Hans Ruesch, 1913 - 2007
-
Hans Ruesch, the father of the genuine scientific anti-vivisection movement, died on Monday 27th August 2007, aged 94. Author of the books Slaughter of the Innocent, and its follow-up The Naked Empress, Hans was the scourge of both the vivisection industry, and the phoney, infiltrator-led, so-called "anti-vivisection" movement whose continued purpose is to mount pretend anti-vivisection campaigns deliberately designed to go nowhere, whilst relieving sincere, but often naive animal rights people of their money. He will be sadly missed by those who genuinely care about the torture of *millions upon millions* (sic) of animals, the bad science and the bad medicine that vivisection is responsible for. For those that cling to the false belief that their or their children's lives might one day be dependent upon this abhorrent practice, or who are interested in reading a well-researched, well-written, fully annotated debunking of the vivisection myth, I cannot recomment highly enough his seminal work "Slaugter of the Innocent". This is not the ranbling rantings of an emotionally scarred immature idealist, as many people see those in the animal rights movement, but an intelligent scientific argument by a man who spent years researching his subject. What he reveals in his books will make your hair stand on end - and I am not just referring to the almost unbelievable abuse that goes on in vivisection laboratories worldwide, but also the sheer scale of the bad science involved, all to feed the monetary greed of the pharmaceutical companies that sponsor it, and to satisfy the depserate need for reassurance that the general public (that's you...) demands from the medical industry; that it will cure you of your ailments. Have your eyes opened, and read this book. Slaughter of the Inocent, on Amazom.com[^] Fred
I am just finishing Collapse, by Jared Diamond, and I have an ASP.NET AJAX book to read, then this will be high on my list. I'll look for it locally tho ( Amazon does not stock it and shipping on third party books is ridiculous ).
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
-
I am just finishing Collapse, by Jared Diamond, and I have an ASP.NET AJAX book to read, then this will be high on my list. I'll look for it locally tho ( Amazon does not stock it and shipping on third party books is ridiculous ).
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
-
Hans Ruesch, the father of the genuine scientific anti-vivisection movement, died on Monday 27th August 2007, aged 94. Author of the books Slaughter of the Innocent, and its follow-up The Naked Empress, Hans was the scourge of both the vivisection industry, and the phoney, infiltrator-led, so-called "anti-vivisection" movement whose continued purpose is to mount pretend anti-vivisection campaigns deliberately designed to go nowhere, whilst relieving sincere, but often naive animal rights people of their money. He will be sadly missed by those who genuinely care about the torture of *millions upon millions* (sic) of animals, the bad science and the bad medicine that vivisection is responsible for. For those that cling to the false belief that their or their children's lives might one day be dependent upon this abhorrent practice, or who are interested in reading a well-researched, well-written, fully annotated debunking of the vivisection myth, I cannot recomment highly enough his seminal work "Slaugter of the Innocent". This is not the ranbling rantings of an emotionally scarred immature idealist, as many people see those in the animal rights movement, but an intelligent scientific argument by a man who spent years researching his subject. What he reveals in his books will make your hair stand on end - and I am not just referring to the almost unbelievable abuse that goes on in vivisection laboratories worldwide, but also the sheer scale of the bad science involved, all to feed the monetary greed of the pharmaceutical companies that sponsor it, and to satisfy the depserate need for reassurance that the general public (that's you...) demands from the medical industry; that it will cure you of your ailments. Have your eyes opened, and read this book. Slaughter of the Inocent, on Amazom.com[^] Fred
Fred_Smith wrote:
an intelligent scientific argument by a man who spent years researching his subject
Fred, it sure doesn't sound like a scientific argument when you use terms like:
Fred_Smith wrote:
For those that cling to the false belief almost unbelievable abuse sheer scale of the bad science involved all to feed the monetary greed satisfy the depserate need for reassurance
Frankly, this is an ethical argument, not a scientific one. The distinction is important, because scientific information is used to guide ethical decisions, not manufacture them. From my perspective, at this time the gain of animal experimentation far outweighs the cost. However, the literature has many researchers calling for a reform of animal experimentation procedures to ensure that the sacrifice of animal life is made significantly more efficient and productive. For your interest, here's some actual discussion on the issues from the scientific/medical literature.
