Skip to Main Content
Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, use for entertainment, or abuse in any other way.

All in a Day’s Work: Confinement, Torment, Killing in University’s Labs

Written by PETA | November 11, 2009

For more than eight months this year, a PETA investigator worked undercover inside University of Utah animal labs, where she documented the miserable conditions and daily suffering of dogs, cats, monkeys, rats, mice, rabbits, frogs, cows, pigs, and sheep. Today, The Salt Lake Tribune ran a story about the investigation, including the response from Tom Parks, the university’s vice president for research. The response is (not so) stunningly callous: “None of the things she alleges are substantive. It’s a remarkably banal list of ordinary events in an animal-care facility.”

Here’s a list of the things the university considers “banal”—part of an “ordinary” day in the “animal-care facility”:

  • Cutting the spinal cords and tender eyes of rabbits and tying off the nerves in the paws of rats to study pain
  • Buying homeless cats from animal shelters, drilling holes into their heads, and injecting their kittens’ brains with harmful chemicals
  • Cutting into the chests of dogs from animal shelters and implanting medical devices for deadly heart experiments
  • Drilling holes into monkeys’ skulls, confining them in tiny cages, and keeping them constantly thirsty so that they will “cooperate” in experiments in exchange for a few drops of water
  • Inflicting mice with tumors the size of golf balls that covered the animals’ bodies

 

Other Viewing Options

 

Brain injections, desperate thirst, tumors, and holes in skulls: just another banal day in the lab, right?

We have filed complaints against the university with the National Institutes of Health, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and local law-enforcement officials, and you can take action to help animals at the University of Utah too.

Written by Logan Scherer

Related Posts

Respond

Comments

Post a Comment

If your comment doesn't appear right away, please be patient as it may take some time to publish or may require moderation.

By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our collection, storage, use, and disclosure of your personal info in accordance with our privacy policy as well as to receiving e-mails from us.

  • Kurt K says:

    Animal Defender I would like to know what excuses I made for Vick. I believe I have stated many times that what he did was terrible and he deserved to be punished. Did I not say that? You make it sound like I applauded Vick’s actions. You are right on your second point. In the context of saving human life I am very supportive of animal testing. My niece has leukemia and if animal models could help cure her and the thousands of kids like her who have leukemia then I am supportive. Kalama said it best in an earlier post. Many on here accused him of not caring for animals or being cold hearted. I have to paraphrase because I can’t find the exact quote. Kalama allude to the fact that he does care for animals but if using animal models to help humans is the only way then he will follow that path. He doesn’t view his job as hurting animals but rather helping to save humans like my niece. I’ve seen what chemo therapy does to a nine year old child it is not pretty. If there is a new drug that can negate chemo and animal testing is needed then I am supportive. I am all for finding new sources for cures. However I leave it to the experts to tell me what works best. If animal experiements are one of the ways and nothing better can be found then I would want and expect our scientists to exhaust all possibilities in that arena. I liked Kalama’s posts not because he is like me. In fact we are very different but rather becuse he was able to thoroughly address and claims against him all he did it without resorting to hurrling insults. I am not going to address your last two points. I’ve been down that road before and it goes nowhere.

  • Kalama Halamezad says:

    Animal Defender Have you actually read enough of the discussion to gauge what type of person I am and bothered to understand itor are you just assuming that I’m some factoryfarmed meateating redneck soulless psychopath who became a vivisectionist to fulfill his dreams of eating monkey brain after watching Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom who leaves my dog chained in the backyard with nothing but an oversized bra hanging from a clothesline for shelter and keeps a collection of bonsai cats on the mantle? Debating the facts regarding the historical role of animal research and its continued utilityand asking that people arguing said topics stick to the factsis hardly on the same plain as condoning dogfighting.

  • animal defender says:

    out of all the people to jump on the bandwagon it had to be kurt.. well kalama at least you have ONE supporter here. this is the man after all who made excuses for what micheal vick did and who doesnt have a problem with animal testing hunting and eating animals. you really are two of a kind.

  • Kurt K says:

    That was a good read Kalama!

