Animal Mutilator: J. David Jentsch REFUSES TO DEBATE PHYSICIANS
SNIVELING COWARDS J. DAVID JENTSCH & DARIO RINGACH HAVE AGAIN REFUSED TO
Animal Mutilator: Dario Ringach -- REFUSES TO DEBATE PHYSICIANS
DEBATE DR. JERRY VLASAK & DR. RAY GREEK IN A NEUTRAL PUBLIC FORUM — CNN. INSTEAD, THEY INVEST THEIR BLOOD MONEY IN PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGNS — BILLBOARDS AND ADVERTISEMENTS. WHAT HAPPENED TO “PRODUCTIVE DIALOGUE”?
Simulposted with NAALPO Press Office:
LA Times Advertisement, Billboard Confirm UCLA Desperation
Animal Abusers Refuse to Debate Issues, Spend Big to Counter Exposure of Their Atrocities
October 18, 2009
LOS ANGELES: In an unprecedented display of desperation, UCLA vivisectors have taken out a full-page paid advertisement in Sunday’s Los Angeles Times to decry not the suffering of the thousands of innocent animals they torture and kill annually, but the lousy media attention they have received recently as activists have exposed their misdeeds.
The newspaper advertisement, apparently paid for by a medical industry schill group, is full of the usual lies and justifications propping up the outmoded, inefficient and cruel practice of killing animals to look for new ways to treat human diseases. In reality, most useful research that improves human health comes from modern techniques that no longer depend on gruesome and bloody animal mutilation, but instead make use of modern computer technology, epidemiologic studies, CT, MRI and PET scanning, microarrays and dozens of other methodologies.
In still a further sign of desperation, vivisectionists have also erected billboards claiming the Los Angeles populace is free of, get this, leprosy, because of animal experimentation. There were 91 cases of leprosy, or Hansen’s Disease, in the entire United States in 2000; treatment has been effective since at least the 1940’s, with new drug regimens in place to counter resistance to the causative bacterium since the 1980’s. Implying that the continued killing of animals in the 21st century is a “necessary evil” to prevent leprosy is just another attempt to keep UCLA rolling in research grant money, most of it taxpayer funds wasted on addicting non-human primates to methamphetamines and other utterly ridiculous, useless and cruel experiments.
Recent attempts by physicians to debate UCLA researchers have been rebuffed by the university, knowing that their practices cannot stand exposure to the public eye. CNN recently invited Drs. Jerry Vlasak and Ray Greek to debate UCLA vivisectors, albeit not physicians, Dario Ringach and David Jentsch. Vlasak and Greek jumped at the chance to dispute the medical efficaciousness and morality of animal experimentation; Ringach and Jentsch refused to appear.
When attempts at dialogue and peaceful attempts to make change and alleviate suffering are frustrated, some activists are willing to use more forceful means to help animals. North American Animal Liberation Press correspondent Camille Marino makes an apt comparison: “LA citizen Richard Ramirez, known as the “Nightstalker”, was a cold, sadistic and violent serial murderer — his behavior was eerily similar to that of any vivisector. While he was actively inciting an atmosphere of terror, the media relentlessly covered the newsworthy developments. While vivisectors like J. David Jenstch and Dario Ringach are active, the animal liberation networks are committed to relentlessly cover their sociopathic reign of terror. When average citizens finally apprehended Ramirez, they beat him mercilessly for his crimes. Jentsch and Ringach have earned the right to fear retaliation for their crimes. Ramirez or Jentsch or Ringach, all are equally guilty, and warr
ant a response…both seem unable to control their bloodlust. They each make a potent case for individuals who need to be stopped by any means necessary.”
For more information visit, www.animalliberationpressoffice.org.
Animal Liberation Press Office
6320 Canoga Avenue #1500
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
www.animalliberationpressoffice.org
press@animalliberationpressoffice.org
.
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”
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
hmmm, weenies.
Maybe ask Tom Holder, I received a response from him earlier from my letter I sent to a few on the list.
Dominique,
I would love to see Holder’s response. They won’t respond to me. Is it anything worth publishing.
My email is camille@negotiationisover.com
They can’t debate on science, they know nothing: they just torture and murder. Jentsch can debate on eyebrows and the best way to massacre animals, nothing else
Ms. Marino,
I stumbled across your site quite by accident and was so horrified I felt compelled to leave this comment. Despite being quite sure you will not listen and immediately delete, I will respectfully post this anyway.