Pound P, Ebrahim S, Sandercock P, Bracken MB, Roberts I. Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans? BMJ 2004;328:514-7.
The contribution of animal studies to clinical medicine requires urgent formal evaluation. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the existing animal experiments would represent an important step forward in this process. Systematic reviews (particularly cumulative meta-analyses of ongoing experiments) could more efficiently determine when a valid conclusion has been reached from the animal studies.
This is nevertheless consistent with the fairly ubiquitous assertion of the medical and scientific community, and frankly, anyone who has taken a basic physiology course has benefited from animal research and experimentation: just look at the references in the textbook.
Lemon R, Dunnett SB. Surveying the literature from animal experiments. BMJ 2005;330:977-8.
Almost every form of conventional medical treatment (including most drugs, surgical treatments, and vaccines) was developed with the help of animal research. Most of what we know about the basic workings of the body—in humans and animals—has come to us through two centuries of animal experiments. Each decade of animal research has brought newer and deeper understanding.
A simple review of some su
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
an intelligent scientific argument by a man who spent years researching his subject
Fred, it sure doesn't sound like a scientific argument when you use terms like:
Fred_Smith wrote:
For those that cling to the false belief almost unbelievable abuse sheer scale of the bad science involved all to feed the monetary greed satisfy the depserate need for reassurance
Frankly, this is an ethical argument, not a scientific one. The distinction is important, because scientific information is used to guide ethical decisions, not manufacture them. From my perspective, at this time the gain of animal experimentation far outweighs the cost. However, the literature has many researchers calling for a reform of animal experimentation procedures to ensure that the sacrifice of animal life is made significantly more efficient and productive. For your interest, here's some actual discussion on the issues from the scientific/medical literature.
Pound P, Ebrahim S, Sandercock P, Bracken MB, Roberts I. Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans? BMJ 2004;328:514-7.
The contribution of animal studies to clinical medicine requires urgent formal evaluation. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the existing animal experiments would represent an important step forward in this process. Systematic reviews (particularly cumulative meta-analyses of ongoing experiments) could more efficiently determine when a valid conclusion has been reached from the animal studies.
This is nevertheless consistent with the fairly ubiquitous assertion of the medical and scientific community, and frankly, anyone who has taken a basic physiology course has benefited from animal research and experimentation: just look at the references in the textbook.
Lemon R, Dunnett SB. Surveying the literature from animal experiments. BMJ 2005;330:977-8.
Almost every form of conventional medical treatment (including most drugs, surgical treatments, and vaccines) was developed with the help of animal research. Most of what we know about the basic workings of the body—in humans and animals—has come to us through two centuries of animal experiments. Each decade of animal research has brought newer and deeper understanding.
A simple review of some su
Fisticuffs wrote:
Fred, it sure doesn't sound like a scientific argument when you use terms like: (...)
That was me, not Hans Ruesch. Anyway, rather than quote reams back at you, I'll just say this (becasue HR can do it better than me): you've read a lot of one side of the argument - now try reading the other. And bear in mind that everything you've read has come from sources funded by the very people who stand to benefit from such research. Follow the money trail - that always throws a new light on things. Fred
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Fred, it sure doesn't sound like a scientific argument when you use terms like: (...)
That was me, not Hans Ruesch. Anyway, rather than quote reams back at you, I'll just say this (becasue HR can do it better than me): you've read a lot of one side of the argument - now try reading the other. And bear in mind that everything you've read has come from sources funded by the very people who stand to benefit from such research. Follow the money trail - that always throws a new light on things. Fred
Fred_Smith wrote:
That was me, not Hans Ruesch.
Yeah, I know that was you. It's just kind of ironic to claim the book is strong because it's a scientific argument, and then follow that up with a bunch of empty rhetoric.
Fred_Smith wrote:
you've read a lot of one side of the argument - now try reading the other.
