Hatewatch Tweets
Hatewatch is managed by the staff of the Intelligence Report, an investigative magazine published by the Alabama-based civil rights group Southern Poverty Law Center.
Animal Rights Activist: ‘If you spill blood, your blood should be spilled’
In the early hours of March 7, 2009, David Jentsch was startled out of his slumber by the sound of an explosion in his driveway. Running outside, the UCLA professor found that his car had been firebombed. His car was destroyed, and the fire spread to a nearby tree before firefighters were able to control it.
Self-described members of the “Animal Liberation Brigade” claimed responsibility for the firebombing, warning Jentsch in a message posted March 8 on the website of the North American Animal Liberation Press Office (which publishes communiqués from underground animal rights activists) that “we will come for you when you least expect it and do a lot more damanage [sic] than to your property.
Prior to the firebombing of his car, Jentsch, a professor of psychology and psychiatry whose research involves rodents and primates, had had no personal contact with animal liberation activists. He responded to the attack by forming Pro-Test for Science, a community of researchers that works to counter the radical animal liberation movement.
Soon, Jentsch found himself subject to daily harassment, including menacing emails and packages containing razors. It emerged that an obscure Florida-based group called Negotiation is Over (NIO) had targeted the UCLA professor as public enemy No. 1, posting his picture and contact information on its website and urging the animal liberation community to take action against him.
NIO is the brainchild of Camille Marino, a 47-year-old former investment banking professional who for the past three years has devoted her life to radical animal rights activism. According its website, NIO “strives to be an instrument of defiance, disruption, disobedience, subversion, creative & aggressive grassroots action, and a catalyst for revolutionary change. Total liberation – human animals, nonhuman animals, and the earth – will not happen by politely asking abusers to be decent. Emotion and passion drive action … not sterile debate.”
It continues, “NIO has changed the rules by which animal activists engage abusers. The philosophy is simple yet profound; anyone who engages in the horrific treatment of any sentient being should no longer expect to remain anonymous. They and their family, friends, neighbors and colleagues should be made to face the awful truth. NIO has opened a new front in the war to end animal exploitation and is a vital voice for the animals.”
The rest of website is essentially a one-stop shop for radical animal liberationists, featuring a “Tools for Activists” section with links to information on picking locks and making flash bombs, a hacker training site, and the extremist Animal Liberation Front’s (ALF) primer. It also has a section called “NIO’s Most Wanted,” with the names, addresses and other personal information about seven researchers – Jentsch among them – whom the group considers to be the worst perpetrators of the “animal holocaust.”
A section titled, “Strategies and Tactics,” offers information about other groups (both in the animal liberation movement and outside) whose “creative and aggressive” techniques are intended to “inspire activists to escalate our response to the urgent war being waged against animals and the planet.” One example is Individualities Tending Towards Savagery (ITTS), a Mexico-based group that targets nanotechnology researchers with parcel bombs. ITTS, which has been linked to attacks in Mexico, France, Spain, and Chile, models its tactics on those of the “Unabomber,” former Berkeley Professor Theodore Kaczynski, who killed three professors and wounded 23 others during a two-decade campaign against technological advancement. Several nanotechnology researchers and support staffers have already been wounded as a result of ITTS actions, and the group claims it will continue “without compassion and without mercy.”
Asked by Hatewatch whether she personally endorses violence as a tactic to achieve NIO’s goals, Marino equivocated. “There is a war being waged against animals and any act committed in the name of love and compassion against those who are waging the war I do not consider an act of terrorism,” she said in an Oct. 31 phone interview. “I’ve never committed a crime in my life. I’ve never done anything violent and I don’t intend to. But if some unknown person took that step, I would support and applaud it.”
The fact is, she has all but called for it. In an NIO post dated a June 12, 2010, Marino featured a chalk outline and the words “Animal Abuser Was Here,” and wrote, “The [chalk outline] image on this page is not a cute logo. It is my personal belief that if you are a sadistic animal torturer, that is all you deserve – a chalk outline. That’s my opinion, not a threat. It’s not even inciting anyone because, unless you read my words and run out and murder David Jentsch (an idea that amuses me immensely), I’m not responsible. If you have time to think about it and form your own conclusions, my words cease being the impetus.”
