ARTL: Differences Between Cats, Dogs and Humans

ANIMAL RESEARCH T A K E S LIVES
- Humans and Animals BOTH Suffer

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CATS, DOGS AND HUMANS

ARSL PAGE 10

ARSL 2nd Edition Page 12

The author has demonstrated extensively, with logically presented medical evidence, much of which is taken from Hans Ruesch's One Thousand Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection, that the use of cats, dogs (and other animals) retards the objective of experiments. That the animal researcher, frustrated and unable to apply to the human circumstance the information acquired in his vivisection laboratory, eventually, (if his goal is medical progress as distinct from financial gain) changes direction towards human investigation and observation. This evidence indicates that the unsubstantiated claims of ARSL are contrived to boost the publishers' credibility as the public begins to realise that vivisection is a fraud which threatens their health and well-being.

Professor Henry J. Bigelow, Professor of Surgery at Harvard University:

"Any person who had to endure certain experiments carried out on animals which perish slowly in the laboratories would regard death by burning at the stake as a happy deliverance. Like everyone else in my profession, I used to be of the opinion that we owe nearly all our knowledge of medical and surgical science to animal experiments. Today I know that precisely the opposite is the case, in surgery especially, they are of no help to the practitioner, indeed he is often led astray by them."
(Hans Ruesch, One Thousand Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection.)

In section Heart Surgery, this Chapter, is recorded the scientific differences between man and his best friend, but for the benefit of ARSL's producers we elaborate further:

(Courtesy of Hans Ruesch in Slaughter of the Innocent):

The dog is so different from man that operations require special instruments

the skin tissues are tougher

the dog's heart has a highly irregular intermittent pulsation. (There is no less reliable guide to a man's heart.)

the dog has a far superior resistance to man

the dog is less subject to infections

the dog will suffer fatal collapse of both lungs from a small puncture of the chest cavity - whereas a man has two separate chests each harbouring a lung and each capable of sustaining life.

Even Great Britain, the bastion of vivisection, refuses to allow surgical trainees to try their manipulatory skills on dogs... because to do so blunts their sensitivity for operations on their own species.

The Austrian Ministry of Science has banned ALL experiments using dogs.
(PeTA News, Vol. 7, No. 4.)

"Here we wish to point out one possible source of confusion. Anyone at all familiar with animals, particularly the laboratory dog, should not lose sight of the fact that their general conduct and intelligence influence the manner in which they react to stimuli of any kind; even in health this may differ very greatly. Each dog has his own peculiarity, and has a distinct individuality not unlike man. Many are extremely dull and apathetic, and others highly-strung, intelligent and active, and accustomed to respond quickly to the various stimuli originating through the association of friends and master. If then, the nervous constitution of dogs so differs as to vitiate all attempted physiological conclusions, can we wonder if such contradictory views are held by vivisectors respecting disease itself where in most cases the nervous system plays so important a part? And if these differences exist among dogs themselves to such an extent as to prove a bar to truly scientific data, how much more are we likely to be misled in arguing from one human being to another, and still more from animals to man."
(Dr Williams B. Cadwalader and Dr J. E. Sweet, in the Journal of the American Medical Association.)

"The development of anaesthetics were severely retarded because the German pharmacist Friedrich Sertuner finding that morphine caused maniacal excitement in the dogs he tried it on discontinued his work on anaesthetics which was taken up decades later by an American dentist who used nitrous oxide when extracting the tooth of a colleague. Showing once again the barrier to medical progress brought about by animal trials."
(Hans Ruesch, Slaughter of the Innocent, page 165.)

"Many years ago I carried out on the Continent sundry operations upon the intestines of dogs, but such are the differences between the human and the canine bowel, that when I came to operate on man I found I was much hampered by my new experience, that I had everything to unlearn, and that my experiments had done little but leave me unfit to deal with the human intestine."
(Sir Frederick Treves, Director of London Hospital, Surgeon to the Royal Family and world-renowned authority on abdominal surgery, British Medical Journal, November 5 1898, page 1389.)

"The maximum single dose of morphine for human beings is given as one-third of a grain. Mr Hobday, F.R.C.V.S. giving evidence before the Royal Commission of Vivisection 1906-10, 'considered that morphia affected dogs differently, he has given large doses to dogs, as much as 20 grains, without a fatal result, and considers them to be very insusceptible to a toxic dose of morphia'."

"This substance acts upon dogs as a violent stimulant rather than as a narcotic, large doses causing excitement and convulsions."
(Review of a paper by E. Lugaro, British Medical Journal, January 14 1899, page 94.)

"Even a schoolboy could tell you that you cannot argue from the intestine of a dog to the intestine of a human being. Scientifically it is absolutely unsound, as the Ministry of Health has proved."
(Mr Alasdair Alpin McGregor, The Abolitionist, August 1 1930.)

