full story and comments here: http://thomaspainescorner.wordpress.com/2009/04/14/radio-newspaper-exposure-of-ucla-pro-vivisection-organizers/
Apologists for Animal Abuse Exposed in Media
Simulposted with NAALPO
Los Angeles, CA: In an article today in the LA Times, as well as radio interviews on KPCC/NPR Radio, UCLA primate vivisector David Jentsch has exposed and poorly defended the immense suffering of non-human primates in his and his colleagues--laboratories. Jentsch faired badly when confronted by physician and Press Officer Jerry Vlasak, MD, and has served nicely to bring the issue of animal exploitation into the mainstream media.
Jentsch declined an offer to debate Dr. Vlasak directly on KPCC Radio, as other vivisectors have declined similar requests to discuss the scientific validity and ethical consequences of their outdated, scientifically fraudulent, and cruel practices experimenting on non-human animals.
Last week, Jentsch, who addicts non-human primates to PCP and methamphetamines before killing them, announced his formation of Pro-Test UCLA, a group of faculty and administrators who had apparently intended to defend the university's ongoing practice of killing animals. Neither Jentsch nor his supporters have been able to provide specific evidence their research will ever effectively treat human disease, nor have they previously been willing to discuss or consider the use of more modern research techniques that no longer involve killing animals.
To listen to the KPCC Radio interview of vivisector Jentsch, followed by the appearance of Jerry Vlasak, MD, click here:
The Los Angeles Times article can be accessed here:
"If only he were willing, I relish the opportunity to debate David Jentsch, not only on the lack of scientific merit to animal experimentation, but also on the tactics used to stop animal abusers at UCLA. After years of polite offers to debate and negotiate, UCLA's obstinacy has forced activists to pursue more effective means of halting animal experimentation", said Dr. Vlasak.
For more information visit, www.animalliberationpressoffice.org.
Animal Liberation Press Office
Thomas Paine's Corner wants to periodically email you links to the most recent material and timeless classics available on our diverse and comprehensive site. If you would like to receive them, type "TPC subscription" in the subject line and send your email to email@example.com
If you have a Facebook account, don't forget to look up Thomas Paine's Corner's Facebook page via the "search" feature and become a fan.
And if you have a MySpace account, don't forget to friend Thomas Paine's Corner at www.myspace.com/anarchovegan.
Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)
Responses to "Radio, Newspaper Exposure of UCLA Pro-Vivisection Organizers"
Lynn Sawyer said
When Pro-test started doing demos in the UK there was a lot of press coverage for what basically amounted to Laurie Pycroft (aged 16) and some Oxford University students forming a small group. I talked to Pycroft on a number of occasions and saw him trying to provoke animal rights activists by walking past demos repeatedly but not getting any response. He and his friends were always polite and to start with a bit nervous. On their first demo they went to a pub in Oxford and sat around a table in one of the rooms, naughty Laurie was drinking underage, little by little the room filled with animal right protestors. Eventually one of the Pro-test committee turned around and gasped as about 50 of us waved and smiled, I have never seen pints downed so quickly! I feel he was going through a bit of a phase like I did at that age. In his case though he was thrust into the limelight, feted by the Prime Minister and big pharma. All of them enjoyed attention from very powerful people, the media drooled over them and a "people's petition" was set up on line. However, considering that thousands work in the viviesction and related industries the most Pro-test have ever got on the streets is 1000, even the vivisectors were not bothered to show support, the online petition got just 20,000 signatures pathetic compared to SHACs 500, 000 + actual signatures on paper.
The reasons for this are simple. The vivisectionists are in essence a very selfish bunch, they do what they do for no other reason than to make a profit. Whilst I think Pro-test genuinely does care about humans (they had an irritating chant "human beings come first") those who use them certainly do not. We on the other hand are prepared to, in many cases, risk injury, death and prison for all animals including humans. Standing for hours in the cold and heat, being vilified, being hit, watched and monitored etc are part of our lives. Most animal abusers would not put up with the challenges we face and that is a comforting thought. Furthermore Pro-test in the UK at least did not think through what exactly their organisation was protesting for!
How do I know this? I went to one of their public meetings.
Bless em, their idea of security was to ask for email addresses. So I gave mine and was formally invited and on mentioning it at the door was allowed in. It was clear through the meeting that their were 3 areas of major dispute.
2. Some were utterly against state suppression of animal rights activists and saw the arrests of peaceful/legal campaigners as fundamentally flawed and counter productive. Whilst all not
surprisingly supported arrests of the practitioners of obvious illegal activity, for example arson, others wanted to throw away the key in all cases.
