Jentsch and company are getting desperate to defend their torture and
Simulposted with NAALPO:
LA Times Advertisement, Billboard Confirm UCLA Desperation:
The newspaper advertisement, apparently paid for by a medical industry schill group, is full of the usual lies and justifications propping up the outmoded, inefficient and cruel practice of killing animals to look for new ways to treat human diseases. In reality, most useful research that improves human health comes from modern techniques that no longer depend on gruesome and bloody animal mutilation, but instead make use of modern computer technology, epidemiologic studies, CT, MRI and PET scanning, microarrays and dozens of other methodologies.
In still a further sign of desperation, vivisectionists have also erected billboards claiming the Los Angeles populace is free of, get this, leprosy, because of animal experimentation. There were 91 cases of leprosy, or Hansen's Disease, in the entire United States in 2000; treatment has been effective since at least the 1940's, with new drug regimens in place to counter resistance to the causative bacterium since the 1980's. Implying that the continued killing of animals in the 21st century is a 'necessary evil' to prevent leprosy is just another attempt to keep UCLA rolling in research grant money, most of it taxpayer funds wasted on addicting non-human primates to methamphetamines and other utterly ridiculous, useless and cruel experiments.
Recent attempts by physicians to debate UCLA researchers have been rebuffed by the university, knowing that their practices cannot stand exposure to the public eye. CNN recently invited Drs. Jerry Vlasak and Ray Greek to debate UCLA vivisectors, albeit not physicians, Dario Ringach and David Jentsch. Vlasak and Greek jumped at the chance to dispute the medical efficaciousness and morality of animal experimentation; Ringach and Jentsch refused to appear.
When attempts at dialogue and peaceful attempts to make change and alleviate suffering are frustrated, some activists are willing to use more forceful means to help animals. North American Animal Liberation Press correspondent Camille Marino makes an apt comparison: -LA citizen Richard Ramirez, known as the 'Nightstalker', was a cold, sadistic and violent serial murderer - his behavior was eerily similar to that of any vivisector. While he was actively inciting an atmosphere of terror, the media relentlessly covered the newsworthy developments. While vivisectors like J. David Jenstch and Dario Ringach are active, the animal liberation networks are committed to relentlessly cover their sociopathic reign of terror. When average citizens finally apprehended Ramirez, they beat him mercilessly for his crimes. Jentsch and Ringach have earned the right to fear retaliation for their crimes. Ramirez or Jentsch or Ringach, all are equally guilty, and warrant a response-both seem unable to control their bloodlust. They each make a potent case for individuals who need to be stopped by any means necessary.'
For more information visit, www.animalliberationpressoffice.org
I republished a letter by notorious UCLA vivisectors, Dario Ringach and J.
David Jentsch, that the Journal of Neurophysiology published, and a response
letter written by Dr. Ray Greek, a noted anti-vivisectionist, which the Journal
declined to publish.
Ringach and Jentsch's letter is a call for the scientific community and
government entities that fund vivisectors to 'stand up for them.' Greek's letter
calls theirs disingenuous and calls Jentsch out for declining to debate him on
the scientific validity of vivisection.
Please republish it if you see fit-
Jentsch prefers a forum where positions other than his are not represented-.
J. David Jentsch, the personification of the banality of evil-. 'I found the
letter from Dario L. Ringach and J. David Jentsch (Ringach and Jentsch 2009)
that appeared in the September 2009 issue very disingenuous. During April of
2009, I gave Dr Jentsch the opportunity to 'discuss, debate, and express our
opinions on the importance . . . of animal research (Ibid).' He declined my
offer to debate the subject at UCLA complete with UCLA security at the
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Enough Is Enough
TO THE EDITOR: The ultimate scientific mission of our community is to understand how the brain works in health and disease. Because the functions of the brain depend on molecular, cellular, and network level processes, achieving this goal requires the ability to directly interrogate those mechanisms. Doing such work in humans would require the development of noninvasive techniques at appropriate spatial scales of resolution-technology that is not going to be available in the foreseeable future. As a consequence, progress in many areas of neuroscience relies on the use of invasive methods in animals. If we were to stop such work, both the ability to advance our field and the ultimate, desired development of alternative, noninvasive methods, would largely come to a halt.
