💾 Archived View for spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › occult › ifar1191.txt captured on 2023-06-16 at 19:31:22.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
IFAR1191.TXT - iiFAR St. Louis Newsletter Vol. 1 No. 1 1991
All information contained herein is all verifiable and accurate as we
are always striving to obtain the FACTS about animals and research.
Unfortunately our "Animal Rights" opponents do not hold themselves to
such standards. The A/R movement is fraught with misinformation,
deceptions and outright lies. To aid individuals who are new to this
movement I have decided to add commentary where deemed appropriate.
These additional comments will all be inclosed by square brackets [].
Information on where to send comments, becoming a member, etc. can be
found at the end of this document.
- From Kevin Brawley, Chairman, iiFAR St. Louis
iiFAR St. Louis Update
(incurably ill For Animal Research)
Vol 1, No 1, Fall 1991
Issued Quarterly
ONE YEAR ANNIVERSARY
December is the one-year anniversary of the St. Louis chapter of iiFAR
(incurably ill For Animal Research). The chapter has been very active
in the past year, participating in the counter-demonstrations at St.
Louis University and Washington University in April, the St. Louis
University Health Fair in August, and the Juvenile Diabetes Walk-A-Thon
in October. iiFAR had two information booths, one in Webster Groves in
July (4 days) and one at the Kirkwood Greentree Festival in September (2
days). Public response to iiFAR's participation in these events has
been overwhelmingly positive.
A public relations firm has been working with the chapter; it is
expected that firm will be officially hired soon. A lawyer [familiar
and experienced with these issues] has agreed to provide free
advice/services. T-shirts and sweatshirts bearing an iiFAR St. Louis
logo and design will be ordered as soon as colors/design are decided.
Committees have been formed for membership recruitment, fund raising,
and public relations. One iiFAR member initiated a letter writing
service, which encompasses all animal rights related issues. An iiFAR
St. Louis newsletter will be published quarterly. Steve Carroll,
Executive Director of National iiFAR, has visited the local chapter
several times during the past year.
Anyone interested in preserving the right to use animals humanely in
research may join iiFAR. iiFAR's goal is to educate the public about
the benefits of animal research to man and animals, in direct opposition
to false information issued by animal rights activists. Please consider
becoming an iiFAR member if you or someone you know: are alive due to
medical knowledge; are awaiting a cure; are affiliated with research
animals; want to assure a healthy future for you and your children.
[If you wonder whether or not you've been affected by animal research
answer the following: Have you or any member of your family ever...
- Had blood transfusion? - Had anesthesia?
- Used pain killers? - Used antibiotics?
- Used insulin? - Used vaccines?
- Had chemotherapy? - Had coronary bypass?
- Had reconstructive surgery? - Had orthopedic surgery?
If you can answer yes to any of these (there are thousands more I could
drop here) then you have benefited from animal-based research.]
The animal rights movement in Europe is older and much more powerful and
violent than it is in the United States. It's important to educate the
American public before the movement here mimics the ones in Europe.
THE WINNING: COMMUNITY RELATIONS
On November 7, 1991, the Community Relations Department at St. Louis
University Medical Center received a first place award in the Media
Relations Activity category of the Muleshoe Awards for it's positive
educational efforts to increase awareness about the role of animal
research in the medical field. This award, and two others, were
presented to Sandra A. Wallik, Director of Community Relations, at
Tan-Tar-A Resort in the Lake of the Ozarks during the Missouri Hospital
Association's annual convention.
RIPPLE EFFECTS OF COUNTER DEMONSTRATIONS
To everyone who came out to St. Louis University and Washington
University to counter demonstrate against the animal rights activists
picketing during April, we'd like you to know how far-reaching that show
of support was. The following is a list of the media/publications/
events that carried the story. A big thank you to all who helped
support animal research during these history-making events.
KPLR-TV Channel 11 KMOX Radio 11.20 AM
KSDK-TV Channel 5 KWMU Radio 90.7 FM
KMOV-TV Channel 4
KTVI-TV Channel 2
Front Page - St. Louis University Medical Center - May 1991
The University News - St. Louis University - May 3, 1991
Parameters (2 editions: Vol 16, No 1, Spring 1991 and Vol 16, Nos 2 & 3,
Fall, 1991.)
postgrad - St. Louis University Medical Center
Summer 1991
Biomedical Research Awards Program - St. Louis University Medical Center
May 31, 1991
Medical Record - Washington University Medical School
May 16, 1991, Vol 15, No 32
METRO ST. LOUIS BRANCH
OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF LABORATORY ANIMAL SCIENCE
- The St. Louis Branch of AALAS held it's Annual Awards Banquet on
November 8, 1991 at Lombardos.