In the end I introduced myself as an animal rights activist and asked them some questions about these 3 things. One woman whose son is very ill just sat there frothing at the mouth with rage but the others said I was obviously one of the "nice" activists (little do they know heheheh).
I digress but I suspect that many people as they did in the UK will join this demonstration because they perceive ALF actions as "bullying" and because they are brainwashed into thinking that the whole health service will collapse if animals are no longer tortured. These three main divisions may well be rife and can be exploited to the max--. After all this is a fairly new movement, they do not know one another, unlike us they have not evolved over decades or formed close bonds. I would suggest that some unknown animal rights activists go along to any meetings etc and certainly to their main demo to gather intelligence. I suspect that as in the UK this will be a 5 minute wonder, vivisectors just want their pay really, there are not many altruists in their ranks who are willing to endure actual hardship. Good luck Jerry, wish I could be there.
Please Consider said
I'd like to suggest that many "anti-vivisectionists" don't have the strong convictions they claim to. On purely scientific, environmental grounds, a vegan diet is superior to the typical Western diet. It is a fact about the world, supported by science, that a person can survive just fine on a vegan diet. Thus, eating meat is unnecessary, and insofar as someone agrees that causing unnecessary suffering is bad, boycotting current agricultural practices is morally obligatory. The preceding argument is a good one, to any compassionate person that's honest with themselves. The benefits of eating beef (primarily based on tradition and the taste) in no way outweigh the consequences of eating it, particularly nowadays. Vegans have the moral high ground here, and my diet is entirely vegan. The same general argument is no doubt true of cosmetics, since we face no great need as a society for innovations in soap or eyeliner.
Unlike the arguments about food presented above, "anti-vivisectionist" activism often relies on propaganda and disinformation. Anyone considering the situation objectively can see that:
1. Medical advances that have prevented substantial amounts of suffering have been derived from animal research. This includes not only medications, but also surgical procedures, vaccines, and so forth. That is just a fact about the world.
2. There are no viable alternatives to certain forms of animal research. You simply cannot use humans to, for example, understand exactly which signaling pathways are altered in which parts of the brain with what time course after methamphetamine exposure, and determine which of these changes are behaviorally relevant and which are not. You cannot selectively delete genes in humans the way you can in mice. If we want this information, animals are required. If we don't need this information, that's a separate, philosophical issue. You cannot build a computer model accurate enough to be worthwhile without validating it in animals, and if you believe this is possible, that isn't consistent with the common claim that animals are just "too different from us." A computer program is more different from us than a mouse. If this were true, it would also be true between species other than humans, and then how would veterinarians treat exotic animals?
By the way, Ray Greek doesn't know what he's talking about. http://www.worldcongress.net/2002/proceedings/PCP%20Festing.pdf
No amount of wishful thinking will change the fact that we've benefited from animal research, morally or not, or the fact that there is medically pertinent information that is unobtainable without animal research. Why do anti-vivisectionists make false statements to the contrary? At the end of the day, most people are not prepared to abandon much of modern medicine. They can only be persuaded to sympathize with anti-vivisectionists if they are told fairy tales about how animal research "doesn't tell us anything." This process is aided by the fact that the average member of the public hasn't dealt with biology since age 16, and is in no position to make an informed evaluation of the arguments.
As an aside, it is true that established faculty members at universities, pharmaceutical employees, etc. are well-compensated. I can only speak to university settings, but the majority of animal research at universities is not conducted by the faculty, who mostly have a managerial and grant-writing role. It's performed by graduate students paid ~$15-30k/year. Getting into graduate programs is not easy, and typically involves longer hours and more unpleasant work than other jobs with similar pay. People capable of making it into grad school are foregoing much more lucrative career options that they're intellectually capable of pursuing. Attending graduate school is a ridiculous means of pursuing "greed," and those aspiring to well-paying research jobs typically endure another 2-5 years of postdoctoral work that pays less than what a schoolteacher makes. Grants can be for large sums of money, but this money is earmarked for animal care/husbandry, equipment/supplies (scientific equipment is overpriced, for the same reason that military equipment is overpriced), and graduate students (their modest stipend in addition to tens of thousands in tuition and insurance).
It's easy to cheer on the ALF if you pretend that animal researchers are unfeeling people motivated only by greed, but I've never met anyone that particularly enjoys giving injections, euthanizing animals, harvesting brain tissue, and so on. There's a certain desensitization that occurs, yes, but if we wanted to "torture" animals it'd be a lot easier to buy a rat from the pet store and throw it against the wall than it is to spend long hours doing delicate surgeries, giving post-surgical analgesics (weekends and holidays included), filling out the attendant paperwork, and writing out all plans in advance for IACUC review (your lab will be shut down or sanctioned if you don't do this).