"Certain of the cyanogen compounds used in gas warfare while being extremely toxic to dogs leaves goats and man unharmed."
(Mr J. E. R. McDonagh, F.R.C.S., The Nature of Disease, Vol. 1, 1930, page 210.)

"As a dental surgeon of many years' experience, I am convinced that no experiments on dogs' teeth would be of any value in finding out treatment suitable to human teeth."
(Mr A.J. Maurice, J.D., L.D.S. (editor of The Dental Surgeon), The Abolitionist, November 1 1932.)

"The experimenters state that it must be frankly admitted that human peptic ulcers are not caused by such drastic alterations of the gastro-intestinal canal as were occasioned in the animals experimented on. Then why were all those experiments performed at all? The entire business sounds somewhat ridiculous to anyone with a really critical mind."
(The Medical Times, December 1936. Commenting upon experiments on dogs, cats and pigs.)

"Reference is made to the work of Duncan and Blalock in producing 'experimental shock' in dogs by various crushing injuries. The comment is made in the annotation that all these experiments were inconclusive since renal failure, usually the cause of death in man, did not occur at all in dogs."
(Lancet, October 10 1942, page 431.)

"The gastro-intestinal tract in man is unfortunately very different from that of animals, and the results of a new operation for gastric disease cannot be predicted from operations on dogs."
(Editorial, Lancet, May 1951, page 1003.)

"One of the new antibiotic drugs, Chloramphenicol, has been recorded as a cause of fatal aplastic anaemia in human beings. But extensive experiments on dogs have failed to show any evidence of injury or disease to the canine species."
(Bulletin, Easton, Mass., U.S.A., April 2 1953.)

"It is readily granted that a fracture and a burn on a dog are not the same as on a human."
(Doctors Harvey S. Allen, John L. Bell and Sherman W. Day, Surgery, Gynecology and Obstetrics, Vol. 97, (Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.), November 1953, page 541.)

"Dog skin is totally unlike human skin: it does not blister after such treatment as burning, but becomes edematous."
(Experimental Surgery, (3rd ed.), Bailliere, Tindall and Cox Ltd, 1954, page 497.)

"There are sometimes marked species differences. The dog is much more susceptible to isoniazid toxicity than man."
(P. D'Arcy Hart, M.D., F.R.C.P., British Medical Journal, October 2 1954, page 767.)

"Recently, Dr Harald Okens, Professor of Anatomy in the University of Copenhagen, stated that there is no compelling argument which can justify scientific experiments on dogs. For his part he categorically prohibited such experiments at the Institute of which he was head. In his opinion much good would be won if such experiments were forbidden by law."
(Dog's Bulletin, February 1955.)

"I have seen surgeons who carried out experiments on some organs from dogs in the belief that these were identical with those of humans, and they did not know they were cutting into a quite different organ, even into a lymphatic gland instead of the thyroid gland. Nobody has become a surgeon because of having operated on animals. He has only learnt wrongly through animals. I have been able to see this over my many decades as a surgeon, also as a Director of Hospitals. I have carried out tens of thousands of operations on people without ever performing them first on an animal."
(Prof. Sr Salvatore Rocca Rossetti, Surgeon and Professor of Urology at the University of Turin, Italy, in the science programme Delta on Italian television, March 12 1986.)

Despite the evidence cited, which is a mere fragment of that at fingertips, breeders, dealers in stolen/lost pets, the manufacturers of the vast array of essential paraphernalia, (listed in Chapter 1 - The Vivisection Industry), all of whom have their fingers in the vivisection pie, and last but not least the vivisectors, continue to uphold the torture of dogs, ostensibly in the glorification of human advancement, but in reality for the advancement of their affairs. And they are willingly aided and abetted by the politicians who refuse to consider legal petitions to abolish vivisection, the news-media which has insufficient space to report abolitionists' activities and twists the facts on the rare occasions that it does, or insufficient time to report on our television screens NZAVS campaigns, though it has sent crews to film them, and others, like the respectable and stolid librarians who "lose", "fail to locate", or "have no remembrance" of receiving abolitionist material, which, though donated to the public and not to the library censors, seldom finds its way to the library shelves. Without a single exception all the above share complicity in the perversion of experiments like the following two examples, which, inconceivable as they may appear to the innocent reader, are no exception from the rule but merely routine workouts in the everyday life of your friendly vivisector who carries them out in your name... and with your money.

1. VIVISECTION OF DOGS IN STUDIES OF THE AGONY OF CHRIST ON THE CROSS

On May 9 1988, Turin's daily Stampa Sera scooped the entire Italian press with a front page story titled: "They are Experimenting on Dogs the Passion of Christ. Doctors and Experts Want to Demonstrate that the Holy Shroud was Stained During Resurrection."