- The Laboratory Animal Care Award, sponsored by Monsanto, for
outstanding animal care employee in the St. Louis area was given to
Sherry Garrett, Monsanto.
- The Animal Research Support Award, sponsored by Allentown Caging, for
outstanding contributions in support of laboratory animal science by
any individual was awarded to Sharon Hughes, SLU.
- The Laboratory Animal Care Professional Award, sponsored by Essential
Products, for outstanding leadership and dedicated service by an
animal care professional was earned by Richard E. Doyle, DVM, SLU.
- The Merit Award, sponsored by Lab Products, for outstanding service by
an AALAS branch member was presented to W. Charles Thomas, SLU.
- The new President-Elect of the Metro St. Louis branch of AALAS was
announced: W. Charles Thomas, SLU. He will officially take office on
January 1, 1992.
PETA CONTINUES TO TARGET GENERAL MOTORS
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has called for a
boycott of General Motors products until the company agrees to stop
using animals in auto safety research studies. [If you're questioning
the validity of this sort of testing please remember the alternative is
having people discover design flaws during potentially catastrophic
collisions.] In addition to picketing GM dealerships around the
country, PETA has tried to pressure GM dealers into signing a letter to
GM condemning the safety studies. PETA has also been targeting auto
shows. On October 13, the Saginaw News reported that about 20 people
demonstrated at a show in Midland, Michigan where PETA member Sue
Brebner handcuffed herself to the steering wheel of a pickup truck and
was charge with unlawful trespassing. Letters supporting General Motors
may be sent to : Mr. Robert Stempel, Chairman of the Board, General
Motors Corporation, 3044 W. Grand Blvd., Detroit, MI 48202, FAX (313)
986-1637. - From NABR Update, November 7, 1991
ANIMAL RIGHTS 101 SEMINAR
On Saturday, November 2, 1991, more than 10 people who are not PETA
members or animal rights activists attended an all-day seminar sponsored
by PETA out of Washington, DC. One of the speakers for the seminar was
Sue Brebner (see item above). The fur issue was discussed at length,
and everyone was urged to never let anyone pass them in public wearing a
fur without confronting them. PETA believes in "public individual
confrontation" to intimidate people into not wearing furs for fear they
will be confronted. During the seminar, iiFAR members demonstrated
outside, wearing furs and carrying signs. [Although iiFAR is devoted to
the advancement of medicine through animal-based bio-medical research we
stay informed about other animal related issues as the aforementioned
PETA is one of our main nemesis.]
NORTHWEST AIRLINES SUSPENDS DOG SHIPMENTS
In response to pressure from animal rights extremists, Northwest
Airlines has temporarily suspended shipments of dogs bred for use in
laboratories while the company decides whether animal research is
humane, necessary and socially responsible. In the keeping with it's
role as an advocate of the humane and responsible use of animal models
in the search to relieve suffering and save lives, the National
Association for Biomedical Research (NABR) has written to the President
of Northwest Airlines to urge him not to give in to animal rights
pressure. [It is very important that Northwest Airlines hear directly
from all people who realize why animal models are essential to
biomedical research, education and testing.] Address correspondence to:
Mr. John Dasburg, President, Northwest Airlines, Inc., 5101 Northwest
Drive, St. Paul, MN 55111. and tell him about your personal views and/or
experience with animal research.
- From NABR Update, November 27, 1991
GOOD HOUSEKEEPING MAGAZINE TOUTING "CRUELTY-FREE" PRODUCTS
In the December 1991 edition of the popular Magazine Good Housekeeping,
a brief article entitle "Tested on Animals? These Labels Say No"
suggests that readers write to PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals) for a list of "animal-friendly companies." The article states
in part that "Consumer pressure has convinced many companies to stop
using animals for testing - and now some of them are putting labels on
their products that say so."
The claim that "cruelty-free" products have not been tested on animals,
while not explicitly false, is still misleading. Federal laws mandate
that the public be protected from hazardous commercial products.
Therefore, ensuring public safety involves testing the toxicity of
commercial products before people are exposed to unknown risks. Products
labeled that they have not been tested on animals often contain
ingredients that have been animal-tested by raw material suppliers
rather than the manufacturer of the final product. In other cases, the
safety of a product may already be well established based on a long
history of human exposure or previous animal tests. As Dr. James Mason,
Assistant Secretary for Health at DHHS explains, "Whole animals are
essential in research and testing because they best reflect the dynamic
interaction between the various cells, tissues, and organs comprising
the human body."