You, madam, are a blight on the vegan community and a source of terrible shame.You are no better than some insane fundie religious nut insisting anyone who doesn’t adhere to your beliefs should die/is inferior.
I have myself lived as a vegan for 10 year. It is my choice as all persons have a right to choose their life styles, beliefs, partners, jobs etc etc. Furthermore you reference to the Ramirez killings is an irrelevant and ignorant comparison…
I can only imagine your sick and cruel opinions on gays and other ethnicities given your hateful, vitriolic dialogue.
I am sure none of this matters to you and you possibly enjoy being viewed as a bigot, but I wanted to let you know how the community feels about. Our group in the midwest is trying to compile flyers, encouraging people to try veganism, and our first media campaign is to eliminate the terrible image persons like you have promoted.
Peace on your soul,
Ester
Ester,
I don’t delete comments because they disagree with me. But I’m thinking of giving your comment it’s own blog.
Your “community” of peaceful TOLERANT vegans are responsible for allowing atrocities against animals to flourish. You are a speciesist who would NEVER be “for tolerance” (as your email address indicates) if the victims were human children. You are pathetic, delusional, timid and, promote animal exploitation.
These animal terrorists demand the right to torment the innocent and are waging an active war to silence animal rights opposition.
ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT IT’S TIME TO PUT DOWN THE LEAFLETS. THESE PEOPLE WILL ONLY END THEIR REIGN OF TERROR WHEN THEY ARE STOPPED… BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY.
“”It doesn’t mean that I advocate violence, but at the same time, I am not against using violence in [extensional] self-defense. I don’t call it violence when it’s [extensional] self-defense, I call it intelligence.” – Malcolm X
And Ester, I thank you for dropping by and explaining how the pacifist community of tolerant vegans is has made the sadists quite comfortable. Now, go sit in a corner with a vegan cupcake and be quiet. You, clearly, have nothing useful to contribute and are an embarrassment.
But I’m certain Pro-Test would welcome you.
I have myself lived as a vegan for 10 year. It is my choice as all persons have a right to choose their life styles, beliefs, partners, jobs etc etc. Furthermore you reference to the Ramirez killings is an irrelevant and ignorant comparison…
Ester, the problem with “personal choice” rhetoric is that consuming animals, using them for our pleasure or entertainment, or as other means to human ends isn’t actually a personal choice. That choice inflicts suffering and death upon unwilling beings, with a clear capacity for suffering, and a clear capacity for their own wants and preferences, who haven’t consented to what we’ve chosen to do to them. Would it be an acceptable “personal choice” if we did this to nonconsenting humans? Of course not.
It’s all fine and good that you’ve been a vegan for some length of time; it’s even fine that you (apparently) have no particular desire to change the status quo, and are content to view the unnecessary suffering of others as some kind of “personal choice” on the part of others.
But that doesn’t mean that it legitimately *is* a personal choice, or that others of us shouldn’t speak out about it in whatever ways we find effective. I understand that just because you’re vegan doesn’t necessarily mean you have any particular consciousness of animal rights. But that’s not especially important. We do.
The comparison to Ramirez has to do with remorseless killing, which is at the very heart of our continued justifications for animal research. We presume that so long as humans derive benefit from such research that there is no ethical problem with using animals in whatever ways we may choose to; we attempt to justify this by claiming that the animals used are being treated according to various welfare standards (which standards we devise to justify use in the first place).
(By the way, I’m gay; I’ve never been ostracized by Camille. Why would you assume that because she advocates for animal rights in a style you find distasteful that she must be racist or homophobic?)
I’m highly skeptical of anyone posting here that claims to have just ’stumbled upon’ this site and to be speaking for some vague grand ‘community’ organization they don’t bother to actually name.
I have no doubt many vegans have issues with NIO and the MDA movement. However, I doubt any real and committed vegan would say the unnecessary suffering and death of 10-12 billion living, breathing, feeling, sentient creatures every year for human consumption in the US alone is just a matter of, you know, someone’s totally valid lifestyle choice.
Epic fail, Ester.
