          Can we go back to the bit about "misleading" again?
          You know - the word you used to characterize a statement
          of Tatiana's?
          
          Because your comment here is grossly misleading.

          What you should have said was: "These problems *can*
          confound results in important ways."  This would
          be an entirely true statement, while drawing attention
          to the real limits of your claim.

          Don't you think my phraseing is a little less ...
          misleading than yours?

          Having said this,if you know which results don't 
          "fit" with the rest of the scientific literature 
          you know that the results themselves are misleading 
          and then you need to account for the lack of "fit."

          "Oh shit!  Did I screw up?  Probably!  But where?  
          How can I design a study that will tell me?  But
          what if I *didn't* screw up?  What does that mean?" 

          And what might that mean for a scientist?  Grant 
          proposals!  A dream come true!

          "We have identified a very important discrepency in
          how Bd/++ mice respond to therapeutic doses of  ..."
          
          On the other hand, if the results *are* consistent with 
          the literature, how on earth can you know that they are 
          misleading????????????

          Do you *really* think that scientists are unmindful
          of the need to distinguish between "true and false
          positives" and "true and false negatives"?

          What is the purpose of control groups in an experimental
          design, if not to make this distinction?

          I don't know what I might find more amazing - your 
          ignorance of the process, or your contempt for it!

> Acknowledging this design weakness, NIH has begun funding 
> Specific Pathogen Free (SPF) colonies of  monkeys for research use. 
> These are currently the minority of monkeys available to
> vivisectors.

          Which validates the notion that the commercial
          suppliers of animls are doing it right ...

          By the way.  How are pathogen free animals created?

> >  All conditions must be carefully controlled for interpretation to be
> > valid,
 
> Whole live animal models confound the notion of careful controll 
> for all conditions.

          This is true, and Tatiana's comment should have been
          qualified.

          But it is not necessary to control *all* conditions
          in order for a study to be valid.

          It is only necessary to control the conditions that
          are known to affect results, and reasonable conditions
          that seem likely to affect the results.

          This is where "repeatability" comes into the equation.
          AR folks frequently bash science because scientists are
          perceived as doing basically the same thing for the
          20th time, the 20th showing only that there was no difference
          in results between it and the first 19.

          But most of those 20 studies are undertaken to "rule out"
          exactly the sorts of subtle and confounding variables 
          you are suggesting invalidates animal studies.

          If the results are unchanged through all 20 studies, how
          important are the 20 variables studied?  Do those studies
          as a group strengthen or weaken the original results?

          Sorry ARA's - you can't have it both ways ...
          
> Factors contributing to individuality are poorly understood and 
> the frequently small number of experimental animals used in any 
> particular study make the control problem very difficult. Trends 
> are hard to spot.

          I don't know of any IACUC that would pass a study in
          which there wasn't a proper justification for the
          number of animals proposed (I've seen proposals kicked
          back because of too few numbers, and I've seen 'em
          kicked back because the number seemed unjustifiably
          high).  

          Funding agencies look at such things as "sample size
          calculations" you know (or maybe you don't).  When
          submitting a grant proposal, you need to justify the
          number of animals you plan on using, not to mention
          the species and strain.  And statisticians have come
          up with a way to calculate what a proper sample size
          is for a given study.

          A single study is just that.  The results of a single
          study, when published, are measured against data and
          interpretations already in the literature, and are
          subsequently challanged by future studies.

          Science is incremental.  For better or worse.  Far more
          often than not, big changes come very slowly (sensational
          reports on the news notwithstanding ...).
> 
> > and most research protocols call for animals that are free from any
> > number of pathogens and virusses.

> This is generally incorrect.

          I agree and disagree.  There is often a blanket statement
          having to do with animal health.  At least in the proposals
          I've reviewed.

          The statements were seldom specific, except in cases
          where results could be influenced.

          Then I was burried with details ...

> The many protocols I have reviewed  have never commented on pathogen
> burdens in the the animals to be experimented upon unless the protocol
> is specific to a particular organism,

          Which is as it should be. 