  • Kalama Halamezad says:

    “because they dont have voices you can do what you want to them” This has nothing to do with why animals are used for research. You see as the cognitive ability of an animal approaches the level you’d see in a human the animal becomes more highly protected. The basic rationale for this is that such animals have a greater capacity for suffering. A singlecelled organism entirely devoid of a brain can detect an aversive stimuli and also die. However it would be ridiculous to think that the singlecelled organism actually ‘felt’ pain or experienced something like fear just before it died. A singlecelled organism also has a ‘memory’it can change its behavior based on a sequence of experiences but it can’t actually experience ‘remembering’ anything. This basis provides the justification ethical vegetarians use to excuse the fact that they consume plants which often actively respond to environmental stimuli like being eaten by a beetle and that they often contribute to the use of pesticides which kill insects. Insects and plants have no voices yet you aren’t trying to protect them? Why? Obviously no living thing is used simply because it can’t protest. Did you know that ants farm aphids and milk them? Pretty sophisticated behavior for a creature that most vegetarians write off completely. The plain and simple truth is that animals are used because they don’t have the capacity to change the world around them like we do. The smartest chimp left to his own devices would still have a biography that read as follows Was born ate pooped made noise became alpha male threw poop when another chimp made eye contact with me got sick died. At best it may include things like “felt happy” “felt bad” or “felt scared”…assuming a chimp can even perceive of it’s own state. We have no idea how we humans do it so its hard to say if a chimp can do it. We think a chimp has a pretty decent probability of experiencing feelings like a human does so you almost never see chimps used in research. Primates are usually macaques and even those are barely used. You’ll never see in the chimp’s biography “noticed an asteroid coming towards Earth worked with other chimps to find way to deflect it saved all life on planet.” Since you’re an expert exactly what is the simplest lifeform that should be protected? How is this animal different from one that shouldn’t be protected? “im sorry kalama but its about having a heart” If I had no heart I’d have no reason to provide a test subject with postsurgical analgesics nor would I opt not to use primates for research. I wouldn’t donate to Cell Phones for Soldiers inner city education institutes animal adoption agencies cry when Mel Gibson screams “FREEEEEEDOOOOM” at the end of Braveheart visit an illegal immigrant who was detained during Christmas and kept from his wife and children or invite my foreign or familyless coworkers over for holiday functions. I also would not have maintained a decade long relationship with a single woman despite having the opporunities to make mistakes like one Mr. Tiger Woods. Finally I wouldn’t be in my line of work because human suffering wouldn’t have motivated me if I had no heart. “you are totally blind” Well you were bound to guess something correct about me eventually. But thanks to my glasses and other optical devices I can see well enough to thread a wire 110th the width of a human hair through a hole 18th of the width. I’m also capable of evaluating info and making statements based on facts rather than being limited to spouting whatever nonsense fits in with my personal beliefs. The truth isn’t always kittens and warm biscuits and unless you actually have the knowledge and expertise to understand science then can you honestly say that any ‘fact’ you have asserted is actually true? Your earlier statement regarding the purpose of experiments just to see if the DNA is different obviously shows me you lack even a rudimentary understanding what types of questions scientists work to answer. No one who’s ever read a modern scientific paper would ever think that would be a valid experiment to pursue. “can you honestly look at that covance video and agree with what they do there all in the name of science” Let me clarify something for you. Covance is not a true research institution. They generally provide services required by government law. They are not in the business of finding cures for things. They are in the business of assessing other’s work and prepping it for clinical trials. Let me also say that much of what is shown in the video if shown accurately and in context is illegal. You see I don’t have to agree with the video because that’s not the way any lab I’ve ever been in works. “and that my friend..makes me so much richer and happier than you will ever be.” I’d beg to differ. Knowing that I’m carrying out work that will decrease human suffering and mammals in general as a byproduct keeps me utterly elated. Knowing that I take every precaution to prevent suffering of test subjects and never seeing any behavioral signs that they are distressed lets me know I’m doing my job responsibly and keeps me totally guiltfree. Like I said you’re arguing ethics and the only way my job would make me less happy than you is if I had your ethics which I don’t. That’s why I’m only interested in discussing factsbecause people like you insist on trying to justify your beliefs with facts that you don’t even understand. Can’t you be happy just trying to convince people that animal research is wrong because you don’t think it’s right to make them suffer at all? That approach is totally acceptable. Spouting halftruths untruths outofcontext quotes and actively twisting facts to suit your beliefs is not.

