I wrote a personal note to Harvard via an email from PETA earlier today and haven’t been able to get the fundamental sickness of what Livingstone is doing out of my mind. Almost as bad is the extreme institutional arrogance of entities like Harvard and their high-handed refusal to engage re: the basic facts of what’s being inflicted on terrified innocents, based on some ludicrously shoddy, hyper-probabilistic assertions about the hypothetical good they want us to believe they are doing. I’m sure Harvard is rife with employees generating PR statements about confronting oppression, or being on the right side of history. An almost iconic, defining cruelty for many there is probably still images and references to that singular, personally-expiating repository of all human evil, Donald Trump, separating young children from their mothers. And what does Livingstone so proudly do for a living? Literally tears babies from their mothers’ arms and stitches their eyes shut. Consigns them to unrelenting terror and agony. What is wrong with Livingstone and all Livingstones around the world to allow them to so fundamentally evade the obvious factual reality of what they are doing. Livingstone is worse than an Eichmann, because she is directly overseeing this cruelty and/or personally inflicting it, while preening and promoting herself based on it.
There they go again. Saving humanity but fuck the animals because they're there for US! Animals aren't safe anywhere there's people. This torture is the very same thing that lead me into the world of animal activism. Beyond horrifying
Yes!..." One key element is to turn the tables on the doctrine, by normalizing opposition to the abuse (rather than support for it), and by making the act of rescue (rather than the act of animal torture) necessary." Sometimes casual social conversation can have a greater personal affect on an individual when compared to a massive demonstration/protest. I'm not trying to dis the act of publicly protesting, public displays of conviction towards political and social redress are vitally important.
The industry's use of the word "necessary" is a total farce: public relations nonsense used to legitimize a barbaric out-of-date line of thinking, methodology, and to encourage continued funding. It's been shown time and time again that there is virtually no human benefit to animal experimentation and that this type of research actually results in human harm.
In 1999 I protested at the New England Primate Research Center. We were followed by feds across the east coast. Cops in our face trying to start fights like drunk dudes at a bar. I most likely have an FBI file. Was VERY happy to see the facility close a few years back but the unimaginable horror continues.
Vivisectors are modern day (Josef) Mengeles.
It's time we got the hell off the animal's backs. If the ticket to eternal life was found within a baboon's belly or the key to world peace was found up an Orca's hiney hole I'd say "SO WHAT!?..way too much to ask...the price is not worth it, the solutions to human dilemmas are ours to figure out on our own."
I also want to offer a shout-out to the dogs used in vet schools. When adopted out (my sister adopted hers) the process of adjustment was colossal. PTSD and severe insecurity remained throughout his entire life. After a few weeks or maybe even slightly over a month after being free we brought him to a nature preserve and it was amazing to see pure instinct kick in. Marty was his name and he lived a full life full of love. Though, from what I was hearing shortly after his (and many others) release, he might have been one of the success stories. This is probably a couple of decades ago now but, at the time I was hearing second hand accounts from other graduates that adopted their class animal that the constant lingering stress/trauma in addition to being adult dogs with no prior knowledge of the world (like the sun and grass) and its many dangers (like traffic) caused a lot of freak-outs, runaways, and accidents.
I would also like to offer a heaven directed fist-bump to Mrs. Hsiung! Much respect!
The link below might provide some useful info to be used in future conversations with family and friends.
The Flaws and Human Harms of Animal Experimentation
by Aysha Akhtar, M.D., M.P.H.
"The unreliability of applying animal experimental results to human biology and diseases is increasingly recognized. Animals are in many respects biologically and psychologically similar to humans, perhaps most notably in the shared characteristics of pain, fear, and suffering.80 In contrast, evidence demonstrates that critically important physiological and genetic differences between humans and other animals can invalidate the use of animals to study human diseases, treatments, pharmaceuticals, and the like. In significant measure, animal models specifically, and animal experimentation generally, are inadequate bases for predicting clinical outcomes in human beings in the great bulk of biomedical science. As a result, humans can be subject to significant and avoidable harm."