> in which case the protocol might mention that the animals  would be 
> tested prior to the procedures to demonstrate that they were
> not infected. But even this is rare.  Generally the animal is assumed 
> to be disease free.

          Yeah ... but the person doing the "assuming" is the
          guy whose grant proposal would be turned down, and/or
          whose reputation and future would be trashed in a flash 
          if he screwed up something major.

          It happens, of course.  But it is rare.  Very rare.
          You only have to see someone pilloried publicly by
          their peers once to know you don't want it to happen
          to you ...
          
> > Some companies conducting animal testing may use random source 
> > animals, etc.,  but even then, most of these do not come from 
> > the pound.  Most shelters do NOT dispose of animals by selling 
> > them to companies.  It is truly rare to come across those that do.
> 
> This is incorrect. Most states regulate animal shelters on a county
> level. I have never heard of a direct sale to a supply company, but 
> sale to a university for research purposes is not unusual.

          Could you provide evidence for that?  AFAIK, 
          Universities are required by law to buy experimental 
          animals from federally licensed dealers.

          Has that changed?

          [ ... ]

          Brian

1cattom wrote:

> Rick Bogle <rbogle@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> > Tatiana wrote:
> >
> > > Very few animals used in scientific research are "random source," which
> > > is the correct terminology for animals derived from unknown backgrounds.
> > >
> > > Almost ALL animals used in research are bred in commercial facilities
> > > solely for this purpose.  This serves two purposes: to control the
> > > genetic background of the population, and to ascertain any diseases
> > > animals may have.
> >
> > This is misleading. Carefully controlled and documented genetic
> > backgrounds are the rule for the burgeoning genetically manipulated and
> > engineered mouse market being promoted by facilities such as Jackson Labs,
> > and in a few dog and rat strains as well, but, with other experimental
> > animals genetic backgrounds are unknown to the actual researcher. This is
> > certainly the case with primates.
>
> Your rebuttal, like all of your other posts, is misleading, Mr. Bogle.
> Tatiana wrote that ALMOST ALL animals used in research are from known
> genetic backgrounds. This is true, as you know, for mice and rats, and
> as you may not know, for cattle, horses, rabbits, and sheep. Since mice
> and rats constitute ALMOST ALL animals used in research (>90%), she is
> right and you are wrong. You are deliberately misleading your audience,
> because primates are in no way representative of the animals used in
> research, and you know it.

My reading of Tatiana's post was that animals are purpose bred because such
breeding is needed to "control the genetic background of the population," as if
there were arcane scientific needs at work. In the case of mutant mice this is
dead on, and to a lesser extent some strains of rats and at least one inbred
strain of dogs, but generally, purpose bred animals are farmed to cut costs and
maximize economy.

I admit to knowing very little about the sources of cows, pigs, or sheep used in
biomedical research. Claims regarding the number of rats and mice consumed in
research ">90%" will remain claims until some manner of reporting is required.
The claim that "ALMOST ALL animals used in research" are mice and rats should
probably be reworded to say that among mammals, rats and mice are in the
majority.

> Why the dishonesty?
>
> > >  For instance, a
> > > random source animal may have a virus that could nullify the scientific
> > > results.
> >
> > A common and growing criticism of animal studies is that animals used in
> > experiments are frequently infected with known and unknown viruses or are
> > otherwise weakened due to various stressors. These problems confound many
> > results. Acknowledging this design weakness, NIH has begun funding
> > Specific Pathogen Free (SPF) colonies of monkeys for research use. These
> > are currently the minority of monkeys available to vivisectors.
>
> Your failure to provide a citation, while not making the claim yourself,
> is very slick and slimy. It also is a deliberate attempt to obfuscate
> and deceive your audience.

"A couple of our projects have been botched as a results of these infections,"
says Dr. Ronald C. Desrosiers, Chairman of the Division of Microbiology at the
New England RPRC and Professor of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics at Harvard
Medical School. 'For example, one investigator administered an SIV vaccine to a
monkey that had an active, but undiagnosed,
type D retrovirus infection. The animal got sick and died, and the infection
ruined the entire study.'"