If you wish to comment on this article, write to Mr. John Mack Carter,
Editor-in-Chief, Good Housekeeping, 959 Eighth Avenue, New York, NY
10019.
- From NABR Update, November 27, 1991
ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA ARTICLE ON DOGS
The 1991 edition of The New Encyclopaedia Britannica contains the
following passage in the article entitled "Dogs": "Another common use
of dogs, especially purpose-bred beagles, is in biomedical research.
Such use, which often entails much suffering, has been questioned for
its scientific validity and medical relevance to human health problems.
For example, beagles and other animals have been forced to inhale
tobacco smoke for days and have been used to test household chemicals
such as bleach and drain cleaner. In addition, dogs have been used to
test the effects of various military weapons and radiation." The entire
article is seven pages long, and the only other mention of dogs in
relation to biomedical research is as follows: "...the more recent
history of the dog reveals a proliferation of other uses and the
emergence of a variety of breeds best suited to fulfill these various
roles, from lapdog and companion pet to guide for the visually impaired
and as test subject for the vivisection laboratory."
The article does not mention any of the biomedical advances in which dog
research has played a vital role, such as the development of insulin and
control of diabetes, the development of the cardiac pacemaker, open
heart surgery, coronary bypass, and heart transplant procedures, just to
name a few. To comment on this article, write to Mr. Robert P. Gwinn,
Chairman, Board of Directors, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., Britannica
Centre, 310 South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60605.
- From NABR Update, November 27, 1991
EXCERPTS FROM THE ST. LOUIS ANIMAL RIGHTS TEAM NEWSLETTER
The following are excerpts from the November 1991 edition of the St.
Louis Animal Rights Team (START) newsletter. This is the group that
picketed St. Louis University and Washington University in April [Where
we outnumbered them (2x to 10x) during every protest they staged].
The president is Chris Cox, a lawyer. If you think there is no local
threat, please read on.
MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT
"...I would like to think that START has made a gradual transition from
having an animal welfare orientation to becoming an activist animal
liberation group, both feared and respected by vivisectionist, furriers
and animal exploiters. If we weren't effective, would such an
opposition be suddenly mounting against us. ..." [Claiming victory
because you are outnumbered is an interesting delusion]
"START has embraced a 'liberationist' orientation over the past two
years. We have become much more vocal and visible in the community and
have published new position papers completely condemning the horrors of
biomedical research and the wearing of real and fake furs. We also
released position papers supporting civil disobedience in the movement
and even supporting those activists who deem it necessary to take the
law into their own hands and rescue and liberate non-human animals from
their torture chambers. ... 'This includes the gradual or immediate
elimination of meat, dairy products, eggs, leather, fur, wool, silk and
any products which contain animal by-products or which perpetuate the
laboratory testing of animals.' ... It is impossible in today's world to
avoid all exploitation of animals, but what is important is that we keep
striving for that ideal, regardless of whether or not it seems
attainable."
"Yes, there were some people who did not like the strong animal rights/
liberation attitude we adopted. THis unfortunately caused conflict
within our local movement. While it is always sad to lose members, we
must remember that START's stated purpose is the total elimination of
animal use, exploitation and abuse, whenever and however it occurs. I
see no room for compromise in this position. ..."
[His apologies for a falling membership]
Elsewhere in the newsletter:
"...The upcoming years will be a testing ground for the young animal
liberation movement in general and START in particular. Vivisectors,
furriers, hunters, factory farmers and all others who torture and
exploit animals have finally organized to fight the animal rights/
liberation movement. It takes dedicated activists to fight back this
first big push from the opposition, but it also takes financial backing
to fight the anti-animal organizations who think nothing of spending
millions of dollars in an attempt to quash the movement."
[PETA is a $10 million organization. Groups such as ours survive on
virtually nothing. Seems to be another falsehood.]
"With the recent development of organized opposition locally it is easy
to feel frustrated. But in this new opposition we must recognize that
the St. Louis Animal Rights Team has gained enough credibility to be
seen as a direct threat. We are a worthy movement to be taken seriously
because we can and have caused change that threatens those in the
business of exploiting animals to such a degree that they feel they must
organize to fight us. ..."
[Earlier they claimed victory now they are frustrated? We have found
that START is a wanna-be threat, but we have outwitted them at every
turn (in our first year no-less).]