“If you spill blood, your blood should be spilled as well. [W]e’re no longer playing games. We will print your information. And we’ll be at your homes. We’ll be at your work. We’ll be at your country clubs and golf courses. We’ll see you at your manicurist and we’ll be kneeling next to you when you take that next holy communion wafer on Sunday. If I have my way, you’ll be praying to us for mercy.”
Marino – who on Oct. 27 was declared persona non grata on the campus of Detroit’s Wayne State University after she targeted a cardiovascular researcher there – again stressed to Hatewatch that she bears no responsibility for anything that befalls the researchers featured on the NIO website.
“I simply published information about a man who tortures dogs to death for money. He’s euphemistically called a researcher,” she said of the Wayne State professor. On NIO’s website, she described the researcher as a “Serial Torture-Murderer” while encouraging “[l]ocal NIO activists” to “show up at his home and snap pictures of his blood-money mansion and his miscreant spawn for publication.”
“I continue to get injunctions and bans for doing this,” Marino said. “If we were talking about bakers and I were publishing pictures of their cupcakes and their addresses, no one would say I am a terrorist. They would say I am advertising.”
“I don’t endanger anyone’s life. We’re talking about a man who literally over long periods tortures animals to death. I’m saying to him that if this embarrasses you, if my publishing this makes you live in fear, it’s not me that you fear, it’s not any activist that you fear. … His reaction to having his information out there is wholly removed from my intent. My intent is, I publish information about criminals. There’s no intent that anything should happen beyond that. If the publication of such materials makes him be afraid for his life – well, the baker would not be afraid if I published his recipes.”
“I am above ground and I try to stay within the law. But the law does not exist to protect the innocent. The law exists to regulate and enforce the agenda of the corporate industrial complex. Their job is to make money, to make money off the animal holocaust. When we talk about laws, it’s all relative. Obviously I don’t want to go to jail over nonsense, but I will if I have to. Those laws are irrelevant. They exist to protect those who harm the innocent.”
Jentsch, who has been aware of animal liberation activists throughout his career (though he was not personally targeted until the 2009 firebombing of his car), told Hatewatch in a phone interview that Marino epitomizes a new kind of animal liberation extremist. While earlier activists targeted institutions and labs, NIO has a more disturbing approach. The adoption of the idea that “the best strategy is to target individuals,” Jentsch said, “is the truly frightening aspect of this movement.”
Such personal attacks have been going on for about a decade, he said, but NIO is the first website he’s seen to promote them so aggressively. “One of the things that’s been distinctive in her website and her movement is you see this commiseration, this coming together of a group of people across the country that are the most hateful and the most willing to be blatant about their sort of lust for violence. … She creates a permissive environment by being a model, and then she provides the information. Here’s the person, here’s the email, send it. She becomes this vehicle for almost unbelievable animosity and hatred.
“She has taken this to a level that very few others have. She’s really become sort of the nationally visible representative of ‘just pummel people. Take them on personally. Put all the cards on the table and do everything possible to crush them.’ That part is distinctive about her; it’s almost an art form.”
For a while after Marino and NIO began targeting him after the firebombing, Jentsch simply monitored the website, trying not to be bothered by the verbal attacks. He says NIO had been harassing him for about a year when Marino posted the chalk outline and indicated that she would be amused if someone killed him. Jentsch tried moving and changing his phone number, but an NIO sympathizer found him, and soon the website featured his new home address and a photo of his gate, along with detailed instructions on hacking home security gates. On July 19, 2010, Marino sent him an email that said, “Everyone at NIO is most anxious to throw you a housewarming … a very very hot housewarming. haha. Just joking.”
Frightened by what he interpreted as a threat of arson, Jentsch obtained a permanent restraining order against Marino. Though he is still listed among NIO’s “most wanted,” the group seems to have turned its attention toward other researchers – including undergraduates, whom Marino describes as “the soft-bellied target of the vivisection complex.” In a case reported on by Security Management magazine, NIO used a barrage of emails to bully a Florida Atlantic University undergraduate who used fruit flies in her research into pursuing a different course of study.
There are some signs that Marino is struggling to keep the group afloat. She has bragged that NIO has a “global network of cells ready, willing, and able to act as a coordinated unit.” It is unclear whether this is true, through it does appear that sympathizers from around the country contribute intelligence to her website and react to her battle cries. But on October 28, NIO’s website featured a message asking for donations in exchange for membership that would include an official card, “eligibility to apply for charter for local NIO chapter,” a subscription to a quarterly newsletter covering strategies and tactics, and access to a private forum to be launched in 2012.