This is one of the best pieces I've ever read regarding how experimentation on animals (as well as humans) becomes normalized. I believe the exact same rules that guide and restrict experimentation on humans should be applied to animals. Of course since there can be no "volunteering" by animals for clinical trials, this would essentially end all animal experimentation. In practical terms this would have virtually no effect on the progress of medical treatment for humans, as the early testing stages of treatments have been largely replaced by computer models and genetic or cellular testing. I was sorry, Wayne, to read that your mother passed away from glioblastoma, but as you state, no doubt she would have been against animal testing, even if it was for her own benefit. I was diagnosed in 2008 with grade 3 anaplastic oligoastrocytoma, and underwent surgery at NY-Presbyterian Hospital, and radiation and chemo treatment at Memorial Sloan-Kettering. I had a recurrence shortly after, but it stopped growing and, against all odds, has remained stable since. I receive MRIs twice a year at MSK and have been told that the situation will change some day. As most people with this condition die within 2-3 years, I am considered by the doctors a true outlier, and I haven't faced any of the devastating effects yet. I am incredibly lucky. I have studied the standardized treatments and clinical trials over the years, and can state this: they are all done in the same manner, with no benefit from animal testing. In this case, animal testing has so little relevance to the outcome of human response that it has little or no value. Clinical studies all follow the same procedure--Phase I confirms what a safe dosage is, Phase II determines if there is a positive effect, Phase III is a larger study that guides the decision as to whether or not this new treatment should join or replace existing treatments, and Phase IV is just a continuing study after the new drug is approved and on the market. This is the way all tests are done, and I bring it up because, in the case of brain cancer treatments, there is absolutely no benefit to pre-testing on animals. In some cases animal tests happen because that is the outdated protocol. While other cancers and conditions may possibly have a benefit from initial testing on animals, in most cases the benefit has disappeared or become less relevant. Sometimes people ask me the question "If animal testing could produce a new drug that would reverse your condition, would you approve of it?" My answer is absolutely no. I ask myself if that answer might change if I finally faced the effects of my condition. I hope not, but in any case the question is no longer relevant for the reasons I stated earlier. The experiments that Livingstone is doing at Harvard are not only useless, but incredibly horrific. How is it that so many of these scientists can still be so callous given the irrelevance and cruelty of their experiments? We hopefully can change the ethics of the new generation of scientists, but it is a difficult fight against scientific tradition. If we look at the slow but real changes made at the NIH, I do feel there is some hope we'll reach a tipping point on this.
Yes I heard about this and the freak in Wisconsin my home state who did deprivation experiments on baby monkeys. Whenever I see lil' Britches I cry. I don't even know how these ppl sleep at night. There is another monkey named Cornelius who they cut out a piece of his brain out. He just stares at his cage. He has no will to live. I think animal experiments are the purest of evils. I have bad anxiety and once a year I literally go paralyzed and multiple tests later no one can figure it out. The pain is indescribable. I also experienced my first bout of vertigo last year. Even with all that suffering. It is mine to bear. I rather suffer than have an animal experimented on. I cry nights thinking about those forgotten animals in cages experiencing shit straight out of a horror movie and all condones as moral and legal cuz a human law said its ok and those experiments we dont even know about.
So wonderfully written.The parallels of the reason behind the holocaust and our torture of beagles is so apparent. So happy that you saved Julie. Places that torture beagle puppies must be the lunatics running the asylum. How did we get here? Why can we not rescue all of them? So upset.
thanks Wayne. hope this PETA action brings more attention to the routine medical torture at our colleges and research hospitals on monkeys, rodents, and others
To be honest I couldn’t get past the images of a baby being tortured and the hen suffering always makes me cry! You again have addressed a huge problem of how it is normal to do these incredibly cruel experiments on animals. Thanks!
I often say to people, there's no evil, really, just mental illness. That way, we won't point fingers at others "worse" than we are, just levels of sickness or wellness.Then I ask people, What's the difference between an animal suffering and a human? Backed into a corner, people then cite a biblical reference, and round and round we go. If Malcolm Gladwell is right, 90% of human thought and action is on an unconscious level, so we're easily hypnotized into pointing fingers at each other - "You're not masked!?" asked another animal rights activist.
I think in defending evil we are really trying to protect that part of our heart that is compassionate but that just hurts too much to fully acknowledge the pain and suffering we cause. We as a species have to find a way past this outdated coping mechanism to create a peaceful and loving world.
The late Tom Regan (also Catholic) sums it up (in part): Professor Tom Regan delivered a fiery introduction which was printed in The Guardian, a London daily. "...it is not what religions do to animals, it is what they allow to be done that bares the dark side of religion's soul." When it comes to helping animals, a very few of the faithful do the work of many, while most do nothing at all. Yet every community of worshippers is surrounded by a sea of morally troubling animal use--in agriculture, in the pet industry, in sport and entertainment, in pharmaceuticals and schools. That the faithful do not see the moral questions, or seeing them, do not worry over them, is itself a symptom of an indolent faith grown fat."
