Information

Vivisection

Vivisection

Vivisection (from Lat. Vivus - live and sectio - dissection) - vivisection, performing operations on a living animal to study the functions of the body, the action of drugs, substances, the development of methods of surgical treatment, etc. In vivisection, the study is carried out during the operation itself - in an acute experience, for example, by irritation, transplantation or removal of an organ.

In other cases, with chronic experience (the beginning of this method was laid by Pavlov I.P.), the operation serves only as a preparation for further research (for example, when creating a fistula of the salivary gland or stomach). Vivisection is of great importance and is used in medical and physiological research.

In animal experiments, only rodents are used. Approximately 2 million animals are being tested in Canada, 7 million in France, 17 million in the United States, and about 800 million worldwide. 90 percent of these animals are rats, mice, fish or birds. 18 species of various animals are used for research (85.5%), for testing products (9.5%) and in education (5%). A large number of animals become victims of science: cats, dogs, primates, frogs, insects, birds, hares, calves and their mothers, pigs, hamsters, etc.

Experiments on animals serve the benefit of humanity. Laboratory animals are used to test household products (soaps, creams, perfumes, shampoos, etc.), chemical products (inks, paints, cleaning agents, lubricants, etc.), pesticides and weapons (nuclear and others) ... Some animals are subjected to multiple experiments over several days, months, or even years in a row. Oxygen and sleep deprivation. Creation of anxiety, aggressiveness, insanity, high blood pressure through psychological pressure or injury to the arteries. Transplants, head or organ transplants, electrical shocks, tumors caused by blows, cancer caused by the ingestion of chemicals, violent drug or alcohol use, murder, blood transfusions to the heart or ears ... Dogs, monkeys and hares are tied up and forced to smoke, mice are kept near smoking cigarettes, horses are injected with nicotine. This is not a complete list of what happens to animals. How can this be for the benefit of science and humanity?

Humans are superior to animals and therefore have the right to use animals on their whim. Such a statement actually permits slavery. Our, so to speak, superiority (intellectual or physical) does not allow us to torment the weaker when it comes to animals, children, people, mentally retarded or even beggars. This arrogant, overbearing attitude does not recognize even the most basic animal rights. Do not ask the question of whether animals can reason or speak, it is better to think about the fact that they too can suffer.

Millions of animals, euthanized in nurseries due to incurable diseases, could serve for experiments. There is a significant difference between putting an animal to sleep in pain and forcing it to suffer painful, humiliating and inhuman torture.

The animal is an ideal model for the study of human disease. The assumption that the rat is a miniature human being is a delusion and a scientific deception. Human and animal have significant anatomical and physiological differences. They react differently to all kinds of products.
An aspirin tablet can kill a cat and cause malignancy in a mouse. Penicillin kills Indian piglets. Arsenic does not affect monkeys or chickens. Morphine calms people, but has no effect on cats and horses. Insulin causes deformities in chickens, hares and mice.
Many diseases that kill humans do not affect animals (eg AIDS). Human cancer is different from that in animals: cancers in animals cannot develop for 20 years. Human tuberculosis is of a completely different type from that which is artificially caused in animals.
The metabolism of humans and animals occurs in different ways. Humans are 60 times more sensitive to thalidomide (a sedative prescribed for pregnant women) than mice, 100 times more sensitive than rats, 200 times more sensitive than dogs, and 700 times more sensitive than hamsters.
When it suits them, scientists recognize that animal experimentation can never be fully extrapolated to humans. Persecuted by law for harmful drugs (such as thalidomide) or for toxic products, experimenters are immediately reminded of this fundamental difference between humans and animals. So why continue to experiment if they are no longer valid from the start?

Experiments on animals protect humans from the harmful side effects of drugs. On the contrary, there are a large number of drugs tested in animals, which subsequently turn out to be toxic, carcinogenic and cause mutations in humans.
In the 60s, 3,500 asthmatics around the world died from the isoproterenol inhaler. This product causes heart damage in rats, but does not affect dogs or pigs. Cats can also tolerate 175 times more doses than asthma sufferers consumed before they died.
Fenformin, a medicine for diabetics, killed 16,000 people before the company stopped making it.
Oralex, helped rats recover from a form of arthritis. However, in humans, it caused about 3,500 thousand serious side effects, 61 people died from taking this drug.
Phanagetin, an analgesic that is a constituent of 200 different drugs (such as Veganin) designed to fight flu, fever and pain, actually provokes kidney pollution and destruction, and also causes kidney tumors.
Used with high blood pressure, reserpine increases the risk of breast cancer by 3 times and is a factor in the development of brain, pancreatic, cervical and ovarian cancer.

