CIVIS Foundation Report 12, Fall-Winter 1991/2  (Part 1)

 

 

OPORTET UT SCANDALA EVENTANT

 

ON THE SLOW ROAD TO THE ABOLITION OF VIVISECTION: THE FIRST OBSTACLE TURNS OUT TO BE "ANIMAL RIGHTS LEADERS"

 

The above statement will surprise only the majority. The few, really world-wise people reacted to it only with an immediate, "Why of course! What else do you expect? It's the same everywhere, in every field." Confirming Roscommon's maxim: "The majority is always in the wrong." And Goethe's more elaborate dictum: "Truth has to be repeated constantly, because Error also is being preached all the time, and not just by a few, but by the multitude. In the Press and Encyclopedias, in Schools and Universities, everywhere Error holds sway, feeling happy and comfortable in the knowledge of having Majority on its side."

 

The various CIVIS publications listed in our Foundation Reports provide massive documentation from medical doctors and scientists, all leading to the conclusion that vivisection is not only a senseless practice but one that by its erroneousness has caused medical science, and hence humanity, incalculable harm, and is therefore bound to continue doing so if not barred by law.

 

Elementary logic would expect that AV and animal welfare societies would welcome and spread all such valuable information, issuing from accredited doctors and scientists and freely put at their disposal by our publications, but no way: it was much easier for us to find medical doctors willing to commit themselves to the abolition of animal experimentation not merely on obvious humanitarian grounds, but even more so for the benefit of medical science, than to get the heads of the animal welfare and humane societies endorsing that opinion. Most of them actually subscribe to the opposite view, saying "We must first find 'alternatives' before we can do without animal testing." And the minority of world wise people at once understand the reason on learning the next line: "Please give us the money to develop the needed 'alternatives'." (See FRAME, Home Office, ICI, etc.)

 

In Foundation Report Nr 7 we published another brilliant paper by a renowned Italian animal experimenter who one day, after long, anguished reappraisal, frankly admitted having been misled for decades by orthodox, academic education into firmly believing in the irrenounceability of vivisection, and of discovering the truth only after many years of practice in research hospitals in his homeland and abroad. As a result, he now advocates, purely on medical grounds, the total abolition of the unscientific, disastrously misleading practice, which has made of modem medicine the main cause of disease today; a fact which the industry beholden media-makers find increasingly hard to conceal from a slowly awakening public.

 

Then in our Nr 11 we published the Open Letter addressed to the President of the German Parliament by a noted German surgeon, who after thirty years experience in hospitals and private practice had come to the same conclusion as his Italian colleague.

 

In the present edition we complete the cycle by adding the opinion of an Israeli vet, a former vice-president of ILDAV, who explains why, and how, also in the veterinary field one could and should - on scientific grounds - do without the kind of brutal and unscientific "experiments" currently practiced in veterinary schools under the pretext that they are indispensable for learning the practice; whereas their main purpose is to weed out at an early stage of medical education all the intelligent and truly humane individuals who might some day object to, and disturb, the anti-humanitarian, exclusively profit oriented medical practices of the Syndicate - i.e. the Che-Me-Vi Kombinat, amply described in Naked Empress.

 

That these and other publications of CIVIS - the first organisation to systematically excoriate vivisection with the only arguments that could effect a change in the legislature, namely on scientific and medical grounds - should have been roundly ignored, and sometimes even attacked, by the self-styled leaders of the "animal welfare" organisations is a puzzling phenomenon that newcomers into our fold always wish us to explain. So here it comes.

 

Even the not so world-wise will at least realize that economic considerations (read money) are ultimately the preponderant factor in all walks of life, but most people fail to realize that the big humane societies could not be big, meaning so well staffed and proficiently organized at the top as they are, without the subsidies they keep receiving from the big industrial complexes; who explain to the shareholders their generous donations, coming from their publicity budgets, to animalist organisations as profitable, "image-building" good-will gestures, rather than as the policy-dictating bribes that in fact they are. And according to the truism that he who pays the piper calls the tune, industry sees to it that the humane organisations keep their armies of animal loving foot soldiers reassured (read fooled) with inane promises ("we are working on eventual abolition") and services that don't endanger the profitable status quo - like advocating birth control of pets, explaining why dogs should not be bobbed nor cats de-clawed, and everything else that is commendable from an animal rights point of view but apt to deflect from the vivisection issue.