Wow, that's a pretty bold assumption, considering you know next to nothing about what I've read on the subject. But thanks for the condescension, anyway.
Fred_Smith wrote:
And bear in mind that everything you've read has come from sources funded by the very people who stand to benefit from such research.
Other human beings?
Fred_Smith wrote:
Follow the money trail - that always throws a new light on things.
No, it leads to the circumstantial ad hominem fallacy[^]. I could just as easily say that Hans (and his estate) had much to gain from the sale of his book, therefore everything in the book is invalid. Try harder next time.
- F
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
That was me, not Hans Ruesch.
Yeah, I know that was you. It's just kind of ironic to claim the book is strong because it's a scientific argument, and then follow that up with a bunch of empty rhetoric.
Fred_Smith wrote:
you've read a lot of one side of the argument - now try reading the other.
Wow, that's a pretty bold assumption, considering you know next to nothing about what I've read on the subject. But thanks for the condescension, anyway.
Fred_Smith wrote:
And bear in mind that everything you've read has come from sources funded by the very people who stand to benefit from such research.
Other human beings?
Fred_Smith wrote:
Follow the money trail - that always throws a new light on things.
No, it leads to the circumstantial ad hominem fallacy[^]. I could just as easily say that Hans (and his estate) had much to gain from the sale of his book, therefore everything in the book is invalid. Try harder next time.
- F
It's been a long and tiring w/e for me, and I'm too tired to argue with you now. Just try reading the book with an open mind which, if you are a genuine scientist, I'm sure you will... each of your arguments is dealt with quite comprehensively, and authoratitively there. I am not an idiot, by the way, I am perfectly aware of the Circumstantial Ad Hominem falacy. I never presented the remark I made as "proof" of anything; only as something to bear in mind. Fred
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
an intelligent scientific argument by a man who spent years researching his subject
Fred, it sure doesn't sound like a scientific argument when you use terms like:
Fred_Smith wrote:
For those that cling to the false belief almost unbelievable abuse sheer scale of the bad science involved all to feed the monetary greed satisfy the depserate need for reassurance
Frankly, this is an ethical argument, not a scientific one. The distinction is important, because scientific information is used to guide ethical decisions, not manufacture them. From my perspective, at this time the gain of animal experimentation far outweighs the cost. However, the literature has many researchers calling for a reform of animal experimentation procedures to ensure that the sacrifice of animal life is made significantly more efficient and productive. For your interest, here's some actual discussion on the issues from the scientific/medical literature.
Pound P, Ebrahim S, Sandercock P, Bracken MB, Roberts I. Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans? BMJ 2004;328:514-7.
The contribution of animal studies to clinical medicine requires urgent formal evaluation. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the existing animal experiments would represent an important step forward in this process. Systematic reviews (particularly cumulative meta-analyses of ongoing experiments) could more efficiently determine when a valid conclusion has been reached from the animal studies.
This is nevertheless consistent with the fairly ubiquitous assertion of the medical and scientific community, and frankly, anyone who has taken a basic physiology course has benefited from animal research and experimentation: just look at the references in the textbook.
Lemon R, Dunnett SB. Surveying the literature from animal experiments. BMJ 2005;330:977-8.
Almost every form of conventional medical treatment (including most drugs, surgical treatments, and vaccines) was developed with the help of animal research. Most of what we know about the basic workings of the body—in humans and animals—has come to us through two centuries of animal experiments. Each decade of animal research has brought newer and deeper understanding.