The request for money has gotten mixed reviews; while some activists responded positively, others called her a sell-out.
Responding to an objector nicknamed “Diablo,” Marino posted a message saying she had already sunk thousands of dollars of her own money into the website to protect it from sabotage and move to a server in Iceland “to indemnify it against injunctions and actions against me,” and that she anticipates upcoming “legal and campaign expenses” to cost at least $10,000 dollars.
“I fear nothing,” she wrote. “Not jail. Not prison. Not your judgments about issues you clearly do not understand. Not ostratization [sic], marginalization, or backlash. … I fear no human.”
“My only fear lies in letting the animals down and failing at a point where we are poised to penetrate and undermine the enemy in a manner never yet attempted. Unfortunately, since I too live in a capitalist world, this takes money and resources. Thus far, I have shouldered the overwhelming share of financial responsibilities of seeing this uncompromising vision of liberation begin the [sic] bear some fruit. And now we will see if our community will step up and support the vision that thousands of us purport to believe in.”
Editor’s Note:
Marino was fully aware during the interview that she was talking with a blogger from the Southern Poverty Law Center, even volunteering that she is familiar with the SPLC’s history of denouncing radical animal rights activists like the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). She approved a transcript of her interview, writing in an E-mail, “I think you captured everything I said perfectly.” Hours later, Marino contacted the blogger and said she wanted to withdraw her consent to be quoted, saying that she did not want to be quoted on “a blog filled with the most contemptible groups of racists, bigots, madmen, and hatemongers … groups that I despise.” Following widely accepted journalistic practice that once an on-the-record interview is conducted, permission cannot be withdrawn, Hatewatch decided to publish quotes from the interview.
on November 3rd, 2011 at 5:39 pm
Medical research strives to improve the quality of life of people around the world. To be put in fear of you and your children, your friends, your colleagues lives for striving to improve the lives of patients, is contemptible. Patients with schizophrenia whom suffer from a psychotic episode right now have virtually nothing to look forward to but the difficulty of just trying to live with the disease despite them having only just become an adult at the time (most cases occur in early 20s when the rest of us truly begin to live our lives). Cardiovascular disease claims the lives of many around the world – ask anyone what they are willing to do to have their loved ones around even for just a little longer. Speak to the families of these sufferers before you judge others. These and many others are the people researchers are trying to help and I am proud to stand with them. To try and hide such outrageous incendiary language as not encouraging others to violence is preposterous. Terrorism in any form is abhorrent. That such people get away with this behavior, then have the cheek to ask for money to continue to do so, is a terrible state. To describe medical researchers as torturers and criminals is a terrible label considering what actually occurs in many regions of the world. Such people would gain perspective by looking at such incidences and speaking to families of sufferers of repression and disease. Terrorists of this ilk, and their supporters, should be made accountable for their actions.
on November 3rd, 2011 at 5:56 pm
Thank you so much for this article. I know David and have watch him go through hell the past few years. I have also met Ms. Marino and I can honestly say she is just as radical in person as she is on her website. They are correct when they say “emotion and passion drive action,” however, may of us are trying to promote the other side of this issue which has not been adequately presented. I appreciate the time devoted to this article and feel it is a accurate depiction of Ms. Marino and her website. Please continue the good work.
on November 3rd, 2011 at 6:01 pm
I can’t wait to hear RRoberts, Dick Lancaster, Louis Stouch and their ilk to accuse the SPLC of never reporting on Leftist groups.
They’re so funny.
on November 3rd, 2011 at 6:02 pm
This person’s misguided attempts at justice are very discouraging for a number of reasons. First, animal research is intended to benefit mankind, it is critical to screening new therapies and making sure those therapies are safe. Unless this woman never takes a pill or goes to the doctor, she is a terrible hippocrite. Second, all this energy could be expended in helping unfortuante *GASP* people. If she expended this energy on lobbying against the high rates of domestic violence, child abuse or sex trafficking that occurs in the US, think what she might be able to achieve.
on November 3rd, 2011 at 10:52 pm
FRUIT FLIES? Her group targeted an undergraduate working with FRUIT FLIES???
She claims to support the liberation of ‘all sentient animals,’ but last I checked, drosophila melanogaster is just about the least sentient animal on the planet.