"In 1988, NCRR recognized the critical need for SPF animals for AIDS research
and launched a nationwide effort to develop a self-propagating population of SPF
monkeys. NCRR has funded SPF macaque breeding colonies in Texas, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina. Four additional NCRR-supported
resources provide diagnostic, genetic, and behavioral management services for
SPF colonies."

Resource Report: Germ-Free Monkeys Advance the War Against Aids. Laboratory
Primate Newsletter, VOLUME 36 NUMBER 3 JULY 1997.


> This clearly cannot be a major scientific
> concern of those who criticize experiments on animals, since they ALMOST
> ALL advocate experiments on humans as superior, and we both know that
> humans are frequently infected with known and unknown viruses or are
> otherwise weakened due to various stressors, and these problems confound
> many results.

The various stressors and variability in human subjects can be representative of
the stressors in the human population, a situation that will be faced at some
point when attempting to apply results to ever enlarging experimental
populations. The various stressors and variability in animal models of human
disease confound the model even further.

> You really don't have any ethical or scientific principles, do you, Mr.
> Bogle?
>
> Then, in an effort to deceive your audience, you hold up monkeys as an
> example, when you know full well they are anything but. Once again, Mr.
> Bogle, you know that rodents--that is, ALMOST ALL ANIMALS--used in
> experiments are required to be purchased from SPF facilities, and they
> are used in ALMOST ALL animal experiments.

Had Tatiana been clear and said she was speaking only in reference to rodents
her post would not have been as easily misunderstood. The other 700,000 animals
(1998, APHIS) used in research are not so easilty characterized as being
generally from an SPF facility. However, SPF is not a defining term in any case.
Individual facilities characterize SPF classification in various ways. But the
trend remains, researchers are becoming increasingly interested in animals known
to be free of specific pathogens for reasons other than the animals' well-being.

This point grew out of Tatiana's comment that, "Very few animals used in
scientific research are "random source." Yet research facilities have protocols
in place just for such animals. The University of Minnesota notes, "If animals
do not meet the health requirements required by RAR, investigators are given
various options so they can receive their animals. Some vendors may provide the
required testing or treatments. Typically the cost of this will be added to the
purchase price of the animals. If space is available and the ability to test for
or treat a disease of concern is available, RAR may arrange for quarantine in
its facilities. Quarantine conditions and costs are normally arranged through
the area veterinarian.

Random source dogs and cats will be quarantined. They may be used acutely."

> Do your noble ends justify your incredibly dishonest means, Mr. Bogle?
>
> Is holding up an exception as an example an ethical practice?

If the discussion concerning animals in research were to deal only with the
species most commonly used, it is unlikely that rodent species would be the
topic. But, allowing that rodents are the most commonly used mammalian species,
it is still unclear that discussion should consider their use to be the only
topic for consideration. But if it were, we could say almost all animals who are
used in tobacco studies, fear studies, pain studies, constraint studies, stress
studies, disease studies, mutation studies, or serve as practice animals for
undergraduates are not protected by the Animal Welfare Act.

> > >  All conditions must be carefully controlled for interpretation to be
> > > valid,
> >
> > Whole live animal models confound the notion of careful controll for all
> > conditions. Factors contributing to individuality are poorly understood
> > and the frequently small number of experimental animals used in any
> > particular study make the control problem very difficult. Trends are hard
> > to spot.
>
> Using humans confounds the notion of careful control for all conditions.
> Factors contributing to individuality are poorly understood and the
> frequently small number of humans used in any particular study make the
> control problem very difficult. Trends are hard to spot.
>
> True or false, Mr. Bogle? Obviously, ALL conditions cannot be carefully
> controlled, but anyone with a shred of common sense can see that
> conditions can be more easily and successfully controlled in animal
> experiments than they can in human experiments.