With neither the space nor the inclination to reproduce all the details, the author of a book on the studies of Catholic scholars believe that the Holy Shroud was stained by blood issued from Christ's body during his resurrection and not immediately after his death. "Such blood", he claimed, "would have contained a much higher number of red corpuscles than normal blood". Hence the necessity to demonstrate, through experiments (not on each other of course) on dogs, that it could circulate and stain the Holy Shroud. Consequently at a secret location, the God-fearing vivisectors set out to reproduce the passion and resurrection of Jesus Christ on five unfortunate dogs. The vivisectors were respected clinicians of the Catholic University: Prof. Paolo Pola, titular of the Chair of Angiology (blood vessels) and Dr Augusto Borzone, of the Institute of Clinical Surgery. A Jesuit father, Domenico Chianella who was in touch with the vivisectors said in an interview with the weekly Gente in November 1987:

"The fundamental and unequivocal proof that the blood on the Holy Shroud is not the blood of the dying Jesus comes from the precise and incontrovertible physical law called lyperfibronilitical syndrome, which appears when a living being suffers intensely from a grave and multiple trauma, in which case the blood fails to coagulate. Knowing in what condition Christ died on the cross, after a long passion, the terrible flagellation and ritual of crucifixion, it can be assumed with certainty that His body contained abundantly all the premises that lead to a very grave and irreversible hyperfibrinolitic syndrome, absolutely impeding his blood to coagulate."

One thing all parties were mutually agreed upon however was that the success of the experiment depended on the intense suffering of the dogs, for only that could reproduce the condition in which Jesus Christ was during the crucifixion.

The reader who is put in a dilemma by the sheer insanity of these goings-on behind the scenes is in good company. The mighty Ruesch himself subsequently admitted that the Preface of One Thousand Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection, being sectionalised under seven headings: Historical, Medical, Sociological, Religious, Legal, Psychopathic and Mercenary, he had been in a dilemma as to which heading this experiment should go under. Finally, deciding the experiment was a mixed bag producing a script which would discredit any fiction writer as having turned mad and addle-brained, he decided on the Psychopathic section, where it can be found on page 21.

2. VIVISECTION OF DOGS IN STUDIES OF THE HOLE IN THE OZONE LAYER

Sponsored by ICI, and involving no less than 15 chemical companies, vivisection programmes costing fifteen million pounds sterling are being carried out in Great Britain to "try to find a way to save the ozone layer" by producing alternatives to the CFC chemicals which eat away at the Earth's protective cover. Though experts agree that drastic action must be made to stop producing poisons that damage the environment, gases are being manufactured and "tested" by forcing beagle puppies to inhale them to make their hearts beat faster, and daubed on their shaved skin to study the damage. Thousands of puppies are being used. All die horribly and their organs examined for signs of cancer. Thus the vivisectors ignore the evidence running thick and fast that there is no correlation between dog and human hearts, and that dogs' skin, being tougher than human skin offers no correlation in that area either. Unperturbed by such spoil-sports the vivisectors to whom these experiments represent a tidy nest-egg defend them by saying "there is no other way of finding environmentally-friendly gases needed for products like aerosol sprays, fridges, foams and solvents". And so nature itself in all its forms is being abused in order to preserve the environment. Crazy? Yes, but also lucrative.
(David Jones, Environment Editor, exclusive article in Great Britain's Western Daily Press, February 28 1992.)

"Most of the work on brain research has been done on cats and monkeys. It is risky to extrapolate such data to the human brain."
(W. H. Wheeler, a scientist, Science Digest, November 1972.)

"Cats are no good for scientific research, because each gives different results from the other. We gave powdered glass to see how it affected their lungs. They lapped it up and thrived on it."
(Dr A. E. Barclay, Nuffield Professor of Medical Research at Oxford, at a conference on T.B., as reported by the Sunday Express, April 10 1938.)

"It is interesting to note that the conclusions differ from those arrived at by other workers in similar experiments with digitalis on kittens and adult cats."
(Andrew S. McNeil, L.R.C.P.S. Edin., The Medical World, February 5 1943, page 608.)

"It is difficult to anaesthetise a cat with any certainty for even ten minutes, and in the case of dogs it doesn't last as long as with cats."
(British Medical Journal, March 8 1896.)

The wealth of information demolishing ARSL's claims that dogs are suitable models for human beings is available in similar context and volume exposing the vast difference which makes the cat the most unreliable of all human models. Instead however of repeating a similar formula of evidence the writer refers the reader to the article by Hans Ruesch, written as an introduction to his CIVIS Bullet-In Nr 2 (The Infiltration in Animal Welfare) which is reproduced in Chapter 20 Head Clamps.

<< previous page | next page >>

contents | Chapter 10 index | index