Pretty pathetic.
on November 4th, 2011 at 12:19 am
This has nothing at all to do with protecting civil rights or exposing hatred. Moreover, it doesn’t really fit with the subtitle of this blog, as animal rights activists are not on the “radical right”.
on November 4th, 2011 at 1:49 am
I can’t stand these people. Having said that, I don’t think animal rights are automatically “left wing.”
on November 4th, 2011 at 5:14 am
Extremist groups like NIO may want to think that students are the “soft underbelly” of animal research, they may be in for a rude shock.
Already, in response to the targeting by NIO of a cleaner (initally misrepresented by NIO as a student) at a University of Florida affiliated research institute, the UF student newspaper published a very strong editorial against intimidation of students and scientists by animal rights extremists http://www.alligator.org/opini.....40e-11e0-b…
It is clear that any UF student who does find themselves being harassed by AR activists will find no lack of support from their fellow students, indeed the evidence so far suggests that students are unwilling to send the extremists information on other students in response to “wanted posters”.
There is already a very good example of how effective students can be when they unite in the face of extremism. In 2006 students at Oxford University held a rally against animal rights extremism after threats from the Animal Liberation Front, that sent a very strong message that they would not be intimidated and would not allow the extremists to succeed http://speakingofresearch.com/.....xperience/
This anti-extremist – and pro-animal research – campaign, and the support it gained in the news media and from politicians, undoubtedly contributed to the sharp decline in animal rights extremist attacks in the UK since 2005.
The lesson is that while law enforcement plays a vital role in combating hate and extremism, it is also crucial that the friends and colleagues of those targeted take a public stand alongside those targeted by the extremists.
on November 4th, 2011 at 8:01 am
I really don’t take pills or go to doctors, and I think a great deal of this research is duplicative and unnecessary. Nonetheless, murdering conspecifics is way over the top, and I do eat meat, as do my animals.
on November 4th, 2011 at 8:24 am
“If you have time to think about it and form your own conclusions, my words cease being the impetus.”
Just the kind of utilitarian-legalistic self-justification one would expect from a former investment banker (maybe her activism is guilt-driven). And once again, we find someone trying to advance a belief in the transcendent value of life by endorsing murder. So yes, “emotion and passion” but not much thinking — at least, that’s my own conclusion drawn from the impetus of her words.
on November 4th, 2011 at 11:03 am
The degree of hypocrisy of an animal rights groups is astounding. Marino claims she didn’t want to be on a blog with “…madmen, hatemongers…. groups I despise” when in fact her group is classic hate mongering. The followers of these sites are reasonable with intents at protecting animals, however, the leadership are ego-maniacal, self-centered attention starved idiots who simply use an easy platform for the masses in order to develop followings to feed their empty souls. The worst ones love to find the inherently violent elements of society to do their dirty work, while they maintain ‘innocence’. All of this is just violent people using any excuse to conduct their violence. Notice that none of these people actually contribute any financial or personal time to actually working towards animal welfare. Millions of dogs and cats die in shelters every year due to being unwanted, whereas a fraction of that number are actually killed in research for an attempt at benefitting from the animal’s death (although not always the case, at least the intent is there). Thousands of children die in this country every year due to abuse or malnutrition or disease but they claim that rats and mice and dogs are somehow more important than those issues. Quite the non sequitor and more proof that they are not about the cause, they are only in it for the violence.
on November 4th, 2011 at 11:48 am
I grew up in Birmingham during the civil rights strife of the 1960s. I know what hate crimes are all about having reported on a goodly share of such violence. Now, dealing with animal rights activists with veiled and not-so-veiled threats against researchers, it’s saddening that not much has changed. Wackos who refuse to participate in civil society still exercise the same kind of insane selective logic in what they consider a holy cause. But the fact that they are idiots does not mean they are not dangerous. Having been spotlighted by Camille and NIO in the past, I’m unshaken by her rhetoric. But it’s clear that others, students for example, remain in harm’s way. Folks like Camille should not be ignored as the threats they actually are.
on November 4th, 2011 at 11:49 am
Charles Manson never actually committed murder either.
on November 4th, 2011 at 12:18 pm
There’s a simple solution to all this. Anti-vivisectionists need to put their bodies where their mouths are — and volunteer to be test subjects for all the studies which presently need animal subjects.