PETA IS A THREE-MEMBER BUSINESS ENTITY
To begin with, Appellant PETA does not have 350,000 members: it has
precisely three (3), and is more a partnership than a membership entity.
As Respondents have already documented before this Court ... PETA's
three (3) member board of directors in 1987 voted themselves the only
"members" of the organization. The legal explanation for this move is
simple: under Delaware law, "members" have a right to vote for the
board, remove directors for cause, and examine corporate books. ...By
amending the Articles of Incorporation, the three-member board was able
to convert the erstwhile "members" into mere customer/contributors, and
the board into a self-perpetuating multi-million dollar partnership.
PETA'S PRIMARY BUSINESS IS THE MARKETING OF ILLEGALITY
With regard to its avowals of purpose, it is vital to note the Appellant
PETA is an "animal rights" or "animal liberation" organization. This
bears no relationship to "humane" organizations, with whom they
obviously desire to be confused. Humane organizations take as their
goal the reduction of animal pain, and avoidance of unnecessary pain.
Animal rights groups, in contrast, believe that humaneness is
irrelevant. All use of animals by human beings, no matter how humane or
necessary, is immoral and must be met with force. Alex Pacheco, PETA's
chairman, made this clear when deposed. To PETA, pet ownership is the
moral equivalent of slavery, unless the animal needed shelter to begin
with...All laboratory research using animals is to be opposed: only
studies in the wild, where the animals "are free to leave", are
acceptable. ...PETA's National Director similarly has explained the need
to unconditionally oppose all animal use in medical experimentation,
even painless research essential to saving children's lives, all eating
of meat, drinking of milk, hunting and fishing.
Appellants have, of course, a right to their beliefs. But they have no
intention of allowing others to act upon their beliefs. In their eyes,
those who do not share their philosophy - animal trainers, hunters,
fishermen, cattlemen, grocers, and indeed all non-vegetarians - are the
moral equivalent of cannibals, slaveowners, and death-camp guards, and
must be dealt with accordingly. Personal defamation is indeed a minor
retribution for such crimes. PETA appears to serve as adjunct to more
radical groups which do not hesitate to use burglary, arson, and death
threats to achieve their ends.
The City Paper asked PETA's co-founder, Ingrid Newkirk, "Have you
collaborated with them at all in planning some of the raids in which
they destroy property?" Her reply was "If we had we wouldn't say so.
We don't discuss anything to do with that. We would never place them in
jeopardy."
(More excerpts from this brief will be published in future issues of the
iiFAR St. Louis newsletter.)
"Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence
encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." - Elie Wiesel, accepting
the 1986 Nobel Peace Prize
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES AND INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE
ISSUE POSITION PAPER ENDORSING ANIMAL RESEARCH
Why are animals used in research? Are there alternatives to animal use?
What are the issues surrounding "animal rights"? In a position paper
issued by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the Institute of
Medicine (IOM), a committee of leading scientists answers these and
other questions. In this position paper, one of the few ever issued by
the NAS and IOM, the institutions lend their support to the "many
scientific, medical, and patient groups (that ) have come out strongly
in favor of humanely conducted animal research." The action reflects
the organizations' concern over the "broad anti-science message
implicit" in the positions of extreme elements of the animal rights
movement.
The paper notes that if studies conducted on animals had been banned 100
years ago, scientific advances leading to the control of whooping cough,
polio, and other life-threatening diseases would have been impeded. The
result would have been needless death and disability. The document
features vignettes about people whose lives have been saved or improved
by medical advances made possible by animal research. It describes, for
example, how a relatively simple procedure called balloon angioplasty
repaired a potentially fatal narrowing of the arteries of a three year
old girl. Such accounts help demonstrate that, behind volumes of
statistical evidence of the benefits of animal research, there are "real
stories of human triumph."
The paper is an effort to clarify the issues engendered by the often
emotional debate over animal research. "By describing the history,
status, and potential of animal research," it says, "we hope to make it
possible for people to judge for themselves the necessity and merit of
continuing that research." Although scientists continue to search for
means of reducing the number of animals used, the paper states that
animal studies remain essential for medical progress. There are no
substitutes for animal research in the study of complex, debilitating
disorders, such as AIDS, cancer, Alzheimer's disease, and traumatic
brain injuries. Almost "half of the biomedical investigations carried
out in the United States would not have been possible without laboratory
animals."