The main goal of the pharmaceutical industry is to ensure human health. It would be truer to say that the goal of the pharmaceutical industry is to provide humanity with disease. The primary goal is to make a profit. Pharmaceutical companies in Canada have annual sales of over $ 4 billion. In North America, various pharmaceutical companies spend about $ 3.5 billion advertising their products. They are excellent examples of the power of money. Moreover, they greatly influence the government, universities, doctors and medical publications.
Of the 177 new medicines introduced to the Canadian market between 1988 and 1990, only 8 (4.5% of the total) can be attributed to “patient benefit improvement”. The rest of the medicines were only variations of the same medicines and were produced only for the purpose of raising marketing plans and conquering the market.
Even if pharmaceutical companies claim that preliminary testing of medicines on animals is the key to protecting human health, there are also medicines that, after testing, were found to be potentially dangerous, but, despite this, they are still allowed for sale. For example, AZT, an anti-viral agent for AIDS patients, has been tested in rats and caused mutations and cancer in them. Nevertheless, the medicine began to be produced.
The medicine Tamoxifen prevents the recurrence of breast cancer in women who have previously been cured of the disease. In vitro, this agent has caused gonadal cancer in mice and liver cancer in rats.
Omeprazole, prescribed for ulcers, was carcinogenic in rats.
Tretinoin, used to fight acne, increases skin tumors in mice.

Any progress in medicine, whether we are talking about a medicine or a new method of performing an operation, or a new method of treatment, must be tested on a living being. In case of failure with the animal, further testing on humans is necessary. The choice is between a dog and a human child! Testing of all medicines, one way or another, ends in humans, despite experiments with animals. Moreover, experimenters are never in a hurry to experiment on humans. This is because vivisection leads to dehumanization and a decrease in the sensitivity of human consciousness, experiments on humans are a logical and tragic consequence of experiments on animals. This situation is similar to what happened in countries with a totalitarian regime, kats trained first on animals, and then tortured people.
A large number of people, newborns, people with retarded mental development, orphans or the elderly, prisoners, creatures as helpless and defenseless as laboratory animals, were forcibly sacrificed to science without their consent.

Experiments on animals are associated with advances in medicine. In most cases, this is more likely false than true. You can ask yourself if medicine is developing if more and more people are dying from cancer, congenital diseases, various damages of the immune system (viruses, toxins, pesticides, medicines, antibiotics or vaccines). Average life expectancy has increased, but its quality has only suffered. People do not recover, but only artificially kept alive.
A stethoscope, thermometer, electrocardiogram, blood pressure measurement, percussion, X-ray, resuscitation equipment, and other diagnostic or medical aids that medicine calls the most significant are not used for animals.
In 1785, the English physician and botanist William W. successfully diagnosed his heart patients with a solution of dried foxglove leaves. Researchers, for their part, have discovered that this plant can cause severe increases in blood pressure in dogs. It was necessary to wait about 150 years for the foxglove to be recognized as safe for humans.
Aspirin, an extract of willow bark, has been around for 100 years. There are about 150 billion drugs sold without a license worldwide. All of these drugs are based on aspirin. This substance, known as an effective and popular remedy among the people, might never have become commercial if the fact of the toxic effects of aspirin on rats, mice, dogs, cats and monkeys were taken into account.
Iodine and penicillin are other examples of drugs that have not been tested on animals. The fundamental progress of medicine in many of its areas is associated with the clinical observation of patients, with sanitary measures, unexpected discoveries and epidemiology.
Experiments on animals are not necessary for real progress in medicine. The United States, the world's largest consumer of laboratory animals, is not ranked as the healthiest nation. In terms of life expectancy, Americans occupy only 17th place in the ranking of all countries.