Your article is Brilliantly written, Wayne . Captivity is slavery on every level. Archaic period the elite worked its estates with fellow citizens in bondage. Slavery vs speciesism. Speciesism is a form of discrimination. The toxic mindset goes back to ancient times, we need to abolish speciesism in every form and create a society free-for-all perhaps others will follow. I ask when and how.
Thanks for helping raise public awareness about the suffering of animals. I appreciate all that you've been doing and was relieved when you were recently acquitted.
Another animal experiment that keeps me up at night is the one with Barn Owls at John Hopkins. I'm sure you're aware of these, too. They are "using the highly focused birds in an attempt to understand the brain circuits that control attention." They say they're trying to help out those with ADHD. How do they do this?
"The owls are studied via electrodes implanted into their brains while they are fully conscious. Once the owls' skulls are cut open, PETA says the researchers install bolts to hold the birds' heads in a fixed position. PETA says the owls are locked in restraining devices during the experiments, forced to look at screens for hours a day and bombarded with noises and light while their eyes are clamped open."
Can't make this stuff up. I can hardly read that paragraph that I just copy and pasted. It's so barbaric.
Now look at the lead researcher in this photo - Shreesh Mysore – what is he thinking? Smirking as he holds one of his doomed subjects.
I can't help but juxtapose the type of work happening in these "leading institutions" in our "first world" to the type of work that two brothers in India are doing to save raptors, which is the focus of the movie "All that Breathes"
What creates this insensitivity to other living things? Such a lack of empathy? I think much of it comes to ego and pride of these institutions and scientists; they are unable to see past their own egos. Maybe that's also where the banality of evil comes in, though I always interpret that to be about someone who just follows the rules in an unthinking way. My sense is these scientists are arrogant and egotistical.
We see a similar response to Harvard's from John Hopkins about the owl experiments:
"Virtually every significant step toward alleviating human suffering, and better treating animal health needs, has been the result of insights learned from laboratory animals,” Johns Hopkins spokeswoman Karen Lancaster said in an email. “Such research is essential so that doctors can develop better interventions and treatments to help people in need.”
the idea that cruelty is necessary is horrifying but it's not surprising in a society that manufactures and sells war as democracy.
I wrote a personal note to Harvard via an email from PETA earlier today and haven’t been able to get the fundamental sickness of what Livingstone is doing out of my mind. Almost as bad is the extreme institutional arrogance of entities like Harvard and their high-handed refusal to engage re: the basic facts of what’s being inflicted on terrified innocents, based on some ludicrously shoddy, hyper-probabilistic assertions about the hypothetical good they want us to believe they are doing. I’m sure Harvard is rife with employees generating PR statements about confronting oppression, or being on the right side of history. An almost iconic, defining cruelty for many there is probably still images and references to that singular, personally-expiating repository of all human evil, Donald Trump, separating young children from their mothers. And what does Livingstone so proudly do for a living? Literally tears babies from their mothers’ arms and stitches their eyes shut. Consigns them to unrelenting terror and agony. What is wrong with Livingstone and all Livingstones around the world to allow them to so fundamentally evade the obvious factual reality of what they are doing. Livingstone is worse than an Eichmann, because she is directly overseeing this cruelty and/or personally inflicting it, while preening and promoting herself based on it.
There they go again. Saving humanity but fuck the animals because they're there for US! Animals aren't safe anywhere there's people. This torture is the very same thing that lead me into the world of animal activism. Beyond horrifying
Yes!..." One key element is to turn the tables on the doctrine, by normalizing opposition to the abuse (rather than support for it), and by making the act of rescue (rather than the act of animal torture) necessary." Sometimes casual social conversation can have a greater personal affect on an individual when compared to a massive demonstration/protest. I'm not trying to dis the act of publicly protesting, public displays of conviction towards political and social redress are vitally important.
The industry's use of the word "necessary" is a total farce: public relations nonsense used to legitimize a barbaric out-of-date line of thinking, methodology, and to encourage continued funding. It's been shown time and time again that there is virtually no human benefit to animal experimentation and that this type of research actually results in human harm.
In 1999 I protested at the New England Primate Research Center. We were followed by feds across the east coast. Cops in our face trying to start fights like drunk dudes at a bar. I most likely have an FBI file. Was VERY happy to see the facility close a few years back but the unimaginable horror continues.
Vivisectors are modern day (Josef) Mengeles.
It's time we got the hell off the animal's backs. If the ticket to eternal life was found within a baboon's belly or the key to world peace was found up an Orca's hiney hole I'd say "SO WHAT!?..way too much to ask...the price is not worth it, the solutions to human dilemmas are ours to figure out on our own."
