Controversial, sensational, outlandish behavior and bickering is what attracts attention these days. Being nice doesn't. How can activists advocating for a more humane treatment of animals garner the attention and following they need to gain traction?
And making slanderous and faIse accusations in a headIine against the onIy President who ever took on the vivisection community instead of pouring more of our taxes into it is aIso ver counterproductive.
Wayne, there are so many folks that are simply unaware of what is happening to animals as a result of pure, unadulterated greed. That makes me believe that our best course of action is to make them aware.
Networking with the majority that do care is critical to changing the public perception.
Wayne, that is accomplished is by you continuing to educate the masses (of which I am one) and for the rest of us to continue to publicize what is happening in Ridglan, Sonoma and testing labs everywhere.
Vote for third party write-in candidates at city, state and federal levels who truly share your values. I'm fortunate enough to have Voters for Animal Rights organization in NY to help find them (though they did endorse Kamala Harris). I will no longer be voting for the lesser of two evils.
Jim Gatten here and I want you to know that your cheap little stunt of using President Trump’s name in an email saying he is responsible for killing dogs ends out relationship!
I have donated thousands of dollars your affiliate DXE in the recent past. That won’t happen again.
You are the worst of the animal rights grifters. I have wondered for sometime about your personal financial gains and your odd ball relationship with DXE. At least I now get your lack of integrity and understand why my email to you..yes the one you responded to and then proceeded to ignore.
It's a fair critique. We always are looking for ways to attract attention while also being fair and honest about what we are saying. I think Trump has been more responsible for experimentation on dogs than any other recent President, and I can tell you why. But you are right that the Democratic Party has also been awful on this issue. Anyways, don't hesitate to offer any specific suggestions on how we can do better, and be more accurate! Appreciate your concern and support!
If enough people come together, that's its own kind of power, and with greater people power our ability to persuade others strengthens, too. It's not a matter of choosing one method or another; we need all three.
Dogs (and other mammals) have some characteristics that are similar to humans, so it is natural for people to empathize with them. On the other hand, such biological similarities lead people to believe there is value in using animals in experiments that may one day benefit humans.
Arguing against animal experiments may be viewed as arguing against scientific advances for humans -- a losing proposition. Perhaps if we focus on preventing cruelty in animal experiments we can bring these two sides closer together.
I'd Iove to give your comment a Iike, but I'm guessing this site won't take upvotes unless one is a paid subscriber? At Ieast I'm aIIowed to comment, and I can say I Iearned the truth about vivisection from reading "Slaughter of the Innocent" (which the medicaI mafia tried to silence by physically removing aII copies from bookstores in 1978 and destroying them), and "Naked Empress, or The Great Medical Fraud", both written by Hans Ruesch. Please also Iook up the International Congress of Doctors Against Vivisection, and here is a couple of links to Dr. Vernon Coleman's chaIIenge, which vivisectors declined to respond to.
My thought is that, historically, we as citizens undertake to shoulder the burden of debt and taxes in order to live normally and simply as possible, while legal and financial expertise enables scoundrels to accumulate beyond all need. And this establishes a field of action in which the devil is often felt to be at play messing with life, and things are done pursuant to a perceived call as to what ought to be done, as far as livelihood and maintenance of order. And that pretty much makes up our minds unless things make us angry, as the Great Depression for a lot of people, for instance Joseph Newman, an orphan child from Mississippi who is said to have invented a free energy generator that violated the laws of physics, and so failed to get patented-- https://x.com/goyimgrant/status/1689406331818594304 . Go to the final 10 or 20 minutes of the film to see what I mean. Otherwise I have had trouble with zoom such that I'd wind up on my landline, so I'd be looking for a youtube or rumble to join in on.
I think you are very weII aware of manipuIations in the articIe, starting
with that gIaring headIine. It's the opposite of subtIe.