Otherwise their stance is just hypocrisy.
on November 4th, 2011 at 12:29 pm
Barking moonbat. Plain and simple.
on November 4th, 2011 at 2:42 pm
“…in fact her group is classic hate mongering….”
Could you explain how they are the same? To be honest, I’m not seeing it. While one may disagree with certain animal rights groups tactically, or with the sentiments of the movement in general, I fail to see how any of it can be compared to the behavior of “classic” hatemongers (i.e., the Ku Klutz Klan, neo-Nazis, etc). They are on opposite sides of the political spectrum, the animal rights activists do not hate broad groups of people, and they do not attack civil rights for marginalized sectors of the population.
on November 4th, 2011 at 3:17 pm
Do you need to be on one side of the political spectrum, or hate “broad groups of people”, or attack civil rights in order to be a hate monger?
IMO, the hypocrite in the article is a hate monger because she is fostering and encouraging hate.
on November 4th, 2011 at 4:25 pm
In crime and law, hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, class, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, social status or political affiliation. This does not have to be based on broad groups of people. Simply promoting violence and harassment against even one person because they do not believe as the agitator does is a hate crime.
on November 4th, 2011 at 5:25 pm
I am amazed that some would suggest this person is not promoting hate. It is remarkable that in this day and age people will still use language like that and hide behind their ‘beliefs’. Well done to those that pointed out all the better ways this person could expend their energy. There is so much hate and hardship in the world, stirring up more is not helpful. yes there should be a voice for those that cannot speak for themselves, that is why laws have been founded. If you feel these laws are not adequate, strive to change the laws, you cannot induce change through hatred, bullying, fear-mongering tactics. Change will only ever come from within, it is the only change that lasts. Well done to David Jentsch and the students of Florida whom continue to be proud of the good they are trying to do the world. Please continue, for those that suffer from disease need a voice to speak for them also.
on November 4th, 2011 at 6:55 pm
One of these freaks that believes that it is OK to spill the blood of those of us who are engaged in animal research in medicine will run into someone like me….. a combat veteran who has actually has spilled human blood with no regrets. If the NIO or ALF come around my place at night, the meat wagon can pick them up in the morning…. again, no regrets. Threaten me or my family and you suffer the extreme consequences…. you will NOT see the dawn.
on November 4th, 2011 at 10:07 pm
While I differ with PETA, we must have humane treatment of animals Most people who believe in humane treatment of animals share views such as mine. It’s better if people are vegetarian, but if people eat meat, the animal must be humanely killed. I have friends who are hunters & have no problem with food hunting as long as the animal is swiftly killed-they must require marksmanship for hunters. I also have no problem with hunting if it is to reduce animal overpopulatoin & to reduce diseases such as diseases among deer. Incidentally, I’d rather have a hunter swiftly kill a rabbit with a high powered gun than have a python kill a rabbit. Now animal rights groups will critique me & talk about nature regarding the python but nature can be cruel & animals can cruelly kill their prey. Anyhow, please don’t make generalizations (generalisations). Most people who believe in humane treatment of animals share my view. In fact, most people believe animals should be treated humanely as dog is man’s best friend. Some animals are worthier as we people have friendships with dogs, cats & horses while most of us don’t have that friendship with rodents.
on November 5th, 2011 at 7:31 am
It is despicable that scientists are targeted and threatened by people claiming to want to save animal rights. David Jentsch, like so many scientists before him has to go through a very disciplined approach with regard to in-vivo research. There are grants, which are heavily scrutinized and these days rarely funded, APS (Animal Procedure Study forms) which are heavily evaluated for the need to do research on animals, veterinary over-site and review of each scientist, peer reviewed journals which refuse to publish work not on par with the USDA guidelines. I stand like so many in-vivo scientists, worried about the threats. This is a hate crime, the anti-vivsectionist, Camille Marino, is a terrorist! Not a misguided youth, a terrorist.
on November 5th, 2011 at 8:20 am
I have more respect for Greenpeace, since this group is targetting actual “animal abusers”. Take for example: their latest target is the tuna industry–primarily that of “Chicken of the Sea”. The methods this corporate industry uses, is atrociously destructive to the ocean and the needless death other sea animals that also feed off of these fishes. Its imperative that people/public should be aware of what “Chicken of the Sea” is doing out there in the ocean. Greenpeace uses non-violent means to expose the hideous truth about such corporate industries who abuse and destroy animal life.