 

Of all the many fields of ruthless exploitation of animals by man for the sake of pecuniary gain or personal pleasure, like factory farming, battery breeding, puppy mills, furs, hunting, rodeos, corridas, whaling, fishing, trapping, circuses, and more such human amenities, there is one activity that merits our special attention not only because of its sheer moral depravity, but also because at first view it seems the most difficult to disapprove, although being the most logical candidate for immediate and total abolition by force of law . We mean, you guessed it, animal experimentation, also called vivisection.

 

It is also the most thankless to attack because it's the only form of cruelty that is foisted off as "a necessary evil", designed to safeguard "our children's health", besides our own. In most cases, our own parents helped make us believe that lie; probably in perfect good faith, having themselves been misled; next, our teachers in school, and then of course all the important media like Reader's Digest and the big dailies, and mass columnists like Anne Landers (whose doctor husband sits on the board of the medical panels that insure rich income for the Syndicate that can only thrive on sickness but not on health), and the "health" authorities, and likely as not your family doctor whom you trust, and even your "man of God" - priest, pastor, or rabbi.

 

Vivisection is being protected by the humane societies mainly in devious ways - not so much by loudly asserting a hypothetical usefulness of it as by shutting their eyes, and yours, to its disastrous fallaciousness, meanwhile diverting the attention of their members away from vivisection by focusing on other camps of animal abuse.

 

A recent circular of the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA), with headquarters in London's super-swank Jermyn Street and branch offices in all those countries where pharmaceutical production is important to the national economy, like the US, Germany, Switzerland, Holland, etc., stated:

 

"We are the world's largest animal welfare organisation. We are involved with issues such as disaster relief, pet population control, wildlife protection, humane education, international transport, humane slaughter and cruel sports. We hope that we can count on your support. Your cooperation can put an end to the suffering of 100 million fur bearing animals that are killed each year without reason. "

 

CIVIS addicts have surely spotted the single aspect of animal abuse that is missing from the list of WSPA's concerns. The 100 million animals that are tortured to death each year in American laboratories alone so that the Che-Me-Vi Syndicate may continue to send trusting Believers to an early grave through lethal remedies and harmful therapies are the only kind that "the world's largest animal welfare organisation" has chosen to ignore as if it never existed.

 

The concept that by getting hold of millions of healthy animals medical science can extract from them through torture the answer of how to heal human diseases - the origin of which reside in man's, and not the animals', own organism, soul, or lifestyle - is so absurd that some day wiser men will wonder how such an idiocy could ever have been rendered believable to the majority, even discounting the financial aspects that helped bolstering it.

 

In fact it is not only by the suppression of intelligence, but also by much subtler instruments of deception that the majority is being fooled today; and this could not come to pass without the enduring complicity of the industry-beholden media, governments (read politicians, from the Presidents and Prime Ministers downward), churches and, last but not least, the leading "animal welfare" organisations and their "moral philosophers."

 

Australia's Peter Singer and America's Tom Regan have been for the past several years the two main proponents of presenting vivisection as a purely moral issue, the candor of which could only be disgracefully sullied by any attempt of dragging in the argument of its scientific invalidity, let alone counter-productivity. This is in itself a legitimate philosophical stand, but it ceases to be that when Singer admits in Parliamentary hearings the necessity, and thus the scientific validity, of vivisection in some cases, and at the same time deliberately ignores the mass of opposite medical views, as if they didn't exist. He thus enables the vivisection lobbyists to claim that "even the greatest animal defender in the world concedes that vivisection can't be abolished". No wonder that such lofty but harmless theories enjoy a good coverage in the press. Time magazine dedicated a full page to Peter Singer recently, who is being presented to the public at large as an animal rightist of such Simon-purity that he only wears plastic shoes and belts since using leather or any other animal product, including honey and milk, would be a blatant form of "animal exploitation". Horror.