The need for direct, invasive studies is not unique to neuroscience; however, the absolutely necessity for research on complex organisms, including nonhuman primates, is. Whether studying sensory processing, motor planning and execution, memory processes, and executive cognitive functions, nonhuman primates, by virtue of their close phylogenetic relationship to humans, makes them indispensible subjects that play a unique, irreplaceable role in our endeavor to address disorders of the CNS.
These facts, although self-evident to most scientists, are not appreciated by
animal rights activists that attack our research on at least two grounds. First,
they argue that research in animals cannot-and will not-produce the knowledge
necessary to lead to cures for human disease. Second, they argue that even if
such cures could be found using animals, work with animals is unethical and
should not be performed at all.
Despite being in the spotlight, our work is not different from the majority of articles appearing in the pages of this Journal and has always been in compliance with all the regulations on the use of animals inresearch. Investigators using primates, mice, or flies have been assaulted, so nobody can feel at ease. With an expanding list of investigators listed in the extremists' crosshairs, it is clear that anybody could be next.
Enough is enough! We believe time has come to express our outrage at the activities of animal rights extremists and to request from our political representatives the security we and our families need to carry out ourwork. We believe that time has also come to discuss, debate, and express our opinions on the importance and ethics of animal research. Perhaps, most important, the time has also come to defend our research collectively and not to let only those under attack confront their plight alone.
On April 22nd, a new organization, Pro-Test @ UCLA, held a rally of 700 scientists, staff, and students that stood together in favor of the responsible use of animals in biomedical research and in solidarity with those under attack. At the event, Americans for Medical Progress, Speaking of Research, and Pro-Test @ UCLA called on our community to add their signatures to a petition in support of research and against animal extremisms. A similar petition in the UK, crafted in response to attacks on Oxford University, was signed by a number of politicians, including then Prime Minister Tony Blair. This was a critical milestone that marked the turn against extremists and their agenda in the UK.
We ask that you join us in mobilizing the entire scientific community to defend biomedical research. You can start with the easy step of signing the petition at www.raisingvoices.net, which already counts with nearly 10,000 signatories. Write to your representatives explaining the dangers of the escalating animal rights extremism for basic and translational research and urge your colleagues to do the same. Reach out to your students and local communities to explain the value of research; no one has a greater responsibility for explaining and defending your research than you do. If you teach medical students, make sure they understand the contribution of animal research to the material they are learning. Come up with your own ideas about how to make a difference and share them with us.
Together we can have a profound impact on what is growing into an important public debate. If we stand together as a community, we will be heard.
Address for reprint requests and other correspondence: D. L.
Ringach, Departments of Neurobiology and Psychology, Jules Stein Eye
Institute, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los
Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1563 (E-mail: email@example.com )
I submitted the attached as a letter. Amazingly it was rejected. Ray Greek MD
TO THE EDITOR: I found the letter from Dario L. Ringach and J. David Jentsch (Ringach and Jentsch 2009) that appeared in the September 2009 issue very disingenuous. During April of 2009, I gave Dr Jentsch the opportunity to -discuss, debate, and express our opinions on the importance . . . of animal research (Ibid).' He declined my offer to debate the subject at UCLA complete with UCLA security at the event.
Further, my request for a debate was not centered on the emotive subject of vivisection or rights for animals, but rather the value of using animals in research touted as predictive for humans. That is a very scientific and unemotional topic. Not one likely to incite riots! There is no better way to 'Reach out to your students and local communities to explain the value of research (Ibid)' than to participate in a public debate at your own university with your own security in attendance on a topic that is science oriented not philosophy or ethics oriented.
Americans For Medical Advancement (www.curedisease.com) does not oppose research using animals per se. We do deny animals can be used as predictive models for human disease and drug response and think that animals as predictive models is how animal-based research, on the whole, is sold to society in general (Shanks et al. 2009). Our board is composed of vegans and meat-eaters in equal proportion. If Dr Jentsch is unwilling to discuss and debate with us, I am not sure he really wants to discuss and debate but suspect rather, that he prefers a forum where positions other than his are not represented.
I have made this offer, to publicly debate the merits of using animals in
research, many times and been turned down far more often than not. I take this
opportunity to once again state publicly and for the record:
Ringach DL, and Jentsch JD. Enough Is Enough. J Neurophysiol 102: 2007-,