Vivisection: Science or Science Fiction?  Part 1

 

 

Previously published in booklet form by PRISM in the USA, 1990

 

Foreword, by Louis J Marx MD

 

 

The human mind is stimulated to think by pleasure and pain. Having experienced a pleasure, it schemes to have the experience again. Conversely, the mind schemes to avoid pain, and when it confronts a problem (pain) it tries to solve or get rid of the painful dilemma. Since the mind operates within the narrow parameters of self-protection and self-enhancement, it lacks the capacity to consider the wider ramifications of its pursuits, being amoral rather than immoral.

 

It is the "heart" which is the seat of conscience. The mind makes rules of conduct, laws, and belief systems, but these creations are merely attempts at control and domination, and have nothing to do with morality. The heart is sensitive and intuitive, responding to the immediate situation with sympathy, joy, courage, rage, etc. The mind is primarily reactive and is conditioned by the past, and can distort reality. The heart is free from the distortions of the past. It simply reads the situation and reflects its feelings to the ego or self.

 

When the mind receives unpleasant vibrations from the heart, by its very nature it wants to push away those feelings. Also, the heart's reflections may be in conflict with the mind's intentions. Then the mind may try to convince the self that the heart messages are false or dangerous and should be ignored. If the self is seduced by the mind's false reasoning, the self may repress the feelings. Thus, the mind gains control of the personality and infuses it with the mind's dominant state...fear. The fear stems from the perceived threat of experiencing the heart's rage for being denied. This fear leads the mind to a desperate struggle for control or power. Without the guidance from the heart, the mind experiences restlessness, which increases its need to pursue security through control. The sad aspect of this dilemma is that the mind sees the heart as another enemy rather than its savior.

 

With this understanding, we can now approach the problem of vivisection. It is safe to state that for someone to inflict pain, suffering, and death on sentient beings, there has to be a considerable denial of the heart. The heart would sense the suffering and reflect this to the vivisector. Those who practice cruelty must split their awareness from their feeling nature.

 

Without the love, wisdom, and courage of the heart, the mind-controlled person becomes desperate, self-centered, and amoral. The pursuit of power replaces more noble aspirations. As Carl Jung pointed out, the opposite of love is not hate, but the will to power. They are mutually exclusive. Where there is will to power there is no love, and vice versa.

 

A classic example of what happens when there is denial of the heart was the Nazi regime. This type of ruthless mentality is still active in parts of our society. Animal experimentation is just one example. This mentality believes that it is superior to other humans and animals, and that gives the right to violate others as it sees fit.

 

Consequently, the product of this "research" has brought forth an arsenal of assaultive weapons in the name of medical science. These chemical drugs poison those consumers who support the research/drug cartel. We are reaping what we have sown. Health does not come from torture or toxic compounds. Since medical researchers rarely know the cause of any disease, it is understandable that drugs are designed only to treat (suppress) symptoms. Healing comes from purification, not contamination.

 

The only excuse for using animals for drug testing is to support the toxic drug industry. Since natural substances cannot be patented, there is little profit in marketing them. Therefore, the drug companies choose to create new chemical substances. The degree of toxicity is unknown, so they give the drugs to animals first, saying this is better than testing on humans. However, this is a sham, since animal testing leads to human testing, and is not a substitute. Those who support the drug cartel by using these chemicals risk their health and life. They become recipients of the destructive energy released by this "research".

 

This booklet, Vivisection: Science or Science Fiction, shows that vivisection cannot be scientifically justified in any sense of the word. It is a medical fraud. This has been shown to be true by the large number of marketed drugs which are withdrawn from the market, after widespread use, because of their toxicity. Animal tests did not protect those poisoned.

 

Why do vivisectors continue to practice this destructive science? Because they are mind controlled and power driven. They have not been able to be reached by reason or by any appeal to compassion. Like the Nazis, they use a massive propaganda campaign which plays upon the fears and hopes of the people (their source of money and power).

 

In understanding the vivisectors, be aware of the above conflict between the mind and heart. Any attempt to address scientific accountability or reason can be expected to meet resistance because it threatens their security and control. Attacking them increases their fear, thus can increase their attempt to resist change.

 

On the other hand, hoping they will reform themselves without public pressure leads them to further corruption. However, this does not mean the problem is hopeless. First, we can do what this booklet is doing - educate and raise the public consciousness. Then we can understand that we are all responsible, and we are all victims of this negative energy. Tyranny can only exist with the silent approval of the populace.

 

Second, we can withdraw the financial support from this type of experimentation. We can stop donating money to all medical research groups or foundations that use vivisection (which is almost all research). Don't be swayed by the propaganda which claims that these organizations could do something worthwhile. After many decades and countless billions of dollars, these research centers have not been able to find the answers to disease. Why should we expect this to suddenly change? Also, be aware that when you buy drugs, you are supporting the drug cartel.