The paper also disputes the assertion that animals have rights equal to
those of humans. But it says that animal research does carry ethical
and social responsibilities. Researchers "have an obligation to
minimize the pain and distress of laboratory animals." They also are
obligated to use animals only to pursue "meaningful" goals. Animal
research is an irreplaceable cornerstone of efforts to improve human
health, the paper concludes. "As we decide the future of animal
research, we should keep in mind the future generations who will look
back at us and ask if we acted wisely."
The position paper, Science, Medicine, and Animals, is available from
the Commission on Life Sciences, 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20418, phone (202) 334-2500.
LEARN TO LIVE WITH IT?
This past summer in Toronto, Canada, a man had to undergo 28 days of
shots, without knowing for sure if he had been infected by rabies,
thanks to the Toronto Humane Society (THS). Doug Allen, 35, was bitten
by a raccoon while sitting in a movie theater. The animal had
apparently been foraging in the theatre, forced out of the woods to
search for food because of the record furbearer overpopulation in the
area. An unprecedented rabies epidemic has accompanied the
overpopulation, which was caused by the animal rights attacks on the fur
industry, causing pelt prices to plummet.
The theater was evacuated and the 35-pound raccoon was caught by animal
control officers, but the raccoon was cremated by the THS before it
could be observed for rabies. It is believed that the animal was
destroyed to prevent health officials from dissecting it, even though
the raccoon's behavior strongly suggested rabies, and also to prevent
public knowledge that would weaken their anti-trapping campaign.
THS has become increasingly unpopular since its takeover in 1986 by the
extremist animal cult ARK II under Victoria Miller, who predicted that
in the 1980's we might see "a bystander killed in a bomb blast" by
animalists, or "a vivisector shot in the street." She added, "we will
learn to live with it."
- From The People's Agenda, July 1991
WHAT CAN SCIENTISTS DO TO STOP THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT?
The animal rights movement consists of three sub-groups. The core is
made up of a small handful of people who know its purposes in detail.
There is no measure that you can take to affect the actions or beliefs
of these zealots of the movement. The middle layer is made up of those
who have enough commitment to the movement to be willing to supply
information and to steal laboratory keys. But these people would be
unwilling to take part in a crime where there is substantial risk of
apprehension and punishment. The largest layer of the movement is the
outermost one. These "foot soldiers" are the pet owners who send money
to support the cause or who write to their legislators when directed to
do so. These people help the movement because they care for their pets,
not because they have a commitment to, or even knowledge of, the
philosophical underpinnings of the animal rights movement. The
challenge to animal research supporters can be stated fairly simple: It
is to reveal the core of the animal rights movement to those supporters
who are not at the core, who do not really know what they are
supporting, and to educate those who have not yet been touched by the
movement.
- David Johnson, Executive Director, Federation of Behavioral,
Psychological and Cognitive Sciences, Animal Rights and the Future of
Animal Research on University Campuses, from Coalition for Animals &
Animal Research Newsletter, Spring 1991, Vol 4, No 1.
MEETINGS
iiFAR St. Louis meetings are held at the St. Louis County Library, 1640
S. Lindbergh Blvd., of the first Thursday each month, usually.
Occasionally, due to scheduling conflicts at the library, the meetings
are held on other days. The next 4 iiFAR meetings are:
Thursday, January 2, 1992 Monday, March 9, 1992
Thursday, February 20, 1992 Thursday, April 2, 1992
BOARD OF DIRECTORS BOARD OF ADVISORS
Kevin Brawley, President Richard E. Doyle, DVM
Jan Hoffman Richard A. Galosy, Esq.
Sharon Hughes Jerald Olsen, DVM
Marian Pancoast Charles Spohn
Mary Pearlstein
Cindy Province
MEMBERSHIP
Membership monies are used to cover postage, supplies, equipment,
education and the other expenses associated with organizations of this
type. If you would like to become an iiFAR member but cannot afford to
send money just let us know. The recommended membership fee is $20.00
annually although donations of any size are welcome.
Newsletter Donations: Local Membership: National Membership:
iiFAR St. Louis Newsletter iiFAR St. Louis iiFAR (National)
Sharon Hughes Kevin Brawley Steve Carroll
Comparative Medicine P.O. Box 5216 P.O. Box 1873
St. Louis University St. Louis, MO 63139 Bridgeview, IL 60455
1402 S. Grand Blvd.
St. Louis, MO 63104
Editor: Sharon Hughes
Asst. Editor: Marian Pancoast
Next Issue: Winter 1991
- In a two-day period in New York City recently, a homeless man, a train
maintenance worker, and a dog were killed on the subway tracks. Ninety
people telephoned the Transit Authority to express concern about the
dog, but only three called about the worker and no one about the
homeless man.