A simple review of some su
In some ways I wish I had time to engage in a lengthy argument over this, but I haven't - and besides, as I said, HR's book can do it better than me anyway. It's useless, and quite disengenuous of you to throw a few quotes at me from scientific jourmals; if you've read them as much as you imply you will know that I could throw just as many back at you from equally learned and respected scientific journmals and scientists who would counter them, and we could sit here having a pissing match for the next few days. This is a big subject, and I can only ask anyone who is remotely interested in reading the other side to that presented by vested interests to read Hans Ruesch's book. The "vested interests", by the way, is a multi-billion dollar industry. HR, on the other hand, had no financial need to write this book, or devote the latter half of his life to this subject, and it hardly made him a rich man. He saw through you, that's all, and felt the need to write down what he knew. And the fact that it was first published in English in 1978 (you can't even get that right) in no wy dimisishes what he has to say on the subject. Lip service has been paid in law to animal welfare; in practice, not a lot has changed. And, more to the point, the (in)validity of thr science involved is just the same now as then. All I'm asking is that people give the other side of the argument a fair chance - and no one presents it better than Hans Ruesch in this book; no-one shows the fallacy of your position better than he. No wonder people on your side of the fence are so desperate to put people off from reading it. Fred
-
In some ways I wish I had time to engage in a lengthy argument over this, but I haven't - and besides, as I said, HR's book can do it better than me anyway. It's useless, and quite disengenuous of you to throw a few quotes at me from scientific jourmals; if you've read them as much as you imply you will know that I could throw just as many back at you from equally learned and respected scientific journmals and scientists who would counter them, and we could sit here having a pissing match for the next few days. This is a big subject, and I can only ask anyone who is remotely interested in reading the other side to that presented by vested interests to read Hans Ruesch's book. The "vested interests", by the way, is a multi-billion dollar industry. HR, on the other hand, had no financial need to write this book, or devote the latter half of his life to this subject, and it hardly made him a rich man. He saw through you, that's all, and felt the need to write down what he knew. And the fact that it was first published in English in 1978 (you can't even get that right) in no wy dimisishes what he has to say on the subject. Lip service has been paid in law to animal welfare; in practice, not a lot has changed. And, more to the point, the (in)validity of thr science involved is just the same now as then. All I'm asking is that people give the other side of the argument a fair chance - and no one presents it better than Hans Ruesch in this book; no-one shows the fallacy of your position better than he. No wonder people on your side of the fence are so desperate to put people off from reading it. Fred
Just because someone devotes part of their life to a cause doesn't make them right nor the cause worthwhile. On the other hand just because a book was last updated/published in 1978 doesn't make it worhtless in terms of helping to decide which side of the issue to fall on. Since this is an emotive issue both of you can be right and wrong. Form my point of view I have no problems with animals being used for scientific research. Or eaten. Or turned into a pair of shoes. However, at least I'm being honest and straightforward: you pepper the posts with nuggets like:
Fred_Smith wrote:
(in)validity
and
Fred_Smith wrote:
fallacy of your position
. That makes it sound like you know you can't answer other people's posts so resort to veiled insults and manipulation. Lazy. Otherwise an intersting subject to raise.
-
Just because someone devotes part of their life to a cause doesn't make them right nor the cause worthwhile. On the other hand just because a book was last updated/published in 1978 doesn't make it worhtless in terms of helping to decide which side of the issue to fall on. Since this is an emotive issue both of you can be right and wrong. Form my point of view I have no problems with animals being used for scientific research. Or eaten. Or turned into a pair of shoes. However, at least I'm being honest and straightforward: you pepper the posts with nuggets like:
Fred_Smith wrote:
(in)validity
and
Fred_Smith wrote:
fallacy of your position
. That makes it sound like you know you can't answer other people's posts so resort to veiled insults and manipulation. Lazy. Otherwise an intersting subject to raise.
I'm not lazy, I just haven't got time and have tried ot explain why it'd better to read the book anyway. Yes, ok, I'm sorry for veiled insults, but it's a subject I feel passionately about and sometimes can't help it... I do feel the arguments against vivisection are very strong and, as is only human, frustration at others' refusal or apparent inability to see them can lead to anger. When you read what vivisection is really about, it is baffling that anyone can still condone it or believe in it. I can only repeat: if you're interested, please read HR's book.
-
I'm not lazy, I just haven't got time and have tried ot explain why it'd better to read the book anyway. Yes, ok, I'm sorry for veiled insults, but it's a subject I feel passionately about and sometimes can't help it... I do feel the arguments against vivisection are very strong and, as is only human, frustration at others' refusal or apparent inability to see them can lead to anger. When you read what vivisection is really about, it is baffling that anyone can still condone it or believe in it. I can only repeat: if you're interested, please read HR's book.