  • Kalama Halamezad says:

    “there is no cure for cancer there is no cure for lukemia yet these tests have been going on for years” There is also not yet a way to harvest enough solar energy to power the planet so we’d no longer rely on coal or oil despite decades of research. No computer system exists that can carry out parallel processing on the scale of the human brain despite years of AI research. We still can’t predict weather very well despite millenia of research. This is not for lack of effort this is because we are still pretty primitive. Should all climate scientists and physicists quit researching because they haven’t solved the tough problems yet? Cancer hasn’t been cured despite years of HUMAN cancer research. Sadly many people neglect to recognize that fact. “so what exactly are you waiting for..that one day where someone says ‘actually we’re not ever gonna be able to find the answer in these animals’…which quite frankly is obvious otherwise it would have happened by now” Just an aside here to fill you in on a current event related to animal vs. human research. Traditionally the division of the NIH that funds research for human speech disorders rejected the majority if not all speech research using animal models. Why? Because only humans speak so animal models probably aren’t so hot. Since they have nothing to show despite decades of human research they have just recently begun funding animal research. Why? Because they’ve admitted that without collecting knowledge about the basic underlying function of auditory perception they can’t make any progress using only humans. “cancer in a mouse is not the same agressive form as it is in humans” I don’t know where you’ve been but I’ve seen plenty of aggressive rodent cancers. On that note cancer from man to man isn’t always the same. Breast cancer occurring in two different women doesn’t necessarily have the same etiology. Any genetic damage the allows a cell to propagate indefinitely can produce cancerand there are probably thousands of ways for such an event to occur. The problem with curing cancer in a mouse is that some scientist MADE the cancer himself. He knew the cause and likely the mechanisms that produced the cancer so he could figure out a way to fix it. He probably couldn’t cure a mouse that had a random cancer of the same type. Just like his method couldn’t cure the infinite types of cancer humans may get. However said experiment isn’t entirely frivolous. Why? Because he’s confirmed one mechanism by which cancer may occur and how that mechanism may be disrupted. He can then identify biomarkers for that type of cancer and we can look at humans to see if such biomarkers appear. If they do great we have a potential treatment to try other than chemo. Same logic applies to dish research for cancer. “what major breakthroughs have you come out with using animals?” I’m a fan of neuroprosthetics. A man with no arms can control replacement robotic limbs with the same neurons he used to use to control his actual arm. The basis for this was primate motor cortex research. Unfortunately the technology used to record the neural signals has a maximum lifetime of 9 months until biocompatibility is improved hence why you don’t see lots of people with cool implants. See the barrier here is due to physics and electrical engineering not animal research. Further this has been combined nicely with human research showing that peripheral stimulation either via a nerve or at a referred skin location will be percieved by the brain as if the prosthetic limb itself were being touchedso the neuroprosthetics can both move and feel in simple terms. If you lost an arm would you consider this a breakthrough? Then of course there’s all the basic science knowledge derived from animals that doesn’t directly create a medical breakthrough but builds the foundation required for breakthroughs to be made using dishes humans and animals. “…the answer simply none” Idealism isn’t reality…I’d prefer that it were but it isn’t. “if one of your chimps said hello one morning would you then test on it..no because it would be protected” If a chimp said ‘hello’ that would actually be a guarantee that it would be tested on for the rest of its life. People would really want to know what change occurred that allowed it to speak. They’d also see it as an opportunity to figure out what chimps that can speak think about. The following statement will seem extremely coldhearted but the truth is that a speaking chimp would not be ‘protected’it would simply be a more valuable chimp.