See: Brute Science : Dilemmas of Animal Experimentation (Philosophical Issues in
Science) by Hugh Lafollette, Niall Shanks for a more complete discussion of
animal model / experimental control problems.

> To deceive your audience, you took a matter of degree and dishonestly
> framed it as an absolute.
>
> > > and most research protocols call for animals that are free from any
> > > number of pathogens and virusses.
> >
> > This is generally incorrect. The many protocols I have reviewed have never
> > commented on pathogen burdens in the the animals to be experimented upon
> > unless the protocol is specific to a particular organism, in which case
> > the protocol might mention that the animals would be tested prior to the
> > procedures to demonstrate that they were not infected. But even this is
> > rare. Generally the animal is assumed to be disease free.
>
> But have you reviewed a sufficient number of protocols to make any
> general conclusions? I doubt it.

I have reviewed about a hundred full protocols with revision histories (all
dealing with primates, dogs, or cats, and including rats, mice and ferrets when
those species were being used along with the primates, dogs, or cats.)  and
thousands of abstracts and many published papers.

> Again, ALMOST ALL animals used as
> experimental subjects are obtained from SPF sources.

If Tatiana meant to say rats and mice, or even rodents, then she should have
said this rather than use some code. "Allmost all animals" seems a long-winded
way to say "rodents."

> Primates are not in
> any way representative.

Not of commercial sources for rodents

> Why don't you test your disingenuous claim by
> posing as a professor at your local medical school, calling the head
> vet, and asking what health-related paperwork you'd need to bring in
> some mice from another institution?
>
> You won't. You don't want to know the truth.
>
> > > Some companies conducting animal testing may use random source animals,
> > > etc., but even then, most of these do not come from the pound.  Most
> > > shelters do NOT dispose of animals by selling them to companies.  It is
> > > truly rare to come across those that do.
>
> > This is incorrect. Most states regulate animal shelters on a county level.
> > I have never heard of a direct sale to a supply company, but sale to a
> > university for research purposes is not unusual.
>
> You dodged Tatiana's point, as you did in every other case. You didn't
> even make a claim to rebut Tatiana's point, just an argument from
> ignorance.

I believe Sacramento made a few tens of thousands (70?) of dollars selling dogs
from the county shelter to UC Davis last year. This is not an anomaly.

> Let's discuss all of your other posts to this group--deliberate
> misrepresentations of the scientific goals underlying primate
> experiments.

Pick one. Let's discuss it.

My experience with various primate vivisectors has shown them to be lying,
cowardly, cruel, misrepresentative of their use of public funds,
misrepresentative of the conditions the animals are subjected to,
misrepresentative of the value of their research, callous, sexist, underhanded,
ignorant of other primate vivisectors' research, ignorant of primate ethology,
and, simply, the most unprincipled group in toto I have ever come across.

> Does your end (abolishing primate experimentation) justify
> your means (deliberately lying about the reasons for which individual
> studies were done)?

You confuse email headers with publication titles.

> If the resolution of this ethical dilemma is so obvious to you,

What is the dilemma?

> why not
> argue with the truth, Mr. Bogle? After all, if your argument is that
> society's end (better human and animal health) doesn't justify the means
> (experimentation on animals), why lie about the ends?

Lying about the ends is the domain of those justifying their cruelty.

> Can't people judge
> for themselves?

I believe they could. Unfortunately, people are unable to see into the labs. The
facilities do not allow public viewing, let alone oversight. The ways public
money is being spent, the cruelty inside the labs, is kept intentionally hidden.

> Are you afraid they won't see your POV if you present
> the truth?

Just what is the truth? Chimpanzees did not die at Coulstons due to neglect and
incompetence? Puppies were not slapped around at Huntingdon? Monkeys were not
forced to wade through feces and mud to reach their food at OHSU? Gainsville was
not completely out of control? Monkeys are not chewing holes in themselves in
New England? Kittens are not having their eyes sewn shut at UCSF? Just what is
the truth?

> When do the ends justify the means?

Only rarely when the means is torture.

R