Navaho Gunleg

The Register has a story on ‘drug-industry backed’ online animal-testing petition, to..

[..] encourage the public to show their support for animal testing. The Coalition for Medical Progress hopes to mobilise what it calls “the silent majority”.

Ah, I can see where this is heading: they are obviously trying to find support to be able to easily get rid of any protestors, possibly even by labeling them as terrorists. And they obviously want to rig the thing, they are doing it on-line.

That was my first thought, of course.

So I go on reading the three statements that people signing the petition commit to:

1. I believe that medical research is essential for developing new medical and veterinary treatments. I understand that finding safe and effective treatments and medicines requires some studies using animals.

Some? I thought it common knowledge that if you give a human being a finger, it is likely to take your whole hand. I have seen it happening with the wind-turbines that pop up everywhere in the Netherlands now, just because a ‘few’ where allowed initially.

And I’m not even sure that ’some’ animal testing is even necessary. Although some apes have ~99% similar DNA, there’s still some major differences between the species. Anyone that cares about nature and animals will probably say `Why don’t these guys test these things on theirselves?‘, and I wonder why too.

And, fuck, it just as well could’ve been `I believe the world has been created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster and understand that Smurfs are blue and wear a white hat‘ — they could’ve just totally removed that void statement.

Next:

2. I believe that medical research using animals, carried out to the highest standards of care and welfare, and where there is no alternative available, should continue in the UK.

Note that the word ‘some‘ has completely disappeared here. Now it already is ‘where there is no alternative available’. And who is to say that there is no alternative. Yup, uhuh, most probably those pharmaceutical companies themselves.

Once the ‘law’ says its OK it’s just as well there’s some animal-rights activists. Yeh, ac-ti-vists. Fuck demonising them using words like ‘extremist’ or ‘terrorist’. I don’t like where this is heading at all. The public obviously doesn’t realise these activists do it for a greater good, not out of pure greed and selfishness like the pharmaceutical industry is trying to play you now. Like, playing the emotional ‘animal testing will surely give us a cure for cancer, aids and your missing baby daughter‘-card.

Anyway, my initial thought was verified when I read the last of these statements:

3. I believe that people involved in medical research using animals have a right to work and live without fear and intimidation or attack.

Hell, anybody anywhere can ‘vote’ for this facade of a petition.

They didn’t even bother to include the option to state the exact opposite of what this stupid thing says — I’m sure that would get definitely more support…

Animal Testing