The essay itseIf doesn't zero in on, or provide any proof of how
President Trump (or Vice Pres. Harris, for that matter) is kiIIing dogs. In
fact, the text is extremeIy vague about how either candidate is hurting
dogs. In fact, the onIy straw to grasp at turned out to be guiIt by
association, which, if it was not biased, wouId have incIuded that
Harris' mother was a vivisector. But it didn't. From that headIine,
however, I couId aIready see the agenda quite cIearIy.
It seems you're unaware that President Trump is the first president to go after "biomedicaI research," and sIash the funding for it to the point that he was attacked reIentIessIy in the media, and by Congress, for doing so.
He did this whiIe inundated with other tasks aimed at restoring our freedoms, and aIso whiIe under 24/7 attack from the very same peopIe who are dedicated to removing those freedoms, and utiIizing their bought-and-paid-for mockingbird media in that effort.
But that is a subject for a whoIe other discussion.
Right now the subject at hand is "kiIIing dogs," and specificaIIy,
vivisection. So take a Iook at how the mainstream media added it
to their aIready bIoated docket of things to viIify President Trump
"President Obama signed legislation Tuesday that aims to increase funding for medical research..." (this was the 21st Century Cures Act, which gave the "biomedical research" community 106.4 BILLION from 2016 to 2020
How strange and misleading this headline is. You might want to search "Trump put EPA on course to end animal testing; Biden has started it up again - Higher Ground Times" and get your facts straight. On top of that, does the daughter of a vivisector seem like a good person to now elect as president? Btw, it's a fact that in Haitian culture, cats (and other companion animals) are brutally killed, roasted and proudly eaten. You might instead want to wonder why tens of thousands of illegitimately legalized Haitians are being deposited in American towns. So many things wrong with this article. What a turnoff.
I admire your courage and the work you do very much but I am shocked and disappointed at this false, manipulative headline that makes people believe that Trump is torturing dogs. I have been an antivivisectionist for 40 years and am not a member of either party. I clearly remember when Trump tried to cut down on tax payer funded NIH biomedical "research," a euphemism for animal experimentation, and took a lot of heat in the media for doing so. I also remember when Obama handed over billions of dollars to the NIH for more animal torture by vivisectors. For the past several years democrats have pushed relentlessly for more tax payer funded vivisection. This headline is beneath you.
PIease turn off the TV and do some serious research. Trump is the onIy President in history to take on the vivisection community, cutting their budget to the point that both the media and Congress had a meltdown, and he aIso signed a Iaw to make crueIty to animaIs a feIony.
No one is perfect, but it has been obvious (to anyone who is reaIIy paying attention) that candidates who do the bidding of the cabaI (which incIudes the MedicaI Mafia, which, in turn, incIudes the vivisection industry) have their flaws compIeteIy covered up, whiIe those who are trying to take down the criminaIs who have been steadily removing our rights, and aIso own mainstream media, not onIy have a spotIight thrown on them, but aIso have faIse accusations plastered in the headlines, and the articIe we're commenting on is a typical exampIe.
Controversial, sensational, outlandish behavior and bickering is what attracts attention these days. Being nice doesn't. How can activists advocating for a more humane treatment of animals garner the attention and following they need to gain traction?
It's one of the most important questions facing all social movements.
And making slanderous and faIse accusations in a headIine against the onIy President who ever took on the vivisection community instead of pouring more of our taxes into it is aIso ver counterproductive.
Wayne, there are so many folks that are simply unaware of what is happening to animals as a result of pure, unadulterated greed. That makes me believe that our best course of action is to make them aware.
Networking with the majority that do care is critical to changing the public perception.
Wayne, that is accomplished is by you continuing to educate the masses (of which I am one) and for the rest of us to continue to publicize what is happening in Ridglan, Sonoma and testing labs everywhere.
Vote for third party write-in candidates at city, state and federal levels who truly share your values. I'm fortunate enough to have Voters for Animal Rights organization in NY to help find them (though they did endorse Kamala Harris). I will no longer be voting for the lesser of two evils.
donna Zeigfinger
just now
OK so then you want the most evil.
Voting for a write in is lost and lazy. Have you checked into what Kamala has done for the animals and the environment??
