Animal testing MySpace bulletin (NFBSK)

WARNING: Graphic images, I have linked to them rather then post them straight on the board. I've seen this loads of times on myspace and I'm not convinced some of the picture have an accurate description.

Picture 1

Picture 2

Picture 3

Picture 4

Picture 5

Picture 6

Picture 7

Picture 8

Picture 9

Picture 10

Picture 11

REPOST THIS.

Living creatures are suffering for your comfort.

If You pass on any chain mail, I hope you pass on this one.

No one cares about your middle name, or what you did in 2006 or stupid stories that involve killers in the night.

THEY ARENT REAL. GET OVER IT.

This is wrong to the highest level. Please help spread awareness of the animals that go through testing. It is not right and should be stopped. The following images are of animals that have been used for consumer product testing. They are graphic.

If you have a heart you'll repost this.

IF YOU DONT REPOST MAYBE YOU NEED TESTING ON YOURSELF.

Hit reply then copy the codes

[Eddylizard]

Some of those look more like pictures of animal abuse, rather than animal testing (picture 9) for example. Not that that makes it better.

[diddy]

Originally Posted by Eddylizard

Not that that makes it better.

Actulaly I consider animal testing far better than abuse. Im pretty sure there are much stricter laws for animal abuse.

I don't know about private companies, but "animal research" in the university environment is way too controlled to allow those types of abuse. For purly scientific reasons, you don't want to abuse your animal as it induces stress, which can pretty much invalidate your results.

These are pictures of abused animals, not research animals.

ETA: After loading some of the pictures that didn't seem to load, some of the shots may be taken from older research labs. The monkey one may actually be from a famous case where an anti-animal testing group went into a lab and setup pictures. The subsequent publication of the shots got the researcher fired. As he was later cleared of all charges (he was able to prove that the pictures were setup), he was able to get his research started again. He is now at UAB.

But a good number of them are obviously pictures of abused animals. Very unprofessional to mix the two sets.

Because some of these might be legitimate research pictures (taken out of context), I will comment on them individually.

Originally Posted by Pikey Queen

WARNING: Graphic images, I have linked to them rather then post them straight on the board. I've seen this loads of times on myspace and I'm not convinced some of the picture have an accurate description.

Picture 1

This one might be a legit bit of research on brain activity. There is no indication the cat was put in excessive pain to get this implant done.

Picture 2

That is abuse, pure and simple. No researcher would do that to an animal. If nothing else, it would totally invalidate ANY of your results.

Picture 3

This could be early animal research (1950s or earlier) or it could be one of the "setup" pictures I wrote about in my last post.

Picture 4

Could be a research animal.

Picture 5

Not enough detail. Usually, you don't want to pack in your research animals this tight. It has a tendency to spread diseases and that is not good for your research.

Picture 6

Could be anything from brain research to someone's pet who had brain tumor and it was removed by a vet.

Picture 7

Same as an earlier image.

Picture 8

This one could be a research animal. I don't see a problem with this image.

Picture 9

Abuse by a pet owner.

Picture 10

Abuse by a pet owner.

Picture 11

Abuse by a pet owner.

[Cervus]

Picture 4 and 7 are the same image; from my experience in vet clinics this could simply be a cat awaiting (or recovering from) surgery. Otherwise, I agree with Doug's assessments.

(I'm actually agreeing with Doug...wow. )

Picture #5 is too small to see much detail, but I see seven healthy-looking cats in a cage. Seven is probably excessive (although we can't see the size of the cage) but when we were packed for space in the shelter - or even when cleaning cages - we'd temporarily load up a lot of cats in one cage if there was nowhere else to put them. If someone had taken a picture of that - or of any recovering surgery animal in our ward - they could easily caption it as an example of abuse. The last few photos in the OP are results of legitimate animal abuse, but just a picture of an animal in a cage tells you nothing about the situation.

For example, if people happened to walk into our shelter at the wrong moment, they might see barking dogs in cages smeared with feces. Obviously it might appear that we were neglecting the animals. In reality, most of the dogs in our shelter weren't housebroken and loved playing in their poop. We cleaned the cages several times a day, but sometimes we'd walk away from a clean cage and return two minutes later to find the dog had pooped and smeared it all over herself and the walls. It was extremely annoying and stressful to us, because nobody wants to walk into a kennel and see dogs covered in feces. But it happens - sometimes several times a day by the same dogs.

Many legitimate veterinary and laboratory procedures can look like abuse when a photo is taken out of context. However, I concur with Doug's assessment of certain photos in this case that are indeed pictures of abuse.

[llewtrah]

Originally Posted by Cervus

Many legitimate veterinary and laboratory procedures can look like abuse when a photo is taken out of context. However, I concur with Doug's assessment of certain photos in this case that are indeed pictures of abuse.

In pre-digital days when I was photographer for the local cat shelter I had to warn the photo developing lab about the content of the images. Cats that had undergone surgery on the face could look pretty dire. One case involved removing the external ear on one side and the eye on the side and pinning the jaw and there wasn't much skin to close over the wounds due to necrotic tissue being removed. The photos look a lot like research pics and though the cat was in discomfort (it had pain relief) it wasn't suffering and wasn't abused. However the photos could have been misinterpreted.

[DawnStorm]

Originally Posted by Doug4.7

The monkey one may actually be from a famous case where an anti-animal testing group went into a lab and setup pictures. The subsequent publication of the shots got the researcher fired. As he was later cleared of all charges (he was able to prove that the pictures were setup), he was able to get his research started again.