 

Readers of Naked Empress know of course that Time Magazine belongs to the Drug Trust no less than its "competitor" Newsweek, and that in all the great many pages these and equivalent Establishment publications that have covered the upsurge animal rights movement, never a single word showing the invalidty of vivisection has been allowed to transpire. It's a "moral issue".

 

 

 

FORMING VETERINARY DOCTORS TOO WITHOUT RESORTING TO VIVISECTION

 

Dr Andre Menache (37), B. Sc (Hons), B.V. Sc, M.R.C.V.S., is a strong opponent to laboratory experiments on animals. Belgian-born, he studied in South Africa at Wits University, Pretoria University, and Onderstepoort Veterinary School where he qualified as a vet before emigrating to Israel, where he now lives. An honorary member of CIVIS, he fully embraces the CIVIS principles, as the following excerpts from his papers and speeches demonstrate:

 

"The growing public debate over the use of animals in medical research has largely revolved around the issue of 'animal rights', with reference to mostly moral and ethical arguments. However, these arguments inevitably pale in significance when their protagonists are challenged by the cliche 'your dog or your child'.

 

"As today there is more and more irrefutable proof that the experiments have no scientific value, the situation has changed radically with the emergence of a new generation of scientific thought. So it is not surprising that the strongest scientific arguments should come from within the medical profession itself, since it is the most knowledgeable on the subject, having access to relevant facts and figures. .

 

"We need to realize that not only is vivisection cruel to animals, but it poses a potential danger to more aspects of our lives than we realize. For example, for every drug or chemical compound it is possible to find an animal that reacts in the same way as a human would, and one that reacts in an opposite or different way. So one can prove anything one wants to prove.

 

"The challenge to the medical profession - and especially to those doctors who are fresh out of medical school and whose minds are still open to new ideas - is this: 'Are we as doctors going to perpetuate what is probably the biggest blunder in medical history and scientific methodology, or are we going to take a critical second look at animal experimentation, in the light of present knowledge?

 

"My medical colleague, Prof. Dr. Pietro Croce, has stated that medicine is a science based on observation and not on experimentation. This basic principle also applies to veterinary medicine. Sadly, we have been made to believe the opposite over the years by our educational system and even through our culture. But today we have no excuse for perpetuating the old methods.

 

"For my part I can state that I've reached where I am now without having experimented on animals. After qualifying from university I worked in a veterinary hospital under the lead of three experienced vets who helped me and guided me. In my turn I now pass on my knowledge to others.

 

"In the final analysis a doctor can only progress through personal experience, based on observations of real life situations in all their variations and complications, which can never be fully anticipated. Every case is unique and should be treated as such on its own, particular merits.

 

"So I say categorically NO to experiments on animals in veterinary medicine too, an opinion based on my personal experience at university as well as my nine years as practicing veterinarian. But above all, let us not forget Hippocrates' precept, PRIMUM NON NOCERE: First do no harm! Let this be our guiding principle." - Andre Menache, Raanana, Israel.

 

CIVIS notes: The emergence of a new generation of veterinarians, of whom Andre Menache is an encouraging example, might bring about even a quicker change in veterinary education than in other medical fields. Who are mostly a veterinarian's clients? Who chooses him? Not the pets themselves, but rather their doting owners. And chances are that if offered a choice, those doting pet owners will always rather go to a veterinarian who opposes vivisection than one who champions the aberrant practice. Especially if they remember Richard Wagner's words: "I would never go to a doctor who believes in vivisection, because I know that he is not only a man without a heart, but also one without medical knowledge: an idiot in his profession."

 

A USA VETERINARIAN

 

Originally we were convinced, like all the naive, that veterinarians were sincerely concerned with animals. But some American friends showed us why the term "veterinarian" is much more associated with "vivisector" than with "animal lover". America's John McArdle, long-time vivisector, strong advocate of the useless and misleading practice, one-time "Technical Advisor" to the Humane Society of the US, subsequently also to the New England Antivivisection Society (which has meanwhile thrown him out on his ear), and others of his ilk caused us for a time to give up vets as possible allies of CIVIS. But first Dr vet Andre Menache, then some American vets made us change our mind. To name one of several, Dr. Nedim Buyukmihci of the Univ. of California.