You realize there is no such thing as a perfect candidate. But there is definitely a lesser evil candidate. Here is her record on animal rights https://hslf.org/blog/2024/08/presidential-candidate-profile-kamala-harris-record-animal-protection
The Democratic Party is the party of death (abortion and war). The Republican Party is the party of crazy.
Wayne,
Jim Gatten here and I want you to know that your cheap little stunt of using President Trump’s name in an email saying he is responsible for killing dogs ends out relationship!
I have donated thousands of dollars your affiliate DXE in the recent past. That won’t happen again.
You are the worst of the animal rights grifters. I have wondered for sometime about your personal financial gains and your odd ball relationship with DXE. At least I now get your lack of integrity and understand why my email to you..yes the one you responded to and then proceeded to ignore.
I believe ALIMRA would be ashamed!
Incidentally I intend to share my thoughts.
Hi Jim,
It's a fair critique. We always are looking for ways to attract attention while also being fair and honest about what we are saying. I think Trump has been more responsible for experimentation on dogs than any other recent President, and I can tell you why. But you are right that the Democratic Party has also been awful on this issue. Anyways, don't hesitate to offer any specific suggestions on how we can do better, and be more accurate! Appreciate your concern and support!
You just wrote that you can tell us why. But you haven't done that, because you can't.
Your headline is slander, and you know it. The article is implications, no evidence.
So, you said you can tell us why. Go ahead, I want to see how you squirm out of this.
Struck a chord eh?? The cult is bleeding.
Hi Wayne -- may I ask you please whether you have a response to this?
If enough people come together, that's its own kind of power, and with greater people power our ability to persuade others strengthens, too. It's not a matter of choosing one method or another; we need all three.
Dogs (and other mammals) have some characteristics that are similar to humans, so it is natural for people to empathize with them. On the other hand, such biological similarities lead people to believe there is value in using animals in experiments that may one day benefit humans.
Arguing against animal experiments may be viewed as arguing against scientific advances for humans -- a losing proposition. Perhaps if we focus on preventing cruelty in animal experiments we can bring these two sides closer together.
Animal testing is deeply flawed and unnecessary:
https://www.vivisectioninformation.com/indexd524.html?p=1_5_Is-animal-testing-better-than-pure-guesswork
https://bettersciencecampaign.org/resources
And we have modern alternatives:
https://www.pcrm.org/ethical-science/animal-testing-and-alternatives/human-relevant-alternatives-to-animal-tests
I'd Iove to give your comment a Iike, but I'm guessing this site won't take upvotes unless one is a paid subscriber? At Ieast I'm aIIowed to comment, and I can say I Iearned the truth about vivisection from reading "Slaughter of the Innocent" (which the medicaI mafia tried to silence by physically removing aII copies from bookstores in 1978 and destroying them), and "Naked Empress, or The Great Medical Fraud", both written by Hans Ruesch. Please also Iook up the International Congress of Doctors Against Vivisection, and here is a couple of links to Dr. Vernon Coleman's chaIIenge, which vivisectors declined to respond to.
Vernon Coleman's Summer 2001 Challenge To ...
https://vernoncoleman.com/challenge3.htm
http://whale.to/a/vernon_coleman1.html
My thought is that, historically, we as citizens undertake to shoulder the burden of debt and taxes in order to live normally and simply as possible, while legal and financial expertise enables scoundrels to accumulate beyond all need. And this establishes a field of action in which the devil is often felt to be at play messing with life, and things are done pursuant to a perceived call as to what ought to be done, as far as livelihood and maintenance of order. And that pretty much makes up our minds unless things make us angry, as the Great Depression for a lot of people, for instance Joseph Newman, an orphan child from Mississippi who is said to have invented a free energy generator that violated the laws of physics, and so failed to get patented-- https://x.com/goyimgrant/status/1689406331818594304 . Go to the final 10 or 20 minutes of the film to see what I mean. Otherwise I have had trouble with zoom such that I'd wind up on my landline, so I'd be looking for a youtube or rumble to join in on.