  • Kalama Halamezad says:

    “kalama so you say you enjoy your line of work?” Why yes. I do enjoy l learning about how organisms and the world in general function and finding ways to apply said knowledge. Same goes for physicists engineers astronomers chemists etc. Do you really think biologists and neuroscientists are somehow entirely different from these other scientists when it comes to motives etc? “you actually enjoy cutting open the heads of animals and implanting electrodes that cause them great distress?” No I don’t particularly care for this part of the job. Although in most cases I’d beg to differ with your assumption that this causes great distress. We do the exact same procedures with humans for medical and research purposes. The surgery when done properly is relatively neglibleand in the case of rats behavior is pretty much unaltered over the longterm. “you enjoy cutting them up just to see if their dna matches humans?” No. Want to know why? Nobody does an experiment ‘just to see if their DNA matches humans’. If we wanted to compare some DNA sequences of interest we could usually check existing databases. If the info wasn’t available we could probably collect a sufficient sample from saliva hair etc. No need to cut up an animal for the purpose you’ve mentioned. “…ripping baby monkeys from their mothers…” I don’t work with primates. Few researchers do. I don’t particularly care for the care standards used with primatesthey could definitely use an overhaul. “im sorry but you are one sick man” Well of courseif you jump to all sorts of conclusions about my beliefs and what I do. Problem is you’re pretty wrong about both what I do and its purpose thus far. “any one who had a heart would think of alternatives” I only use animal models when I can’t find or create of a nonanimal model. Most scientists are that way. When we propose experiments we are required to demonstrate in writing for an IACUC committee that we did actively search for nonanimal methods. “but you come on here and defend it.” I was originally only defending its role in historical research. There are bridges that couldn’t have been crossed without it in any timely manner. There are still plenty of bridges that can’t be crossed without it in the near future. I’m only interested in presenting a clear logical argument to discount the myth that animal research never has produced anything never will produce anything only produces by blindluck and can always be avoided. Adopting that viewpoint is convenient for animal rights activists but it isn’t the truth and shouldn’t be allowed to propagate. THe same goes for the statement that all major advances came from animal research. This is also untrue and should not be propagated. The truth lies between the two extremes. “its not about a vegan diet curing type 11 its about the cruel buisness you take part in” This is called ethics. These are your personal beliefs. I’ve already expressed that I have no interest in discussing ethics…only facts. Whether or not you are ‘right’ from an ethical standpoint has no bearing on the truth of the contributions of animal research to medicine. If you believe that the cruelty is all that matters then why do you insist on making statements like “animal research never does anything” despite the fact that you lack the knowledge to make such a statement. Stick to your moral high ground unless of course you actually are familiar with science how it works and how it contributes.

  • get to the point says:

    kalama so you say you enjoy your line of work? you actually enjoy cutting open the heads of animals and implanting electrodes that cause them great distress? you enjoy cutting them up just to see if their dna matches humans? then when you have finished with the few survivers you toss them aside and start again ripping baby monkeys from their mothers and keeping them locked in tiny cages day after day in between testing on them…and you see nothing wrong in this behaviour??? im sorry but you are one sick man. any one who had a heart would think of alternatives but you come on here and defend it its not about a vegan diet curing type 11 its about the cruel buisness you take part in and for what??? there is no cure for cancer there is no cure for lukemia yet these tests have been going on for years so what exactly are you waiting for..that one day where someone says ‘actually we’re not ever gonna be able to find the answer in these animals’…which quite frankly is obvious otherwise it would have happened by now you torture and lets face it abuse endless animals and still no breakthrough results you mad scientists need to concentrate on the very beings your trying to cure and stop making the same excuses about using animals..who..and i dont care if you agree…are not like us at all cancer in a mouse is not the same agressive form as it is in humans..and thats why there is no known cure. you make excuses for what you do. you tell me..what major breakthroughs have you come out with using animals? and i dont mean painkillers and vaccinations i mean major breakthroughs that only using animals could help you achieve?? the answer simply none and i doubt there will be in the near future you would gain far better results using humans as its humans your trying to cure. and dont give me ‘we wouldnt be allowed because of human rights’ well what about animal rights? if one of your chimps said hello one morning would you then test on it..no because it would be protected but because they dont have voices you can do what you want to them..im sorry kalama but its about having a heart and knowing what your doing is un ethical and cruel you may be a scientist but you are totally blind and have an ice pack where your heart should be. one last question kalama…can you honestly look at that covance video and agree with what they do there all in the name of science. i may not be well spoken like you are and i havent been to college like you have but im safe in the knowledge that i can sleep well at night and know im not waking up in the mornings to carry out painful tests on innocent animals..and that my friend..makes me so much richer and happier than you will ever be.