Fair enough but I think it's a wee bit naughty to start this sort of argument and then back off with a 'read the book'.
Fred_Smith wrote:
if you're interested, please read HR's book
Honestly? I really don't care enough since I'm happy to benefit from what animals give me.
-
Hans Ruesch, the father of the genuine scientific anti-vivisection movement, died on Monday 27th August 2007, aged 94. Author of the books Slaughter of the Innocent, and its follow-up The Naked Empress, Hans was the scourge of both the vivisection industry, and the phoney, infiltrator-led, so-called "anti-vivisection" movement whose continued purpose is to mount pretend anti-vivisection campaigns deliberately designed to go nowhere, whilst relieving sincere, but often naive animal rights people of their money. He will be sadly missed by those who genuinely care about the torture of *millions upon millions* (sic) of animals, the bad science and the bad medicine that vivisection is responsible for. For those that cling to the false belief that their or their children's lives might one day be dependent upon this abhorrent practice, or who are interested in reading a well-researched, well-written, fully annotated debunking of the vivisection myth, I cannot recomment highly enough his seminal work "Slaugter of the Innocent". This is not the ranbling rantings of an emotionally scarred immature idealist, as many people see those in the animal rights movement, but an intelligent scientific argument by a man who spent years researching his subject. What he reveals in his books will make your hair stand on end - and I am not just referring to the almost unbelievable abuse that goes on in vivisection laboratories worldwide, but also the sheer scale of the bad science involved, all to feed the monetary greed of the pharmaceutical companies that sponsor it, and to satisfy the depserate need for reassurance that the general public (that's you...) demands from the medical industry; that it will cure you of your ailments. Have your eyes opened, and read this book. Slaughter of the Inocent, on Amazom.com[^] Fred
I will care about animal rights when all of my human fellows will be able to exert their inalienable ones. I've got no moral problem to sacrifice one thousand dogs if it can save one human being. Our world is going crazy: when an animal is found there are refuges to take care of it, but men can continue to die each winter lying on our pavements.
Change of fashion is the tax levied by the industry of the poor on the vanity of the rich Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
I will care about animal rights when all of my human fellows will be able to exert their inalienable ones. I've got no moral problem to sacrifice one thousand dogs if it can save one human being. Our world is going crazy: when an animal is found there are refuges to take care of it, but men can continue to die each winter lying on our pavements.
Change of fashion is the tax levied by the industry of the poor on the vanity of the rich Fold with us! ¤ flickr
Well said.
-
I will care about animal rights when all of my human fellows will be able to exert their inalienable ones. I've got no moral problem to sacrifice one thousand dogs if it can save one human being. Our world is going crazy: when an animal is found there are refuges to take care of it, but men can continue to die each winter lying on our pavements.
Change of fashion is the tax levied by the industry of the poor on the vanity of the rich Fold with us! ¤ flickr
There are no end of charities and other organisations dedicated to human suffering in all it's guises, and that's fine and good. The fact that they haven't got a great record of stopping all human suffering is no excuse to ignore that of animals. And please, the real point of HR's book is not animal suffering, valid though that is. It is also about the bad science that is vivisection. There is good eveidence to suggest, if you read the book, that vivisection has done more to hinder medical science than advance it, through false and misleading results.
-
I will care about animal rights when all of my human fellows will be able to exert their inalienable ones. I've got no moral problem to sacrifice one thousand dogs if it can save one human being. Our world is going crazy: when an animal is found there are refuges to take care of it, but men can continue to die each winter lying on our pavements.
Change of fashion is the tax levied by the industry of the poor on the vanity of the rich Fold with us! ¤ flickr
K(arl) wrote:
I've got no moral problem to sacrifice one thousand dogs
Just had a mental image of someone standing on top of an Aztec pyramid wielding a big knife...
-
There are no end of charities and other organisations dedicated to human suffering in all it's guises, and that's fine and good. The fact that they haven't got a great record of stopping all human suffering is no excuse to ignore that of animals. And please, the real point of HR's book is not animal suffering, valid though that is. It is also about the bad science that is vivisection. There is good eveidence to suggest, if you read the book, that vivisection has done more to hinder medical science than advance it, through false and misleading results.