I think you are very weII aware of manipuIations in the articIe, starting
with that gIaring headIine. It's the opposite of subtIe.
The essay itseIf doesn't zero in on, or provide any proof of how
President Trump (or Vice Pres. Harris, for that matter) is kiIIing dogs. In
fact, the text is extremeIy vague about how either candidate is hurting
dogs. In fact, the onIy straw to grasp at turned out to be guiIt by
association, which, if it was not biased, wouId have incIuded that
Harris' mother was a vivisector. But it didn't. From that headIine,
however, I couId aIready see the agenda quite cIearIy.
It seems you're unaware that President Trump is the first president to go after "biomedicaI research," and sIash the funding for it to the point that he was attacked reIentIessIy in the media, and by Congress, for doing so.
He did this whiIe inundated with other tasks aimed at restoring our freedoms, and aIso whiIe under 24/7 attack from the very same peopIe who are dedicated to removing those freedoms, and utiIizing their bought-and-paid-for mockingbird media in that effort.
But that is a subject for a whoIe other discussion.
Right now the subject at hand is "kiIIing dogs," and specificaIIy,
vivisection. So take a Iook at how the mainstream media added it
to their aIready bIoated docket of things to viIify President Trump
for:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2017/03/20/trump-wants-to-kill-biomedical-research-this-is-cruel-and-pointless/
https://www.curetoday.com/view/trumps-budget-will-gut-cancer-research
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/11/15/502170732/biomedical-researchers-ponder-future-after-trump-election
Compare that with Obama:
"President Obama signed legislation Tuesday that aims to increase funding for medical research..." (this was the 21st Century Cures Act, which gave the "biomedical research" community 106.4 BILLION from 2016 to 2020
Read all about it here:
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/50339
and Biden:
"...quickly moving to reverse many of the most stringent anti-science policies implemented by Trump.”
https://research.uh.edu/the-big-idea/trending-topics/biden-administration-following-the-science/
And Harris:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-a-kamala-harris-presidency-would-mean-for-science/
The vivisection industry (and the media which is paid to cheerIead
for it) has cIear preferences for candidates, and Trump is not among
them.
How strange and misleading this headline is. You might want to search "Trump put EPA on course to end animal testing; Biden has started it up again - Higher Ground Times" and get your facts straight. On top of that, does the daughter of a vivisector seem like a good person to now elect as president? Btw, it's a fact that in Haitian culture, cats (and other companion animals) are brutally killed, roasted and proudly eaten. You might instead want to wonder why tens of thousands of illegitimately legalized Haitians are being deposited in American towns. So many things wrong with this article. What a turnoff.
I admire your courage and the work you do very much but I am shocked and disappointed at this false, manipulative headline that makes people believe that Trump is torturing dogs. I have been an antivivisectionist for 40 years and am not a member of either party. I clearly remember when Trump tried to cut down on tax payer funded NIH biomedical "research," a euphemism for animal experimentation, and took a lot of heat in the media for doing so. I also remember when Obama handed over billions of dollars to the NIH for more animal torture by vivisectors. For the past several years democrats have pushed relentlessly for more tax payer funded vivisection. This headline is beneath you.
Trump winning would be a disaster for all animals.
PIease turn off the TV and do some serious research. Trump is the onIy President in history to take on the vivisection community, cutting their budget to the point that both the media and Congress had a meltdown, and he aIso signed a Iaw to make crueIty to animaIs a feIony.
No one is perfect, but it has been obvious (to anyone who is reaIIy paying attention) that candidates who do the bidding of the cabaI (which incIudes the MedicaI Mafia, which, in turn, incIudes the vivisection industry) have their flaws compIeteIy covered up, whiIe those who are trying to take down the criminaIs who have been steadily removing our rights, and aIso own mainstream media, not onIy have a spotIight thrown on them, but aIso have faIse accusations plastered in the headlines, and the articIe we're commenting on is a typical exampIe.