Marxist Animalism
- This topic has 973 replies, 32 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
It is absolute absurdity to use dogs as models of human coronary heart disease, when meat, the diet perfect for dogs is the precise diet that contributes to heart disease in humans. Thus were the comments of Dr M.G. Marmot at the University of California, Berkeley, who found that there is an exact statistical correlation for all groups between consumption of saturated fats and cholesterol, and deaths due to coronary heart disease. Dr Marmot said the use of dogs in such studies were erroneous and only confused the issue.(M. Marmot, "Epidemiologic Studies of Coronary Heart Disease and Stroke in Japanese Men", American Journal of Epidemiology, 102:511, 1975.)
Research Fellow Lois Armiger uses hundreds of pound dogs in simulated heart attack experiments brought about by blocking coronary arteries for which this vivisector was awarded $68,600 from the Medical Research Council (one of ARSL's publishers and recipients of $12.5 million of the taxpayer's money in 1989.).
Doctors are organising on a dramatic and substantial scale in over 30 countries in opposition to the kind of experiments being carried out by these Auckland vivisectors and it is unlikely that such procedures will survive as the blatant fraud they represent becomes recognised by the public.
Dr Moneim Fadali in the Foreword to the latter work writes:"To say that the current state of medical knowledge and future advances would not be possible without live animal experiments is false: Brandon Reines discusses most of the breakthroughs in cardiovascular research; blood transfusion, asepsis, modern endotracheal anesthesia, the various cardiac medications and many more. He correctly asserts that while these developments are now at our disposal, virtually none of them were developed as a result of animal research."In Heart Research on Animals Reines takes us through the development of drugs and surgical techniques used in the treatment of heart disease and details the history of surgery for coronary artery disease, open heart surgery, heart transplantation, artificial heart valves, artificial hearts and more. Presenting mountains of evidence from an impressive number of professionals in these fields Reines states from the onset that animal experimentation has not achieved a single advance in these areas. Like Dr M. Beddow Bayly he cites that it was clinical investigation that led to open heart surgery, heart transplantation and prevention of deaths from coronary artery disease. Reines says that clinical investigation should be glorified by the medical community and the mass media. That instead of continuing what he calls "the currently bankrupt animal model strategy" the medical community should begin an intensive effort to apply deep mathematical models (pioneered by Dr Irwin D. J. Bross, former director of biostatistics at Roswell Park Memorial Institute for Cancer Research in Buffalo, New York) to research heart disease and stroke. "This hard scientific strategy" says Reines "put a man on the moon and split the atom: It could also do the same for the war against cardiovascular disease. The public deserves no less." Brandon Reines also quotes Drs Kenneth L. Melmon and Howard F. Morrelli who he describes as "the most well-respected clinical pharmacologists in the world" – whose findings as below correspond with those of Dr Marmot
"With the birth of the National Institutes of Health and its vast financial resources, the battle for medical research grants encouraged laboratory physiologists to greatly exaggerate the contribution of animal research to advances against human disease. From roughly 1930 on, medical students were taught that virtually every significant advance – from the discovery of insulin to surgery for 'blue babies' – arose from 'basic' scientific research on laboratory animals. These distortions were further propagated by the corporations that flourished with the rise of animal experimentation; the laboratory animal breeders, sellers, and promoters. While occasionally a brave clinician dared to contradict the dogma of animal experimentation, he did so at grave risk to his reputation and his livelihood. Mass media stories continued to aggrandize the accomplishments of animal research and even investigative reporters failed to see that the claims of animal researchers were largely a promotional device aimed at bringing in the federal funds."
So, a "scientific socialist" who believes we are not animals!I will fight against horror and I will not debate over the "rights" and wrongs of the torture of sentient beings – enough bourgeois apologists are doing that.In the same way I would never shake hands with a vivisector, so also I owe no courtesy to anyone who would countenance such an atrocity or not be utterly repelled at the very thought of it.I`m in better company . I have, among many, many others: Thomas Hardy, Carl Sagan, Gassendi, Voltaire, Landor, John Ruskin, Alfred Russel Wallace, Pietro Croce, Jane Goodall, Marc Bekoff, Jeffrey Masson, and numerous ethologists and real scientists. Those, on the other hand,who support vivisection, have the mouthpieces of privilege and power, of capitalism`s petro-chemical, medical and vivisection combine, , the drug industry, the military industrial complex in all its toxicity.
So, humans are not animals, let alone mammals, and also humans are the only beings who are social?*I think this demonstrates that what I referred to earlier – that human chauvinism among some socialists is far more serious than I thought! How abysmal!*What pathetic ignorance of the natural world!
Not been following this thread but this might (or might not) be of some relevance:http://www.sapiens.org/body/early-humans-and-raw-meat/At least it gives some comfort to us omnivores, not that I fancy eating raw meat.
I'm no expert on anthropology but it seems to me that early settlements were by the rivers or by the sea. Most likely for transportation ease but also i would hazard a guess, the abundance of available food from the water. We have raw fish – sushi…is there an effect on the teeth from eating that?…What about the bugs and snails that is eaten as part of a regular diet? Yes i go with the theory that as a scavenger species and probably not hunters, we were omnivores…In the US some even pride themselves still on eating road-kill.
Mcolome1 wrote:"Human beings are not animals, we are human beings, we came from the animal world thousands of years ago, but we separated ourselves from that world thousands of years ago too, it sounds like Neo-Darwinsim."I am interested to know, does this mean you reject, or disagree with, Neo-Darwinism?Does the Socialist Party disagree with Neo-Darwinism?Here is one definition of this term"“Neo-Darwinism, also called the modern evolutionary synthesis, generally denotes the integration of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, Gregor Mendel's theory of genetics as the basis for biological inheritance, and mathematical population genetics. Although this was not the historical meaning of the term neo-Darwinism, it has been the popular and scientific use of the expression since the synthesis of the 1930s. (See Origin of the term neo-Darwinism.) Other terminology used synonymously with neo-Darwinism are modern synthesis, evolutionary synthesis, and neo-Darwiniansynthesis…..”http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Neo-Darwinism
See chapter 2 of this pamphlet of ours:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/are-we-prisoners-our-genesI think the term "Neo-Darwinism" might be being used in two different senses here. Perhaps "Neo-Social-Darwinism" might be a better name for one of them.
Meel wrote:Mcolome1 wrote:"Human beings are not animals, we are human beings, we came from the animal world thousands of years ago, but we separated ourselves from that world thousands of years ago too, it sounds like Neo-Darwinsim."I am interested to know, does this mean you reject, or disagree with, Neo-Darwinism?Does the Socialist Party disagree with Neo-Darwinism?Here is one definition of this term"“Neo-Darwinism, also called the modern evolutionary synthesis, generally denotes the integration of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, Gregor Mendel's theory of genetics as the basis for biological inheritance, and mathematical population genetics. Although this was not the historical meaning of the term neo-Darwinism, it has been the popular and scientific use of the expression since the synthesis of the 1930s. (See Origin of the term neo-Darwinism.) Other terminology used synonymously with neo-Darwinism are modern synthesis, evolutionary synthesis, and neo-Darwiniansynthesis…..”http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Neo-DarwinismI meant Neo social Darwinism
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.