I also want to offer a shout-out to the dogs used in vet schools. When adopted out (my sister adopted hers) the process of adjustment was colossal. PTSD and severe insecurity remained throughout his entire life. After a few weeks or maybe even slightly over a month after being free we brought him to a nature preserve and it was amazing to see pure instinct kick in. Marty was his name and he lived a full life full of love. Though, from what I was hearing shortly after his (and many others) release, he might have been one of the success stories. This is probably a couple of decades ago now but, at the time I was hearing second hand accounts from other graduates that adopted their class animal that the constant lingering stress/trauma in addition to being adult dogs with no prior knowledge of the world (like the sun and grass) and its many dangers (like traffic) caused a lot of freak-outs, runaways, and accidents.
I would also like to offer a heaven directed fist-bump to Mrs. Hsiung! Much respect!
The link below might provide some useful info to be used in future conversations with family and friends.
The Flaws and Human Harms of Animal Experimentation
by Aysha Akhtar, M.D., M.P.H.
"The unreliability of applying animal experimental results to human biology and diseases is increasingly recognized. Animals are in many respects biologically and psychologically similar to humans, perhaps most notably in the shared characteristics of pain, fear, and suffering.80 In contrast, evidence demonstrates that critically important physiological and genetic differences between humans and other animals can invalidate the use of animals to study human diseases, treatments, pharmaceuticals, and the like. In significant measure, animal models specifically, and animal experimentation generally, are inadequate bases for predicting clinical outcomes in human beings in the great bulk of biomedical science. As a result, humans can be subject to significant and avoidable harm."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4594046/
This is one of the best pieces I've ever read regarding how experimentation on animals (as well as humans) becomes normalized. I believe the exact same rules that guide and restrict experimentation on humans should be applied to animals. Of course since there can be no "volunteering" by animals for clinical trials, this would essentially end all animal experimentation. In practical terms this would have virtually no effect on the progress of medical treatment for humans, as the early testing stages of treatments have been largely replaced by computer models and genetic or cellular testing. I was sorry, Wayne, to read that your mother passed away from glioblastoma, but as you state, no doubt she would have been against animal testing, even if it was for her own benefit. I was diagnosed in 2008 with grade 3 anaplastic oligoastrocytoma, and underwent surgery at NY-Presbyterian Hospital, and radiation and chemo treatment at Memorial Sloan-Kettering. I had a recurrence shortly after, but it stopped growing and, against all odds, has remained stable since. I receive MRIs twice a year at MSK and have been told that the situation will change some day. As most people with this condition die within 2-3 years, I am considered by the doctors a true outlier, and I haven't faced any of the devastating effects yet. I am incredibly lucky. I have studied the standardized treatments and clinical trials over the years, and can state this: they are all done in the same manner, with no benefit from animal testing. In this case, animal testing has so little relevance to the outcome of human response that it has little or no value. Clinical studies all follow the same procedure--Phase I confirms what a safe dosage is, Phase II determines if there is a positive effect, Phase III is a larger study that guides the decision as to whether or not this new treatment should join or replace existing treatments, and Phase IV is just a continuing study after the new drug is approved and on the market. This is the way all tests are done, and I bring it up because, in the case of brain cancer treatments, there is absolutely no benefit to pre-testing on animals. In some cases animal tests happen because that is the outdated protocol. While other cancers and conditions may possibly have a benefit from initial testing on animals, in most cases the benefit has disappeared or become less relevant. Sometimes people ask me the question "If animal testing could produce a new drug that would reverse your condition, would you approve of it?" My answer is absolutely no. I ask myself if that answer might change if I finally faced the effects of my condition. I hope not, but in any case the question is no longer relevant for the reasons I stated earlier. The experiments that Livingstone is doing at Harvard are not only useless, but incredibly horrific. How is it that so many of these scientists can still be so callous given the irrelevance and cruelty of their experiments? We hopefully can change the ethics of the new generation of scientists, but it is a difficult fight against scientific tradition. If we look at the slow but real changes made at the NIH, I do feel there is some hope we'll reach a tipping point on this.
Yes I heard about this and the freak in Wisconsin my home state who did deprivation experiments on baby monkeys. Whenever I see lil' Britches I cry. I don't even know how these ppl sleep at night. There is another monkey named Cornelius who they cut out a piece of his brain out. He just stares at his cage. He has no will to live. I think animal experiments are the purest of evils. I have bad anxiety and once a year I literally go paralyzed and multiple tests later no one can figure it out. The pain is indescribable. I also experienced my first bout of vertigo last year. Even with all that suffering. It is mine to bear. I rather suffer than have an animal experimented on. I cry nights thinking about those forgotten animals in cages experiencing shit straight out of a horror movie and all condones as moral and legal cuz a human law said its ok and those experiments we dont even know about.
yes, i wanted to say how moved i am by your diligent heart, and hard work. you are an a necessary angel.