  • Kalama Halamezad says:

    Mr. ‘get to the point’ There’s a clear difference between pursuing work you believe in and discussing it with peers who can understand your work than putting yourself up in mass media and declaring yourself an advocate of vivisection. First look at the case of Paul Offit one of many vaccine researchers and supporters. He vocally supports vaccination and as a result is generally one of the primary targets of the antivaccine movement. He is constantly slandered belittled targeted for protest and receives a steady stream of threatening hate mail in general. His peers are largely ignored. Why? Because by actively advocating he ended up being regarded as the antiChrist by the vaccine movement. Aside from putting stress on his family due to safety concerns it also limits his work opportunities as people materialize to antagonize him wherever he goes. We are already allowed to do what we believe is correct so why would be interested in speaking up anyhow? All that would do is draw attention that would disrupt our research. The only way scientists are going to be motivated to speak up publicly is if they perceive that the antivivisection movement will impede scientific progress. It hasn’t as of yet but you do see a few people starting to worry about the disconnect between scientists and the general public. The general problem though is that there are plenty of people like ‘get to the point’ who pretty much explicitly display their lack of willingness to put some thought into understanding things because if something isn’t instantaneously comprehensible it’s obviously not correct sarcasm. You see this debate in simple terms wouldn’t get beyond Mike saying “Animals weren’t necessary for the discovery of insulin” and me saying “Animals were vital to the discovery”. Unfortunately proving either stance requires discussing evidence in depth not the “simple terms” that you demand.

  • Kalama Halamezad says:

    “Below are links to examples of people who have cured or reversed their Type II DM by following the McDougall pure vegetarian diet” Are you serious…are you providing me with testimonials to support your point? Testimonials can and have been used to prove pretty much anything. Why won’t you address the points I’ve made about the actual controlled studies? In regards to Ruth…I doubt she was dubbed “10 fittest…” simply for being vegan. She probably had a lot of other lifestyle factors contributing to her recovery. If this diet is such a sure thing then why can’t “reallife vegetarian medical doctors” produce astounding results in controlled trials? McDougall claims 90 success rate of getting people off diabetes meds in a 10 day program. Why is this not corroborated by any studies using similar and even more extreme lifestyle interventions? Why is the only controlled study that even comes close not even vegetarian? And foremost what does this have to do with whether or not animals have any justifiable use in medical research?

  • Kalama Halamezad says:

    “With the devastating effect of meat production on the environment the importance of becoming vegn has never been greater” Have you read the UN Report that is the source of all this? Strangely going vegan was not one of their suggestions for mitigating the problem. In fact the only mention of vegetarian contributions in the whole 400 page report was that they’re a class of people who’d probably be willing to pay a premium for more responsible farming. As usual with the types of reports you typically refer to they don’t even imply the conclusions you’ve made. They implicate major factors like not using livestock manure to replenish topsoil nutrients since factory farms are usually nowhere near where the feed crops are grownresulting in deforestation as new croplands are added to replace those which have been depleted. To make a long story shortif you read the conclusions pages you find that the prime recommendation is to restructure the entire industry to encourage environmentally sustainable practices. This is something that needs to be done both with crops and livestock. Simply adhering to the current production standards and abolishing meat consumption won’t cut it. There’s a chance we’d reach the same endpointjust at a later date. Shortterm we’d use less land but as long as we’re raping said land it will still erode add to existing greenhouse gases and fail to produce crops resulting in expansion. I also had the impression that the research suggested we can maintain current meat output if it was done ‘right’. Reduction of consumption is really only useful as long as we’re being inefficient. It’d be pretty pointless if sustainable practices were actually employed.

  • Kalama Halamezad says:

    “You’re desperately seeking justificationrationalization for what you do to animals by implying that if I accidentally step on an ant…” No I’m not seeking to provide an ethical justification for vivisection. As I said I don’t believe ethics can be argued because they are personal and not based on facts. What feels right to me may not seem right to you. Ethics are like religionall we can do is point out when other people have inconsistent ethical values. I’m only pointing out that you are guilty of the type of ethical justification that you previously accused me of ie. that “might makes right”. Your appropriation of land is not the same as “accidental” killing of ants. People choose to take land and resources knowing it will reduce what’s available to other speciesknowing full well it will likely be to their detriment. Ever seen the ocean garbage patch and the ‘garbage patch bird’? That’s the result of wanton human wastefulness. Will you shun plastics to save the lives of birdsor at the very least put effort into finding out how to avoid contributing to the problem? Probably not. Why? Because might makes right. Let me be crystal here. Competing for resources with animals doesn’t bother me just like vivisection for the benefit of my species doesn’t bother me. You’re the one with inconsistent beliefs here. You say vivisection is bad but other activities that clearly hurt animals are OK. The only difference is that competing for resources is natural and all life does it. “There is a world of difference however in the person who always consciously tries to follow the path of least harm and the person who wilfully and knowingly creates harm.” Tell me exactly how much time did you spend considering how your choice of living space would affect animals or the environment? The American preoccupation with single family residences is pretty damning evidence that we aren’t very considerate when it comes to lowimpact living. Generally I’d assert that most people would prioritize appearance convenience affordability and even personal preferences far above environmental responsibility when choosing a residence. Again the only justification for this is on a global perspective is ‘might makes right’so anyone who does think in such a way can hardly be said to be following the ‘Path of Least Harm’. It would be more accurate to dub it the ‘Path of Not Caring’ or at best ‘Path of Not Knowing’.

  • Mike Quinoa says:

    Below are links to examples of people who have cured or reversed their Type II DM by following the McDougall pure vegetarian diet httpwww.drmcdougall.comstarsscottraphael.html httpwww.drmcdougall.comstars050308starlogan.html httpwww.drmcdougall.comstarsjasonwyrick.html httpwww.drmcdougall.comstarsstar01.html httpwww.drmcdougall.comstarsstar02.html Other examples of disease reversal or alleviation can be found here httpwww.drmcdougall.comstarsindex.html These are not hypothetical pieinthesky examples. This is the work of a reallife medical doctor more concerned with healing people than with writing out prescriptions and keeping them dependent on drugs their whole lives. One of Dr. McDougall’s most famous patients is Dr. Ruth Heidrich who has for decades kept her metastatic breast cancer at bay with a vegan diet all the while earning the title of one of the 10 fittest women in America Living Fit Magazine.

  • Mike Quinoa says:

    Kalama You’re desperately seeking justificationrationalization for what you do to animals by implying that if I accidentally step on an ant and kill it then what the hell you can conduct all types of barbarous experiments on animals who clearly do not want to be experimented on. If it really bothers your conscience that much then get out of vivisection. Nobody that occupies a space on this planet does so without some occasional detriment to other species. There is a world of difference however in the person who always consciously tries to follow the path of least harm and the person who wilfully and knowingly creates harm. With the devastating effect of meat production on the environment the importance of becoming vegn has never been greater. This will have a greater impact on animal habitat and animal survival than anything else we can do. Going veg is not just about not eating animals anymoreit’s also about helping to preserve their habitats.

  • get to the point says:

    LOL ‘fear for their families’ cmon kurt what a load of crap thats just a cop out answer if these vivisectioners feared for their families so much they wouldnt speak out about the tests they do and the results they obtain they would keep their jobs a secret..which they dont.. they just have no ethical or understandable answer to what they do they know its a cruel pointless and uninformative job and thats the only reason they wont get in to a debate they are cowards to the core and they know they would get proven wrong in everything they say. animal testing is cruel unnessesary and damn right wrong on many levels kalamah.. i wish u would stop chasing fresh air and get to the point that mike brought up all that blah blah blah and no real scientific proof that animal testing is nessasery in this day and age if u carnt answer in simple terms then why bother posting at all. animal testers are cowards who hide behind each other. and just so you know i wont respond to anything u say because with some people its like talking to a brick wall so i wont waste my time.

  • Kalama Halamezad says:

    “Keep in mind that particular book was written with laypeople in mind not medical or scientific professionals” What exactly is the relevance of this statement? That the authors intentionally left in flawed arguments and misinformation since average Joe doesn’t have institutional access to hundreds of medical and scientific journals to fact check? A good dumbeddown book uses nontechnical language and sometimes avoids minor details not required for generalized understanding in order to be readable and convey the general ideait doesn’t get facts wrong to prove a point or leave out minor details to foster the intended misunderstanding.