It was through animal experiments that insulin was discovered and diabetes could be treated. Over the past century, innumerable dogs have been sacrificed in efforts to study diabetes. Since the discovery of insulin, diabetes deaths have not decreased, but even increased. The incidence of this disease doubles every 10 years.
There is a misconception that Canadians Best and Banting testified about the role of insulin in the treatment of diabetes in 1921. In 1788, Dr. Thomas Cowley had already established a link between diabetes and destructive processes in the pancreas. This was done without experimenting on animals, while a doctor examined one of his patients who had died of diabetes. Already in 1766, another physician, Matthew Dobson, discovered an elevated level of sugar in the urine of one of his patients.
It's been 50 years since the English surgeon McDonagh sowed doubts about the use of insulin. He argued that diabetes is a symptom, not a disease, and insulin only temporarily relieves this symptom. The medication does not treat the cause of the disease, so there is no reason to use it.
Dogs were selected for the study of diabetes, despite the fact that they have animal instincts and their metabolism is radically different from that of humans. If vivisection had been a cessation in the past, perhaps we could have learned a little more about the true mechanism of diabetes action, rather than pride ourselves on absurd experiments on dogs or rodents.

It was thanks to animal experiments that cancer became possible to treat. Since 1970, the incidence of cancer in humans has increased by 1 percent per year in Canada. One person in three suffers from this disease. In 2000, a national research team predicted a 50% increase in the number of people with cancer over the next 10 years. We are approaching a critical milestone and, despite the investments of recent decades, there is no way we can suppress the global incidence of cancer.
Cancer is a disease associated at the same time with the emotional state, the immune system, habits and diet, and environmental factors. A tumor in itself is not a disease, but only its manifestation (symptom). Modern medicine is known for being able to fight only the symptoms, not the disease itself.
A rat, cat, dog, or monkey may not be suitable for finding the cause of a cancer outbreak. A tumor that is deliberately caused in an animal is completely incomparable with a tumor that has developed in humans over many years.
Dr. Robert Sharp has rightly argued that the use of animals that can develop non-human cancers is the reason why cancer research has so far failed.

AIDS became possible to treat precisely thanks to animal experiments. To raise donations and money, laboratories use the same arguments about AIDS as they do with cancer. Animals of various species, but mainly monkeys and chimpanzees, are forcibly infected with the AIDS virus, despite the fact that scientists cannot transmit AIDS from humans to animals. In addition, animals react differently to the human virus.
Trying to play the role of inept wizards with poisonous viruses, experimental scientists can accidentally create a new dangerous disease similar to AIDS ...

Surgical discoveries such as transplantation would not have been possible without animal experiments. Many famous surgeons, including Abel Desjardins, a professor at the College of Surgery in Paris, claim that they have never seen a good surgeon who would have learned at least something new with the help of animals.
The study of treatises on anatomy, the dismemberment of human corpses, the observation of patients - this is the true school of surgery. The anatomy of a dog can in no way inform about the structure of a person.
To believe that organ transplants are progress continues to be a misconception. There will never be enough organs to be used to treat all patients. Only very wealthy people will be able to afford this expensive procedure. And the poorer will only supply their kidneys, eyes, etc. to the market.
Even after the sacrifice of monkeys or pigs, by transplanting their organs to humans, the incidence of diseases will not decrease until people begin to take a more responsible attitude towards their health. People need to start by making changes in their diet, their emotional state, and their environment.
We also note that patients who have undergone organ transplantation are at risk of contracting cancer 100-140 times more due to the use of anti-rejection drugs.

The polio vaccine would not have been invented without animal testing, and there are more and more people opposed to the use of vaccines because of their harmfulness. The polio vaccine, called "miraculous" in the 1950s, actually turned out to be dangerous. Made from the kidneys of monkeys, this vaccine has been repeatedly contaminated with an animal virus. The vaccine increases a person's vulnerability to polio and most patients with this disease should be "grateful" for this particular vaccine. It is obvious that a vaccine containing a live virus cannot be given without the risk of causing paralysis. There is no scientific evidence that the vaccine eradicated the disease. Polio has also disappeared in countries where the vaccine has never been used.