So wonderfully written.The parallels of the reason behind the holocaust and our torture of beagles is so apparent. So happy that you saved Julie. Places that torture beagle puppies must be the lunatics running the asylum. How did we get here? Why can we not rescue all of them? So upset.
thanks Wayne. hope this PETA action brings more attention to the routine medical torture at our colleges and research hospitals on monkeys, rodents, and others
Sorry I was in a rush when writing my comment. I 4got to add really sorry about your mom. She would be very proud of you ❤️
To be honest I couldn’t get past the images of a baby being tortured and the hen suffering always makes me cry! You again have addressed a huge problem of how it is normal to do these incredibly cruel experiments on animals. Thanks!
I often say to people, there's no evil, really, just mental illness. That way, we won't point fingers at others "worse" than we are, just levels of sickness or wellness.Then I ask people, What's the difference between an animal suffering and a human? Backed into a corner, people then cite a biblical reference, and round and round we go. If Malcolm Gladwell is right, 90% of human thought and action is on an unconscious level, so we're easily hypnotized into pointing fingers at each other - "You're not masked!?" asked another animal rights activist.
I think in defending evil we are really trying to protect that part of our heart that is compassionate but that just hurts too much to fully acknowledge the pain and suffering we cause. We as a species have to find a way past this outdated coping mechanism to create a peaceful and loving world.
The late Tom Regan (also Catholic) sums it up (in part): Professor Tom Regan delivered a fiery introduction which was printed in The Guardian, a London daily. "...it is not what religions do to animals, it is what they allow to be done that bares the dark side of religion's soul." When it comes to helping animals, a very few of the faithful do the work of many, while most do nothing at all. Yet every community of worshippers is surrounded by a sea of morally troubling animal use--in agriculture, in the pet industry, in sport and entertainment, in pharmaceuticals and schools. That the faithful do not see the moral questions, or seeing them, do not worry over them, is itself a symptom of an indolent faith grown fat."
Your article is Brilliantly written, Wayne . Captivity is slavery on every level. Archaic period the elite worked its estates with fellow citizens in bondage. Slavery vs speciesism. Speciesism is a form of discrimination. The toxic mindset goes back to ancient times, we need to abolish speciesism in every form and create a society free-for-all perhaps others will follow. I ask when and how.
Thanks for helping raise public awareness about the suffering of animals. I appreciate all that you've been doing and was relieved when you were recently acquitted.
Another animal experiment that keeps me up at night is the one with Barn Owls at John Hopkins. I'm sure you're aware of these, too. They are "using the highly focused birds in an attempt to understand the brain circuits that control attention." They say they're trying to help out those with ADHD. How do they do this?
"The owls are studied via electrodes implanted into their brains while they are fully conscious. Once the owls' skulls are cut open, PETA says the researchers install bolts to hold the birds' heads in a fixed position. PETA says the owls are locked in restraining devices during the experiments, forced to look at screens for hours a day and bombarded with noises and light while their eyes are clamped open."
Can't make this stuff up. I can hardly read that paragraph that I just copy and pasted. It's so barbaric.
Now look at the lead researcher in this photo - Shreesh Mysore – what is he thinking? Smirking as he holds one of his doomed subjects.
https://www.courthousenews.com/thirty-barn-owls-and-luna-lovegood-take-on-johns-hopkins/
I can't help but juxtapose the type of work happening in these "leading institutions" in our "first world" to the type of work that two brothers in India are doing to save raptors, which is the focus of the movie "All that Breathes"
https://www.hbo.com/movies/all-that-breathes
What creates this insensitivity to other living things? Such a lack of empathy? I think much of it comes to ego and pride of these institutions and scientists; they are unable to see past their own egos. Maybe that's also where the banality of evil comes in, though I always interpret that to be about someone who just follows the rules in an unthinking way. My sense is these scientists are arrogant and egotistical.
We see a similar response to Harvard's from John Hopkins about the owl experiments:
"Virtually every significant step toward alleviating human suffering, and better treating animal health needs, has been the result of insights learned from laboratory animals,” Johns Hopkins spokeswoman Karen Lancaster said in an email. “Such research is essential so that doctors can develop better interventions and treatments to help people in need.”