  • Kalama Halamezad says:

    You said “As far as animal displacement you may have noticed I said “in my case”the specific not the general.” I’m sorry but if you take part in a behavior that you admit has an indubitable combined impact on animals at the global level then you are not exempt from being a part of the problem just because you declare that your home is “near a large woods”. The only way you can justifiably claim that your land acquisition is any different is if you actively sought out and used land in a way that wouldn’t contribute even in a small part to the issues causing the larger problem. In fact assuming you live in a rural area you would also need to factor in all the land used to make roads to get supplies out to a spread out community. You said “I believe the human species is overpopulated and yes man has encroached on and detrimentally affected many existing animal habitats.” And you want me to believe that since you live “near a large woods” that you are somehow not a contributor? Again let’s be frank. Can you provide me a justification for why you can use land that other life needs other than the same justification you use to criticize scientists’ use of animals?that “might makes right”?

  • Kalama Halamezad says:

    “Your disagreement with an historical section of the book does not negate the validity of the remainder.” Let me be frankwhy would I trust anyone that so clearly has an agenda that he rewrites history to convey his message? If it wasn’t intentionally twisted then it was poorly research which is just as bad. There are other examples regarding quotes from scientists he uses. One being a quote something along the lines of “We only do them for legal reasons” coming from an opinion letter written back when the FDA first started regulating medicine. Author failed to note that the original speaker clearly stated the entire article was his opinion and probably not representative of the majority of drug researchers. was a psychopharmacologist and as such would automatically be be inclined to talk about how it’s difficult to find useful animal models for testing the effects of psychoactive drugs. clearly stated that he did not think all varieties of animal testing was useless or done only for legal reasons. provided absolutely no evidence to back up his opinions. was basically saying that testing requirements needed to be refined and reduced to just those that are known to be applicable to prevent backlog and mistaken assumptions. In summarium he was provivisection but thought a subset of tests were done only because the FDA required them. Provided no evidence or examples. Then there was another quote from a vivisection conference where one guy said something like “we’re only here to keep our jobs after all.” Author failed to note that this was most likely a joke. 1. Previously another scientist had been discussing some results that were good to the point where a problem might be solved. 2. If one scientist solves a problem that many are working on everyone else temporarily loses their current workand has to deal with the depression of spending a good chunk of their life studying something only to find out they’re wrong or have someone beat them to the goal. 3. The speaking scientist said “If I’m right”. 4. The quoted scientist noted that “Now that Dr. soandso has said ‘If I’m right’ that opens up the possibility that we’ll all be able to keep working and after all we’re only here to keep our jobs.” If I had a dime for every time a scientist made a sarcastic or cynical comment like that I’d be able to fund myself.

  • Kalama Halamezad says:

    Okay let me be absolutely clear here with a few things 1. I never ever ever stated that a vegetarian or vegan diet could CURE diabetes. 2. You however originally said “Doctors like John McDougall have on the other hand cured Type II with a plantbased diet.” No study using vegetarian plantbased diets alone has ever “cured” the majority of Type II diabetics in the study. Just to be fair no diet alone has ever ‘cured’ the majority of diabetics. 3. The only time the majority of people in a study were able to drop meds were in studies using lowfat nonvegetarian diets combined with exercise. 4. Maintaining a lowfat diet and regular exercise clearly lowers risk significantly for developing diabetes in the first place and can reverse the condition of prediabetics if they keep it up. 5. Maintaining the Pritikin diet and exercising more than most people even have time to has been shown to work for SOME people. But 1. This TREATMENT not cure is impractical. Why?because not everyone has the time to work out for an hour or more 7 times per week and plan meals that meet the dietary requirements. Further inexperienced shoppers may have difficulty getting healthy foods which are often more expensive than their highfructose corn syrupladen counterparts to fit in their budget. In summarium too difficult timeconsuming and expensive for a good chunk of people. 2. The conductor of the study himself said that it’s less effective at controlling diabetic symptoms than hypoglycemic medication. This can be taken to mean that it would be irresponsible to use the life intervention treatments in lieu of meds since doing so could harm many patients.

  • Kurt K says:

    Kalama I have also tried to post a similar response to Mike’s question why animal researchers will not debate in a public forum. With similar results. The most probable answer would be fear for the well being of their families and themselves. Hope this makes the post.

