NEGOTIATION IS OVER! Words Without Action are Meaningless!

Simulposted with Thomas Paine’s Corner

by Camille Marino

In lieu of the scientific debate that the vivisection community has consistently and adamantly refused to engage in, CNN.com aired a discussion focusing on animal liberation v. animal experimentation on November 11, 2009.  Interestingly, neither J. David Jentsch nor Dario Ringach chose to appear, confirming that they have no desire to discuss their atrocities with a mainstream audience.  It is obvious from this “Blogger Bunch” forum, however, why one-sided propaganda campaigns are embraced by UCLA Pro-Torture.

The panel  included:

• Dr. Ray Greek MD, President, Americans For Medical Advancement. His books include Sacred Cows and Golden Geese:  The Human Cost of Experiments on Animals and What Will We Do If We Don’t Experiment on Animals? Medical Research for the 21st Century
• Peter Young, Founder and Publisher of Voice of the Voiceless.  He is an animal liberationist, seasoned activist, and speaker.
• Michael Conn, Vivisector at the Oregon Health & Science University and author of The Animal Research War.
• Tom Holder, Founder of Speaking of Research and spokesperson for Pro-Torture  for Science.

While there were no actual opening statements, arguments, or rebuttals, Michael Conn’s comments were the most problematic and deceitful.  If one were to award points for evading subject matter and long-winded factually-deficient diatribes, then, without question, Conn would be the uncontested winner.     Tom Holder adhered to his standard industry lines which have already been addressed here.   And, while Dr. Ray Greek and Peter Young attempted to cultivate a factual debate about issues, unfortunately, their adversaries were unwilling or unable to do so.

Some Major Issues

1)   The first questions posed: (1) why do “researchers” experiment on nonhuman animals who react differently than humans? and (2) why are the same cruel experiments continuously repeatedly? I suspect that  they are playing  the law of averages, waiting for an isolated result that will provide fraudulent data.  But I guess I’ll never know the answer for sure because…

Michael Conn — reminiscent of Sarah Palin — decided he didn’t like those questions.  He decided to speak about something else entirely:  If you do not have polio or if you  have ever taken a drug, then you have benefited from vivisection.  He proceeded on an insufferable and irrelevant tangent about how “you owe a debt to animal research” if you have ever used a pediatrician, veterinarian, pregnancy test, vaccine, or had a stroke.  Constructing his strawman argument, Vivisector Conn essentially confirmed what we already knew — that nonhuman animals were tortured with ruthless efficiency and packaged for profit in every perverse way imaginable.   But he wholly evaded the real issue  of whether or not those sadistic experiments were valid.  Fortunately, there was a scientist on the panel…

Dr. Greek, a physician, spoke of the fact that drugs react differently in nonhuman animals than they do in people.  “Animals simply cannot predict human response and, yet, that is exactly how people who earn their livlihood from using animals sell that animal use to society and that’s just fraud, plain and simple… Of course you can grow things using animal eggs, etc.  But that’s not the issue.  The issue is whether they predict human response and they just don’t.”

This 5-year-old male Rhesus macaque, known as Frak, is part of a U. study to test a neurally activated prosthetic arm. After the study, Frak is to live out his days in a primate sanctuary. Frak is among several research animals an animal-rights group alleges are being mistreated in violation of federal law at the U. following an eight-month undercover investigation. (Photo courtesy of the University of Utah)

2)  Tom Holder — he wants  people to believe that “conditions in labs are spectacularly improved” from the fifties and sixties.  And, as always, Holder advances an image of well-cared for and nurtured animals in a comfortable laboratory environment, he refuses to acknowledge that these  victims are imprisoned and terrorized regularly.  They are tortured, drugged, mutilated, and murdered at the hands of sociopaths in white lab coats. Yet Holder concludes that if you are against “animal research” then you are against “animal health and human health”.

Peter Young cites an investigation into animal abuse at the University of Utah which was in the news as the debate aired, November 11, 2009.  “Dr. Conn and Mr. Holder are lying to you.  These pictures you see are not outdated. Every single time anyone cracks that veil of secrecy and goes into a lab they come out with horrific images every single time… EVERY SINGLE TIME.” The Salt Lake City Tribune reports the following:

“PETA leaders contend their evidence reveals “flagrant disregard” for the animals’ well-being and violations have become “business as usual” at the U.

“The ongoing lack of veterinary care means that animals who were already doomed to live and die in laboratories are suffering much more than they have to,” said Kathy Guillermo, PETA’s vice president over laboratory investigations.

The group plans to release video images it says show mice dead from neglect, dying mice bloated with ulcerated tumors, rabbits and cats with surgically implanted devices on their heads and spines, and U. lab staff, their faces blurred, casually describing deplorable conditions for the research animals.

“Betcha if you squeezed that, that would pop,” a lab worker says, holding up a mouse with a bulging abdomen to the camera.

“How would you like to be sitting in a little square box with half your skin missing and your eyeball hanging out for a week, just shivering in trauma?” another mouse-lab worker says.”

3)  Michael Conn then says “the U.S. government does not tolerate bad actors.”  He also has the audacity to make the statement that the USDA overseas animal experimentation, therefore, ethical, well-trained professionals provide the utmost care ensuring  humane treatment.  But USDA Inspector Dr. Isis Johnson adamantly disagrees with the vivisector and discusses the futility of the Federal Animal Welfare Act. The following is an excerpt from Matt Rossell’s Letter to the Editor of “The Scientist”:

“Conn maintains that diligent inspections were conducted by USDA and other internal oversight committees. Compare Conn’s claim with the fact that the USDA inspector at the time, Dr. Isis Johnson Brown, was by my side at a press conference, having quit in frustration after her supervisors at the USDA failed to support her efforts to enforce the minimal requirements of the Animal Welfare Act. Every news agency in Portland was on hand, and the following is part of what she had to say:

Simply revealing the truth was what caused the “public relations nightmare” Conn describes as being so difficult for the primate center to deal with.”

4)  Dr. Ray Greek challenges Michael Conn to a debate: “I’ve offered to debate Drs. Ringach and Jentsch many times; they’ve always turned me down.  The animal experimentation community does not want an  open dialogue on this, they want to propagandize to the general public.  Michael, if you’re  so convinced that you’re right on this issue, let’s have a public debate.” But, whereas Jentsch and Ringach have refused the challenge, Michael Conn ended the discussion as he began it — by evading Dr. Greek’s offer and, instead, giving a literary critique of one of his books.

FOR THE RECORD, DR. GREEK CHALLENGED THE VIVISECTION COMMUNITY TO A SCIENTIFIC DEBATE TWO MORE TIMES IN THE LAST 24 HOURS, AND NOT ONE “RESEARCHER” IS WILLING TO DEFEND THE MERIT OF ANIMAL MUTILATION IN A PUBLIC FORUM.

.

If you have a Facebook account, join the extended Negotiation Is Over network.

To submit work to NIO for consideration and publication, please send an email to camille@negotationisover with the subject “submission”.

To receive NIO updates, please send an email  to camille@negotiationisover with the subject “subscriptions”.