Btw, I am one who would fit into the pacifist AR camp and I say Camille can post whatever the hell she wants here. I have neither the need nor desire to tell her she’s “hurting the movement”. You know why? Because, I, unlike this ersatz “voice of the vegan conscience” Ester, sure the hell am NOT tolerant of animal suffering. Yes, as it stands there are no laws to prevent anyone from throwing a bloody slab of cow flesh on their grill tonight, but just because that choice exists doesn’t make all choices are equally moral and ethical.
I feel being a vegan for a health reasons should be only a secondary reason to the moral, ethical and compassion values here. All sentient beings deserve not to suffer from torture and un-natural death. These monsters that commit these crimes against the animals do not have a right to make that choice! If it were humans being treated this way, would you say they have a right to their choices???? Your arguements make you just as guilty, discusting!
Dominque, you raise an interesting point. I have always considered Veganism to be a moral position. “Dietary Veganism” is simply Vegetarianism, as defined before its meaning was diluted to be understood to mean lacto-ovo vegetarianism. I’ve come across the term gallo-vegetarian more than once, but I can only assume this is a feeble attempt at a joke. And their are those that claim to be vegetarians of a sort and call themselves pescetarians, flexitarians, semitarians. They might as well just say “I’m Vegan between meals”. Ester, if she is a Vegan, is of the militantly non-violent type, but even Gandhi said “Non-violence is preferable as long as it works” Well, it’s not working, which is why NiO is here.
And another reason the “personal choice” argument falls flat is that humans have been *indoctrinated* (ie. brainwashed) into eating meat and animal products…infact ,indoctrinated into the whole idea of animals as inferior. Ester: wake up!
Steve, how is violence working for you?
Congratulations on helping society coin the term ‘Eco-terrorists’. Congratulations, you have intimidated a couple of researchers…. sorry ‘vivisectors’ into stopping animal research. While many more take their places.
Pat yourselves on the back as now groups are forming to fight animal rights extremism. Thanks to you guys, the public now views animal research more favorably then before (at least in England).
It’s funny how you assume Jentsch and Ringach ‘fear exposure’. What is there to fear, they are already exposed. Maybe they fear violence from you guys? Because who would want to debate with people who think ‘negation is over’?
“The fact that Jerry Vlasak is a physician is not relevant. What is relevant is that he has personally boasted about, condoned and apologized for attacks against me and my colleagues. He has used words like “assassination” in reference to us. I would not be surprised if he was, himself, directly linked to some of the criminal activities directed … Read Moreagainst us. Apparently, the Hippocratic Oath he took when he received his degree has been forgotten.
Dr. Greek has openly condemned violent actions to achieve the ends of the animal rights movement. I appreciate that. But he also colludes with them – openly associating with Jerry Vlasak and sharing an address with another individual who calls for harm against scientists (Rick Bogle).
You can not ask for an open and honest debate when you repeatedly refer to violence as a negotiating tool. Either words alone are the tools for this dialogue, or it can not happen.” ~J David Jentsch, Pro-test Facebook group.
You’ve read his replies.
Neuron, since you extracted a single comment out of a discussion I was having with Jentsch, I’ll paste by response to your quote here. But if you are following that conversation, you are well aware by now that science is the last thing Jentsch is trying to advance.
My response to Jentsch:
No. The fact that Jerry Vlasak is a physician is the ONLY thing that is relevant. Because he made some innocuous statements that hurt your feelings, you abandon reasoned discourse. Your comment about the possibility of him being connected to your attacks are not only slanderous, but, decidedly ironic. Any violence that’s been visited on you is a direct result of the violence you routinely visit on your victims. We both know that you fear exposure. It’s a natural human reaction to protect the innocent when we see abuse. You and only you have whatever redress you received.
The rest of your comments about Vlasak are nonsense. He is a surgeon — he actively helps people for a living. You are a vivisector — you actively cause harm to animals.
But I am not a scientist. If there is any validity to your research, you should put your personal prejudices aside and promote understanding through dialogue…. Read more
As far as Dr. Greek, the only reason you cite to not engage him is that you object to his associations. Guilt by association is the same McCarthyism that fostered oppression and effectively stifled communication. By taking civil open discussion off the table, you create an atmosphere that necessitates other tacticsl.
The issue of violence is relative. And, should you ever choose to debate the ethics of subjecting the innocent to violent experiments, I have someone in mind who I’m certain would debate that.
If you continue to pick and choose who you will engage based on your personal prejudices, you will remain the greatest impediment to progress.