  • Mike Quinoa says:

    I’m glad you’ve read at least part of “Sacred Cows and Golden Geese.” Keep in mind that particular book was written with laypeople in mind not medical or scientific professionals the Greeks have written other books aimed at this group. Your disagreement with an historical section of the book does not negate the validity of the remainder. The book does contain a whopping 33page references section. And as always Dr. Greek welcomes the opportunity to debate vivisectors httpwww.curedisease.comspeakersbureau.html

  • Mike Quinoa says:

    Well at least you now seem to be agreeing that Type II can be cured. I would never understate the importance of exercise lack of exercise is one of the reasons people develop DM in the first place. I would not expect people to get off their meds without it. Also as I had posted many moons ago a pure vegetarian diet is not always necessary to effect the reversal but combined with exercise it’s a potent onetwo punch. My quote was “nearvegetarian” not “nearvegan.” There is a difference.

  • Mike Quinoa says:

    Kalama As far as animal displacement you may have noticed I said “in my case”the specific not the general. I believe the human species is overpopulated and yes man has encroached on and detrimentally affected many existing animal habitats. This underscores the importance of people adopting veg diets. Since meat production is responsible for all kinds of global environmental travesties not the least being rainforest deforestation a vegetarian or vegan diet is undeniably the kindest to our planet and its inhabitants.

  • Kalama Halamezad says:

    “Why are vivisectors afraid to debate Dr. Ray Greek in a public forum?” Perhaps a desire to avoid becoming the vivisectionist equivalent of George Tiller among many other things I’ve made multiple attempts to post.

  • Kalama Halamezad says:

    Pritikin exercise plan 4560 minutes of treadmill at speed that keeps heart rate at 7085 of a maximum determined by a stress test 7 days per week. Additional resistance and flexibility exercises are also done unspecified time or frequency. Not surprising that this has an effect on diabetic symptoms is it? Think the study would have turned out the same had diet been the only factor?

  • Kalama Halamezad says:

    Here’s a quote from a review written by the author of the successful studies you just posted. “Combined interventions have documented reversal of existing diabetes even in those on insulin therapy albeit less than with oral hypoglycemic therapy.” So correct me if I’m wrong but he’s saying based on multiple studies including his own that diet and exercise changes are less successful than oral hypoglycemic medication at treating diabetes?

  • Kalama Halamezad says:

    “More evidence below of the power of a vegetarian or nearvegetarian diet in the treatment and reversal of disease” First before I look to hard into these studies let’s note a few things 1. Whether you like it or not a diet that is “near vegan” these people ate fish and lean meats is not vegan. You can’t say based on “closeness to being a vegetarian diet” that a vegan diet would be better. This statement can’t be verified without comparing isonutritious diets differing only in their nutrient sources. Tell me again despite 27 years of further research why no vegetarian or vegan diet possibly any diet at allhas matched these results? 2. Based on the studies you’ve seen which factor seems to have a larger impact on outcome diet or exercise? Studies examining the specific effects of ADA lowfat and vegetarian diets never worked nearly as well as the RJ Barnard studies. What’s missing from all the subsequent experiments? Personally tailored daily exercise programs maybe? I can’t see the program used in this study thanks to the fact that it’s so old it was probably originally published on papyrusbut a later RJ Barnard study the illustrious source 25 used an extreme exercise program.

  • Kalama Halamezad says:

    Observe the flaws found in just a small portion of the “Where It All Began” chapter. 1. He mocks Galen for his belief in humoral theory. 1a. Hippocrates is widely credited as the person who first applied and promoted humoral theory to medicine. Galen is widely recognized as having learned of it through his exposure to the works of Hippocrates and believed in it based on evidence provided by Hippocrates. 2. He blamed Galen’s animal experimentation for derailing medical progress for hundreds of years. 2a. Hippocrates based conclusions on vivisection as well but this is not mentioned. Both G H used a combination of human observation and vivisection in their research. Both made accurate and inaccurate conclusion from both models. 2b. Hippocrates humoral theory has been described as “virtually worthless as a theory” and as having “remained the fundamental prop of European medicine for over two millennia.” Why? Because “The success of the humoral theory put a heavy brake on physiological research since there were few phenomena for which the humors could not be made to yield some sort of easy explanation.”

Connect With PETA

Subscribe