Not all experimenters are cruel sadists, they are just scientists in search of truth. It seems that for many experimenters the end justifies the means and their path leading to truth is so torturous and self-sacrificing that they are forced to involve animals and people in torture. But inflicting wounds, blowing burns or causing serious poisoning to animals smells like cruelty. Not noticing this is to believe that scientists are blinded by the tenets of scientific religion. Vivisection makes them inhuman and immoral creatures. What are the mental faculties of a person devoid of sensitivity and receptivity?
If a vivisector inflicts various burns on dogs or transplants tissues, he has the right to do so in the name of science. If we are talking about an ordinary person, he will be prosecuted (and rightfully so) and he will be fined for cruelty. Laboratory animals donated to the altar of science have been exposed to microwaves for many days in a row, seriously injuring them. At the same time - in the late 1980s - a young Ottawa resident was sentenced to prison for killing a cat (he cooked a cat in a microwave oven). The court called it incredible cruelty.
The university department is named after Montreal resident Hans Seli. He received a huge allowance to be able to expose thousands of animals (hares, dogs, cats, mice and rats) to stressful situations: burns, poisoning, drowning, exposure to extreme cold and heat, removal of tonsils, squeezing of the tail and testicles, broken paws, crushing bodies etc.
Claude Bernard (1813 - 1878) cooked live dogs in specialized ovens. The one who is considered the father of vivisection is recognized by many scientists as a genius. Johan Oud's definition would fit him: "Vivisector is a morally underdeveloped individual with pathological intentions."
Man, even if he is a scientist, has neither the right of ownership nor the right of absolute possession over animals and over those who can be regarded as simple creatures. Animals, like all living things, have rights based on their ability to suffer. Suffering is suffering, no matter what knowledge is obtained thanks to it.

Fighters against vivisectionism are sentimental people, terrorists, extremists and radicals, they are against the development of science. Fighters against vivisectionism are part of a wider movement of humanists, doctors, scientists and philosophers. Over the past centuries, there have been many opponents of vivisectionism: Leonardo da Vinci, Voltaire, Victor Hugo, Albert Einstein, Georges Bernard Shaw, Gandhi, Ani Besant are just a few of them. Queen Victoria believed that animal testing was a shame for humanity and Christianity. For over 100 years in America and Europe there have been numerous organizations against animal experiments.
There are more and more opponents of this immoral activity all over the world. In Canada alone, more than 25 organizations are fighting to end vivisection. In Geneva, there is the International Association of Physicians for the Abolition of Vivisection. This organization consists of more than 150 members of the medical community from 14 countries of the world, and all of them consider vivisection as a crime against science, against the life of people and animals.

If animal experimentation is canceled, the consequences for human health will be disastrous. Human health has nothing to do with gene mutations in piglets, mice with human cells, baboon heart transplants, or monkey cloning.
People need to strengthen their immune systems, protect themselves, reduce their intake of animal protein, and increase their intake of fruits and vegetables. We need to stop producing chemicals and recognize that all toxic products that pollute the environment have been declared safe based on animal tests. To proclaim that a chemical pesticide was found to be harmless after testing it on animals is not only unscientific, but also dangerous, as such statements create a false sense of safety among users of toxic products.
You need to turn to holistic medicine to learn about health. The human being is not only the body, as fully proven by the placebo effect. Norman Cousins ​​rightly pointed out that a placebo is a medicine that is within us.
The placebo effect, so to speak the effect produced by an inert substance that is substituted for drugs to comfort the patient, actually exists in pharmacology. Five out of ten people with diarrhea will be able to recover from a placebo. In the group of patients receiving placebo instead of antihistamines, 77.4% of people experienced drowsiness, one of the characteristic effects of antihistamines. In another experiment, placebos were given to 133 depressed patients who had not previously taken any medication for the ailment. Four of them had such a positive response to placebo that they had to be withdrawn from a subsequent experiment with the real medication. Placebo saline injections were given to morphine-dependent patients and they continued to suffer from addiction until the injections were discontinued.
It is absurd to use animals as models for the study of such diseases as migraine, depression, obesity, alcoholism or Alzheimer's disease, in which a highly developed human psyche cannot be recognized by the person himself.
A human being is not only a body, which is only a physical shell. A person is connected with his feelings, soul, willpower.

There is no alternative to vivisection. Consciousness alteration and nonviolent medicine are alternatives to vivisection. Moreover, there are more reliable methods for testing medicines or consumer products. A large number of scientists find such methods more convincing than animal experiments.
In 1982, Professors Farnsworth and Pezuto at the University of Illinois School of Pharmacy stated that there were sufficient methods to determine the toxicity of drugs. We are talking about enzymes, bactericidal cultures, human cells and tissues (obtained from the placenta after delivery or biopsy), formulations developed by software, organization of donor banks, etc. A researcher at the University of Quebec, for example, has created a program that mimics a frog. This frog reacts to experiments in the same way as a living one.

Watch the video: The NAZI DOCTORS VIVISECTION (November 2020).