I think this “Animal Liberation” group should focus its efforts on saving the White Sumatran Tigers in the quickly diminishing jungles in Southeast Asia. These awesome tigers are nearly exstinct. They should focus on causes that are intent on destroying a specific species of animals. Such as those Tigers. Rather than those in the medical research field.
on November 5th, 2011 at 9:14 am
I agree with The Scarlet Pimpernel: anti-vivisectionists are hypocrites. They will be the first to ask for diagnosis and therapeutics developed with lab animals.
We need to underscore that most animals living in research centers have a better life than in the wild. They are well fed, safe from predators and assured of a painless death. In our mouse colony, they have sex and live 10X longer than in the wild. What they lack is freedom, a human concept they don’t care about.
on November 5th, 2011 at 12:56 pm
“Hatred” for whom? How is it a hate crime? If you are suggesting that this group hates scientists, that is wrong, because they purposefully targeted this particular scientist for experimenting with fruit flies. Animal liberation groups believe that all animal testing is abuse, and when someone tests on animals, the animal liberation groups come after them. It is not hate for any specific group nor is it a form of discrimination, because it is an expression of disgust at the practice, and only one of contempt for the scientist insofar as s/he is “abusing” animals.
on November 5th, 2011 at 2:01 pm
Bumper sticker for anti-vivisectionists: I do not wish to be treated with any procedures or medications that have tested on animals.
Your options will be limited in a hurry, I can guarantee that!!
The only form of animal research that is, in my opinion, unethical is cosmetics research. That’s just cruel. Use human volunteers, who give full consent.
on November 6th, 2011 at 6:12 pm
As for cosmetics research, it is the way that is done that is cruel. As someone who was briefly on the show circuit, I can testify that there are some vain little animals who don’t mind being powdered, puffed, and painted, so long as they get plenty of admiration for it. What is inexcusable is to drip this stuff into their eyes or make them drink it, or to apply it in any manner that a person wouldn’t use on themselves. And yes, there should be plenty of human volunteers if the right enticements are offered- everything from free makeup or grooming kits to free nose jobs.
on November 6th, 2011 at 8:39 pm
Both my neighbor and I wear leather shoes, eat meat, and feed our pets meat.
I work with rats to try and find a treatment (hopefuly a cure) for various autoimmune diseases. My rats are bred for this purpose, they are kept warm, well fed, handled with care, and I use anesthetics overdose to euthanize all my rats. I only uise the very minimum to generate statistically-significant data.
My neighbor, on the other hand, uses sticky pads to trap mice that enter her garage and attic when it gets cold outside and lets them die of starvation before throwing them in the trash. Such inhumane treatment of rodents would never be allowed in a research lab without serious justifications, but any random person can (and many do) buy them from hardware stores and trap and kill hundreds of wild rodents this way.
on November 7th, 2011 at 7:05 am
Hatred diminishes us as a species, and while it fuels extremist movements, it can only destroy. Unlike the work of Dr. Jentsch and the dedicated professionals who value and care for the animals they study and those they try to help (human and non-human), extremists do nothing but poison our world.
It is too sad.
on November 7th, 2011 at 9:50 am
Human exploitation of non-human animals is always morally wrong. Even if research on animals was effective in treating human disease, which it is not, it would still be unconscionable. Other animals are our cousins and possess all the senses and feelings as human animals. If our lives are sacred, so are theirs. The causes of human misery can be found in our treatment of our sentient cousins. Devaluing the rights of any sentient being means devaluing human rights.
The fact that one cannot reliably predict the effects of a drug on humans by testing on animals is proven in every press release issued by “researchers” about the latest “cure” in mice or other non-human animals. They always warn that results are not necessarily predictive of human response. That is the only truthful statement these vivisectors ever make. Human testing almost always shows their claims to be illusory. These false positives are indicative of a wasteful, self regulating industry that exists to enrich itself, not to enhance human health.
In addition, animal testing give false negatives, eliminating drugs which are ineffective or toxic to other species, that could be of benefit to humans. We will never know. Other modalities exist which if pursued, could give better information at a fraction of the cost.
Even if the above were not true, abusing animals for human purposes remains immoral. The misery we cause is horrific. The rationalizations that the lives they live in laboratories is preferable to them living the lives nature intended are laughably self serving. Humans need to get past the cultural indoctrination that our animal cousins are here for our use. They exist for their own purposes and there is no ethical justification for their exploitation by humans.