Fred_Smith wrote:
to ignore that of animals
And where is your limit? Will you fight against the extermination of billions of mosquitoes per year? What about the horrible fate of these countless bacterias destroyed by these naughty antibiotics? Or do you limit yourself to the cute, so cute furry-like ones?
Where do you expect us to go when the bombs fall?
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
to ignore that of animals
And where is your limit? Will you fight against the extermination of billions of mosquitoes per year? What about the horrible fate of these countless bacterias destroyed by these naughty antibiotics? Or do you limit yourself to the cute, so cute furry-like ones?
Where do you expect us to go when the bombs fall?
The g/f and I spent half an hour Saturday night catching mosquitos in a jar and putting them outdoors before going to bed... ..didn't notice any fur on them.
-
K(arl) wrote:
I've got no moral problem to sacrifice one thousand dogs
Just had a mental image of someone standing on top of an Aztec pyramid wielding a big knife...
Hang on to that image - the gods may have changed, but the beleifs are just as false. Animals are being sacrificied in their millions in the false beleif that doing so will cure us of our illnesses. Alright, here's an example of the science of vivisection. (I could do with a coffee break, but never mind.) First I will describe the experiment, then give you the "justification" for it. For many years during the 1970's, the New York Museum of Natural History had been conducting experiments on cats which involved (according to the museum's own accounts) the infliction of a wide range of mutilations on sexually "experienced" male cats and on three-month old kittens, including the removasl of the eyeballs, the surgical destruction of the sense of hearing ans smell, lesionings of the brain, castration, severence of the spine, and more... I won't go into the details of how this was done, it is too disturbing... In 1978 Hans Ruesch was able to interview on radio the then president of the National Society for Medical Research, a Dr Dennis. HR asked DD what the purpose of such experiments was. This was his reply, verbatim: "You remember that rape is a serious problem, and you know that there are abnormalities in sexual behaviour that play a role in developing rape. I believe what they were working on was to try to figure out, working with cats, which in some respect have a brain that is comparable to the human - I know, I know it's not nearly as complex but in mnay respects for this sort of purpose it is - and they were studying, I believe, with this end in view. That is what they have been working on." This is the science of viviosection. F***. It is barely believable. But it is true.
-
The g/f and I spent half an hour Saturday night catching mosquitos in a jar and putting them outdoors before going to bed... ..didn't notice any fur on them.
-
Laugh all you like, but you can take back your implied dig at hypocrisy, please. But even if I did limit myself to the cute furry animals, somewhat hypocrtitical as that may be, it would not invalidate the whole argument. I am not intersted in arguing the ethics or morality of this subject, because it's somewhat like arguing about God with the Jesus squad, but rather the science of it. We are told that experimenting on animals is a valid path to understanding and curing human disease. Just on it's own, such a simple statemnt as that should strike you as nonsensical, without even going any further. Sheep can consume arsenic by the bucket-load, a teaspoon will kill us - as will 2 grams of scopolamin, a drug which is harmless to dogs and cats (except in huge doses.) A single Amanita phalloides mushrrom can wipe out an entire human family, but is a health food for rabbits (a favourite lab animal.) Morphine, a favourite human anasthetic, causes mania in cats and mice, those other favourite lab animals. Almonds can kill foxes, parsely is poisenous to parrots, and penicillin - that saviour of millions - is posinous to guinea-pigs (yet another much abused lab animal.) This list can be extended almost indefinitely. How is inducing a cancer in a rat in a laboratory in any way scientifically comparable to a cancer that grows due to environmental and/or dietry and/or genetic factors in man? It is a nonsense.
-
The g/f and I spent half an hour Saturday night catching mosquitos in a jar and putting them outdoors before going to bed... ..didn't notice any fur on them.
Fred_Smith wrote:
The g/f and I spent half an hour Saturday night catching mosquitos in a jar
:omg: Do you strain your drinking water as well? Or is that too dangerous for the rotifers?