 

Third, spread the word to as many people as possible as to how our tax dollars are being squandered. When there is widespread support for change, the politicians will stop supporting the research business and align with the people.

 

Finally, practice listening to your heart. Accept, release, and embrace every feeling that your heart has to offer. Let all the negative feelings have their say, because those are the denied feelings. When you understand that the negative feelings are positive feelings misunderstood, then you have listened. Once you have made friends with your heart, let it be your guide. It will not only guide you into the right action, but will fill your life with Joy.

 

- Louis J Marx MD is a graduate of the University of Michigan Medical School. He is a Diplomate of the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, and has a private practice of Psychotherapy, Nutrition, and Herbal Medicine in Ventura, California. He is the author of Healing Dimensions of Herbal medicine, soon to be released.

 

WHY THINK WHEN YOU CAN EXPERIMENT?

 

"Why Think?"

 

"No medical man during student days is taught to think. He is expected to assimilate the thoughts of others and to bow to authority. Throughout the whole of his medical career he must accept the current medical fashions of the day or suffer the loss of prestige and place. No public appointments, no coveted preferments are open to the medical man who declines to parrot the popular shibboleths of his profession..." - Waiter Hadwen, MD.

 

"Why think when you can experiment?" were the words of Claude Bernard, French vivisector/physiologist of the 1800's and historical role model to the vivisectionists. This mentality has led to the religious belief in the "slash and trash" science known as vivisection. We have all been conditioned to believe what professionals confirm as truth.

 

Think About It

 

This "why think?" attitude has given us fraudulent, misleading and dangerous veterinary-based "research" that has:

 

* allowed drugs that injure and kill under the alibi of "safety testing on animals"

 

* robbed taxpayers of billions of dollars in bogus "research" experiments that could have been used for prevention campaigns, for nutritional programs for the poor and elderly, for prenatal programs to reduce infant mortality, and for the cleanup of toxic waste that contributes to disease

 

* Contributed to the neurotic dependency on the chemical management of everyday life.

 

* Contributed to the staggering cost of health care, which also threatens imminent medical rationing and to bankrupt the economy.

 

* Wasted precious time that could have been used for the immediate removal of conditions that contribute to disease.

 

* Contributed to the "conquer nature" mindset which is destroying our environment.

 

* Allowed a monopolistic medical aristocracy that dictates dangerous and invasive health care modalities.

 

* Presented science as a forum for violence and exploitation and driven many of the most humane away from research.

 

* Created a conflict of interest between the welfare of patients and the profit-hungry medical/industrial complex.

 

In his book, The Great Billion Dollar Medical Swindle, Dr Keith Lasko writes:

 

"Research is big business. The researcher, in return for his salary, need not make a discovery. All he needs to do is show how much work he has put in. The contempt of researchers for mankind is evident in their considering that rats are the perfect experimental substitutes for humans. Perhaps cancer research has been set back because researchers cannot conceive that humans are not rats. And what works on humans may fail to work on rats. In medical research, one can often see the coldness that can fill a doctor's heart, the lack of compassion, the blindness to suffering and death, and the devotion to larger salaries…Where is the public accounting for all the funds collected for "research"? Are endless hordes of animals butchered, are endless human sacrifices offered for nothing? Or is something actually accomplished other than busywork to appear to justify the donations and the grants of millions of dollars to researchers?"

 

The Hypocrite and the Hippocratic Oath

 

The health care/research community justifies animal experiments for the sake of reducing the "risk" of harm from drugs and technology it regularly uses, which are already suspected of being dangerous. Professing to practice under the Hippocratic doctrine of "First: do no harm," these lofty pronouncements sound hollow when compared with prevention, nutritional, herbal, homeopathic and other non-toxic therapies that entail no risk and are substantially less costly. Yet the medical/research community would rather "risk" the chance of patients being harmed by dangerous and invasive technical medical interventions "tested on animals" rather than "risk" losing income by permitting alternative treatments.

 

This shouldn't be hard to understand because health care is now, more profitable business than national defense. In 1988, $511 billion was spent on medical costs, the number one cause of personal bankruptcy. When Dr James P. Carter of Tulane University was asked why there wasn't an emphasis on prevention in medical schools, he answered: "With major source of income to physicians coming from providing curative medicine, it is only natural that emphasis on preventive medicine be given short shrift."  So the health care industry stands accused of practicing the Hippocratic Oath with hypocrisy.

 

The medical establishment - the pharmaceutical industry, the hospital industry, fundraising societies, the American Medical Association, and the biomedical research industry, in partnership with the various disease charities, conduct telethons and fundraisers under the pretext of finding cures, which mainly raise money for animal research, while neglecting many actual patients who need help. They are extraordinary financial successes, but the diseases remain, and even multiply, and so do the vivisection laboratories.