Was that researcher named Dr. Tarnauer (or maybe it was a Dr. Taub) and did he work in MD about 25 years ago? (I haven't seen the pics).
In the early 80s, the newly formed PETA busted a researcher with photos they claimed showed abuse of some monkeys; IIRC, the monkeys had had some of their nerves severed or done in some way that mimiced stroke patients because that's what the researcher was studying. I think the researcher was later cleared but his career was ruined and I clearly remember reading later on where a PETA member had signed on as a tech, gained the researcher's trust to the point where he was in put in charge of the monkeys' care while the researcher went on vacation, and let the cages get dirty. The 'tech' also did not change the dressings on the monkeys' wounds and had one of his PETA buddies photograph all this. It was a HUGE story around here.

[Don Enrico]

What's that supposed to mean:

If you have a heart you'll repost this.

IF YOU DONT REPOST MAYBE YOU NEED TESTING ON YOURSELF.

Testing consumer products on animals is "wrong to the highest level", but threatening someone with the same procedures for not reposting something is okay?

[Cactus Wren]

Originally Posted by Don Enrico

What's that supposed to mean:



Testing consumer products on animals is "wrong to the highest level", but threatening someone with the same procedures for not reposting something is okay?

Well, I once informed someone on a Webforum that snuff films didn't exist, and she told me she hoped I was raped and murdered. (Because by pointing out that snuff films were a fantasy, I was obviously supporting the people who make them.)

Originally Posted by Don Enrico

Testing consumer products on animals is "wrong to the highest level", but threatening someone with the same procedures for not reposting something is okay?

It's a common tactic on Myspace bulletins.

[landmammal]

Originally Posted by Don Enrico

What's that supposed to mean:



Testing consumer products on animals is "wrong to the highest level", but threatening someone with the same procedures for not reposting something is okay?

I interpreted it as meaning "You need diagnostic testing to find out why you don't have a heart."

[Sebbenth]

If I need to cruelly dissolve 1 000 000 puppies in acid, cute little screaming puppies who would feel a lot of pain and who would look so cute on pictures just to save one baby, then... bring me the f* acid!

[Singing in the Drizzle]

This is wrong to the highest level. Please help spread awareness of the animals that go through testing. It is not right and should be stopped. The following images are of animals that have been used for consumer product testing. They are graphic.

I believe that the FDA still requires animal testing on some consumer products. Even if it is not required. Are you going to sue the compainy if you have some problem with the conumer product if causes health problems or scars, becuase it was not test with animals first. If the want to skip the animal test and go right to humans are you going to be the first in line to be a test subject. If there is a more reliable way to set these products without using animals then we need to change law for testing.

There is no humane way to keep a being inside a cage for his or her entire short life. This applies to animals used for research, food, clothing and entertainment. Some great resources for more information are:
1) A movie called "Earthlings", narrated by Joaquin Phoenix
2) A great website - www.compassionatecooks.com - check our her podcasts

You can change the world, one being at a time...

[We'veBeenHad]

Originally Posted by earthling

There is no humane way to keep a being inside a cage for his or her entire short life.

I don't know. Our rabbit has a big cage, and when we let him "out" we have to put up another cage/pen to keep him from chewing cords and endangering himself. When we put him outside we still have to have a pen for his safety. So in a sense he's always in a cage, but he's loving and I don't think we're inhumane to him at all. I can't say for sure he's happy because he doesn't tell me, but he does stamp if he doesn't get his way, and I'm told that's a good sign.

[inkrose115]

Originally Posted by We'veBeenHad

I don't know. Our rabbit has a big cage, and when we let him "out" we have to put up another cage/pen to keep him from chewing cords and endangering himself. When we put him outside we still have to have a pen for his safety. So in a sense he's always in a cage, but he's loving and I don't think we're inhumane to him at all. I can't say for sure he's happy because he doesn't tell me, but he does stamp if he doesn't get his way, and I'm told that's a good sign.

My bunny lived in our yard. My dad used chicken wire and wood to make our yard into one giant hutch. Despite this, he always hopped up into his hutch at night so we could close him in. He wasn't the brightest bulb in the bunch but he did know it was safer. Not to mention it was not uncommon to see the bunny hoppinh up oto out deck and scratching the back door to be let inside.

Originally Posted by Doug4.7

ETA: After loading some of the pictures that didn't seem to load, some of the shots may be taken from older research labs. The monkey one may actually be from a famous case where an anti-animal testing group went into a lab and setup pictures. The subsequent publication of the shots got the researcher fired. As he was later cleared of all charges (he was able to prove that the pictures were setup), he was able to get his research started again. He is now at UAB.

Originally Posted by DawnStorm

Was that researcher named Dr. Tarnauer (or maybe it was a Dr. Taub) and did he work in MD about 25 years ago? (I haven't seen the pics).

I can't verify if the researcher in question is who the two of you are referring to, but I CAN verify that there is a researcher at UAB named Dr. Taub, and I'm relatively sure he's in neurology. I used to have to make his travel arrangements for the research he was doing with the Birmingham VA (which shares doctors with UAB). He's a dear, sweet man. I hadn't ever heard about any of this though. The way you told it made it seem to me like he was doing genuine research, and the PETA tech was the one that made the conditions so deplorable to advance his own cause.