 

 

 

WHO ARE THE TERRORISTS?

 

Britain's Ronnie Lee 10 years jail for freeing animals from torture - Partner Cliff Goodman definitely subdued - America's Terry Pettit forced to give up - Gentle Bina Robinson thoroughly intimidated - Italy's Health Minister's narrow escape from attempt by industry - CIVIS reps suffer damages and threats - And lawsuits, lawsuits, lawsuits.

 

Elaborating on the titles listed above would take more time and space than we have. We shall only skim over a few instances for now. Some have been reported by us previously, such as the case of Tina Anselmi, Italy's Health Minister, mentioned in the Appendix of Naked Empress, page 202. Anselmi stood no chance of being reappointed to her post after her indiscreet revelations about the pharmaceutical industry, any more than U.S. Health Secretary, Margaret Heckler, stood a chance of retaining her post after suspending federal funding of the sadistic head injury experiments at the University of Pennsylvania. The collusion of government with the vivisection and industrial establishment, designed to milk the craftily misinformed populations through medical fraud and skyrocketting health costs, is as much a reality in Italy as in the U.S. and all other nations ruled by the petrochemical superpower.

 

Contrarily to vivisectors, who are believed to be civil beings only by those who never witnessed their obscene activities in the sanctum of their heavily guarded laboratories, AVs are by definition of tender heart and meek disposition. Alas! Over the years we have seen a great many of these sensitive individuals, initially enthusiastic fighters for human dignity and sanity, fall by the wayside, after wilting in the shade of the immovable wall of derision they face or under the relentless fire of backbiting or overt hostility they undergo. But their opposites don't wilt nor give up, because they make a living from their activities and the exploitation and sufferings of others. A few examples:

 

TERRORISM IN GREAT BRITAIN - First CIVIS rep

 

First CIVIS representative in Great Britain was a young woman in London whose tender heart had led her at first to volunteer her services to the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV). The day she discovered to what bottom low that oldest and once most glorious of all AV societies had sunk with its all-out attack on Slaughter of the Innocent, S.D. got out of BUAV and volunteered to spread the ClVIS ideology and literature that had just hit England in 1979, bringing new hope and enthusiasm to the dormant microcosm of British anti-vivisectionism, which BUAV, just like its rival NAVS, had been zealously suppressing, as related in our Foundation Reports Nr. 4 and our Bullet-ins Nr 1 and 2.

 

But spreading abolitionist ideas holds dangers, in England even more than elsewhere. Before long the invidious phone calls, the backbiting letters which are the lot of all CIVIS allies started arriving at S.D.' s little flat. Then came personal visits, damages to her car, its body scratched, the tires slashed, other warnings. She laughed off our worries about her personal safety, but not for very long.

 

The crack we had expected came after a couple of years, which in our experience is the average burnout time for enthusiasm in the AV field. But it came in an unexpected manner. One day S.D. sent out an unauthorized CIVIS circular that stunned our many British followers, and ourselves too, indicating that CIVIS had suddenly reversed its stand, deciding to give up its scientific position against vivisection and go religious instead. It appeared that while some operators had been busy intimidating the unattached young woman to distraction, an Indian guru working on another angle had convinced her that ClVIS was all wrong in disparaging the vivisectors, but should much rather embrace them with kindness, stifle them with love, and then all this love and kindness would come floating back upon all us AV s and upon the laboratory animals too....

 

(Similar tactics were used around the same time on our former ally Jean Pink, the ex "pasionaria" who in 1977 had founded the sensationally successful Animal Aid, before being persuaded by another Indian guru in 1981 to suddenly abandon her legion of enthusiastic followers and pass her league on to the loving care of the Establishment in the person of vivisector Dr Gill Langley & Co.)

 

 

 

To Part Two