PETA and the ALF (wouldn't surprise me if it were the same people) do animals a disservice by making those who care about them easy to caricature. Animal activists have increased the amount of oversight and veterinary care involved in animal research. This is a GOOD THING that's done more for animals than any act of arson ever has. People in a position to do something at a policy level would take activists' concerns more seriously if they didn't look like Beavis and Butthead (fire!), bombing the wrong cars and houses, and forwarding misspelled death threats to Jerry Vlasak.
Whenever I read something, I always consider the intent of the author. The screen name, "Please Consider" sends off all kinds of red flags. How come these losers always hide their real identity? I say a lot of crap and still I hide from no one. WTF? As far as the content of "Please Consider's" crap, it made me ill. Why would someone sit down to right that? Were they paid? By who? Are they working off a grant from the Lizard Foundation? Again, WTF?
"Please Consider" wrote, There's a certain desensitization that occurs, yes, but if we wanted to "torture" animals it'd be a lot easier to buy a rat from the pet store and throw it against the wall than it is to spend long hours doing delicate surgeries, giving post-surgical analgesics (weekends and holidays included), filling out the attendant paperwork, and writing out all plans in advance for IACUC review (your lab will be shut down or sanctioned if you don't do this).
You sick fucks get off even more when you have paperwork and society's red tape backing your wimpy asses as permission to play your evil games with living beings as pawns.
Many more animals await freedom . I dare AR groups to liberate calves, cows, elephants, horses, sharks, orcas, dolphins .
Posted by thomaspainescorner on April 18, 2009
full story and comments here: http://thomaspainescorner.wordpress.com/2009/04/18/jentsch-continues-to-perform-these-evil-experiments/
James "David" Jentsch (L)
Anonymous dispatch from someusarnews4u
David Jentsch is another sick, perverted primate vivisector who addicts primates to crystal methamphetamine and other terrible drugs like PCP. His official title is "Associate Professor for Neuropsychopharmacology Using Animal Models of Neuropsychiatric Disorders." He has done hundreds of primate experiments publishing papers in obscure journals for his own ego and greed. Nothing that will help humans has ever come from any of his torturous experiments on non-human primates. Some of his most recent titles of the papers he's published says it all; "Neurochemical Determinants of Methamphetamine-Induced Cognitive Deficits in Monkeys," "Dimensions of Impulsivity Are Associated with Poor Spatial Working Memory Performance in Monkeys" and "Frontal Cortical Dopaminergic Dysfunction Correlates with Impaired Cognitive Performance in Monkeys After Long-Term Phencyclidine Administration."
In this experiment he attempts to create "human schizophrenia" in vervet monkeys by addicting primates to the monstrous drug PCP, making them psychotic. Jentsch forces non-human primates to perform tests while receiving chronic and heavy doses of phencyclidine (PCP). Then he kills the primates and takes measurements of their dopamine. Primates do not use street drugs, nor do they develop "human schizophrenia" nor can they describe what they are feeling to the experimenter. But for the blood money Jentsch receives off their pain, misery and death, Jentsch continues to perform these evil experiments.
"Institute of Primate Research (IPR): Feeding tubes containing infected sandflies applied to the forehead of anaesthetized vervet monkeys. The work is being carried out as part of a project to investigate the development of a vaccine (Old World) for leishmaniasis."
The below Materials and Methods is from another obscure and scientifically fraudulent paper published by one of the most evil vivisectors in the world David Jentsch at UCLA:
Clozapine Normalizes Prefrontal Cortex Dopamine Transmission in Monkeys Subchronically Exposed to Phencyclidine (PCP)
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Young adult male or female St Kitts green (vervet) monkeys (Chlorocebus aethiops sabaeus) were used. As the subjects were feral monkeys, their exact age was not known.
Monkeys, housed individually in squeeze-cages, were injected with 0.3 mg/kg PCP hydrochloride (Sigma-Aldrich, St Louis, MO) or saline twice daily for 14 days, as described before (Jentsch et al, 1997c). Clozapine (1 mg/kg daily for 3 days) or clozapine vehicle was injected for 3 days, following our previous regimen (Jentsch et al, 1997b), starting 7 or 8 days after completion of PCP or saline treatment.
Some monkeys that did not receive clozapine were not injected with clozapine vehicle,
and received no injections between the termination of 14 days of PCP or saline treatment and sacrifice; the biochemical values for these monkeys were pooled with those that received clozapine vehicle, as no significant difference between them existed. Animals were rapidly euthanized 90 min after the final clozapine
dose by an injection of sodium pentobarbital'