 

In fact, could it be possible that the vested interests are not concerned with cures? That they only want to sell the hope of a cure? Because if there were indeed cures, would they possibly be put out of business? Could researchers be more interested in the study of disease, rather than cure of disease? Is it possible that they will study it, and study it, and study it, as long as the grant money keeps rolling in? If they really want cures, they should abandon animal experiments and concentrate on environmental causes of diseases and prevention.

 

To underscore the fact that the biggest threat to the medical establishment is the prospect of finding cures for diseases, Dr Alan Cantwell, Jr., in his Aids and The Doctors of Death, states: "It is clear to anyone who studied the matter that the medical 'establishment,' along with its intimate connections to the pharmaceutical industry and federal agencies such as the FDA, is opposed to any 'break-through' or 'cure' for serious chronic diseases like cancer and AIDS."

 

The Sickness Care System

 

"The main error of the biomedical approach is the confusion between disease processes and disease origins. Instead of asking why an illness occurs and trying to remove the conditions that lead to it, medical researchers try to understand the biological mechanisms through which the disease operates, so that they can then interfere with them. Our current medical model...sees the human body essentially as a machine made of separate parts, the organs. It sees disease as something coming from outside the body, attacking the body from outside. Through surgery or chemical intervention the doctor treats the affected parts. Usually this treatment is done without taking into account how the parts are interrelated." Fritjof Capra, The Turning Point and The Tao of Physics.

 

This confusion lies at the very center of the conceptual problems of contemporary medicine. It is the rationale for continuing animal research even when statistical studies of humans point clearly to environmental factors. And it is an example of vivisectionist arrogance now placing more validity in animal experimentation rather than non-invasive human studies.

 

This erroneous approach to human health began with the mechanistic concept of Isaac Newton who saw the human body as a machine with many separate parts, and Rene Descartes who separated elements of the human body into mind and matter.

 

Modern medicine has followed those two theories doggedly for the last three centuries. Its approach is that everything is reducible into fragmented parts. Reduce an ailment to the malfunctioning part and you can cure the disease. Find the pill that makes the symptom go away then you can believe the disease has been cured. The social dimensions of health - nutrition, sanitation, working conditions - are ignored as medicine becomes increasingly specialized and fragmented, with an unstated, ever present conception of the body as a machine. And the result is an increase in disease in direct proportion to the amount spent on research and health care.

 

The "Health Care" Payoff

 

According to Dr Victor Seidel of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, the US spends more per person for health care than any other country in the world, yet Americans have a lower life expectancy and greater health problems than many other nations that spend a fraction of what we do. Our $1,388 annual outlay per person is more than twice as much as Japan spends, yet the Japanese live longer than Americans do. The US also has a higher infant death rate and higher death rates for cancer, heart disease and liver disease than many other developed nations.

 

Dr Seidel believes that, considering the amount we're spending for health, the US should be near the top of almost all ranking, yet there are less advanced countries that keep their people healthier and alive longer than we do, and at less cost.

 

To further underscore the lack of payoff from vivisection, Andrew Weil, MD, in Health and Healing: Understanding Conventional and Alternative Medicine encourages people to look elsewhere for help with severe viral disease like hepatitis, or a metabolic disease like diabetes, or most cancer, or arthritis, asthma, high blood pressure, multiple sclerosis or "other chronic diseases of the digestive, circulatory, musculo-skeletal and nervous system." What's left? Broken limbs and hangnails? Where have all the billions for "research" gone?

 

In truth, medical consumers face risks daily - not from their diseases - but from the technology that's supposed to cure them. In 1988, 50,000 deaths were directly related to hospital foods; 45,000 people contracted cancer from diagnostic x-rays. In addition, 10,000 Americans die each year or suffer serious injury form the administration of antibiotics. Birth defects in the US have risen 300% in the past 25 years, with one out of every 12 babies born with a defect. Physician-critics estimate that 40, 50 and even 90 percent of current surgical mishaps are due to inexcusable error in surgery.

 

Dr Herschel Jick of Boston University Medical Center estimates that 300,000 people are hospitalized in the US annually because of drug reaction, making this one of the leading causes of hospitalization. The Journal of the American Medical Association states that one in every thousand hospital patients is considered to have died as a result of a prescribed drug or group of drugs.

 

Despite animal testing, countless drugs are removed from the market each year due to severe side effects or deaths among humans. On April 26, 1989, the Los Angeles Times announced that "Two drugs that have been studied for nearly two years in heart attack patients to control potentially dangerous cardiac arrhythmia in fact may contribute to fatal heart attacks. Both drugs (encainide and flecainide) have been removed from ongoing clinical trial of heart attack patients after a greater than expected number of deaths occurred in patients receiving the drugs."

 

Technology hasn't even significantly improved a patient's chances for accurate diagnosis. A column by Neil Solomon, MD, states that autopsy studies show that 60% of patients had been misdiagnosed during life. If this is what we get after the billions we spend for the veterinary-based investigations credited with alleged medical advances, can vivisection even be defined as a science?

 

To part 2

 

wpa0a11672.png
wpbc8b506e.png