Some here have argued that any animal advocate who uses drugs developed through animal research is a hypocrite. Unfortunately, because of the self serving lies of the research community trying to protect their government funded gravy train, and despite the efforts of animal rights advocates, the FDA requires animal testing. Despite its inefficiencies, there is so much money wasted on this, once in a while, something actually works. That is despite animal testing, not because of it.
The only reliable data comes when the human testing phases begin. Animal advocates wish there was no animal testing and advocate for that. But if the government is controlled by a corrupt industry, then we have no choice but to use drugs that are produced in the only way our very flawed society currently allows. It is not our fault the system is so cruel and inefficient. We will continue to advocate for what is just and actively work to change that system.
Camille Marino does not advocate violence. The preferred method for her and other animal advocates is to bring the truth about the horrors and inefficiencies of modern medical research to the light of day. However, we are facing an entrenched, well financed industry, which has caused laws to be enacted that protects their evil, exploitative enterprises.
Our only weapon against them is our First Amendment rights. That means verbal confrontations wherever they are, be it at work, at their golf clubs and yes, in their homes. It means letting their family and friends know the misery they cause and making them uncomfortable. That is nothing compared to the awful tortuous misery they create.
I am deeply disappointed by the SPLC for involving themselves on the side of oppression, misery and deception. Our sentient cousins deserve better.
on November 7th, 2011 at 11:12 am
Ron,
Prove to me these animals are sentient. Especially the fruit flies. And what you just described was harassment. Nothing less.
And of course Marino advocates violence. She’s just too scared to do it herself.
Aron
on November 7th, 2011 at 12:41 pm
Rob Roberts. I have one question for you.
Have you actually looked at Marino’s website?
It that isn’t a hate group I really don’t know what is!
Camille Marino is very clear in her support for violence and intimidation, people like her are an insult to the 1st amendment.
on November 7th, 2011 at 1:46 pm
@Jonas Rand.
Ms Marino and Dr. Best must be considered a hate group for the same way that anti-abortionists targeting medical doctors are. These doctors are targeted because of a practice that we, as a society, find it morally permissible and legal. Instead of working to change the laws these groups use violence, threats and intimidation to impose their views on the rest of society. There is no doubt they qualify as hate groups and it would be wonderful to see SPLC acknowledge that by including them in their hate map.
As for political affiliation. Does it matter? Hate is hate. It doesn’t matter if it comes from the left or right. The only thing that matters is that these 1% of radicals get to control the civil conversation the remaining 99% of society wants to have. We must stop them. It is the 99% of moderates that must come together to denounce these lunatics for what they are.
on November 7th, 2011 at 2:54 pm
Aron, we are all related, sharing the same bodily systems, evolutionary history and DNA. If we are sentient, so are other animals. Rather than focus on fruit flies, explain to me how some primates are sentient and others are not.
No animal activist, however radical, has ever physically harmed any living, feeling, thinking being in any of their actions. Vivisectors like David Jentsch do so every moment of every day. They are the violent ones and the true terrorists. Why would anyone be so obsessed with one woman standing up for poor, innocent beings without a voice, when the people she exposes cause millions of our non-human cousins unspeakable misery for their own profit?
The true insult to the First Amendment are those businesses, lobbyists and corrupt politicians who, utilizing an obscure Congressional rule, pushed through passage of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) with only five representatives present. The SPLC is now supporting those who would take away the freedoms guaranteed by our founding fathers.
on November 7th, 2011 at 3:00 pm
@Ron: Better to be silent and thought a fool, than to write 9 paragraphs and remove all doubt.
on November 7th, 2011 at 4:28 pm
@Ron: Causing property damage and destroying other people’s work, not to mention setting medical science back years, is immoral. Period.
on November 7th, 2011 at 5:53 pm
Ron,
Perhaps you aren’t familiar with the meaning of ‘sentience.’ Here’s the Websters definition:
Main Entry: sen·tient
Pronunciation: \?sen(t)-sh(?-)?nt, ?sen-t?-?nt\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin sentient-, sentiens, present participle of sentire to perceive, feel
Date: 1632
1 : responsive to or conscious of sense impressions
2 : aware
3 : finely sensitive in perception or feeling
— sen·tient·ly adverb
DNA has nothing to do with it. Prove to me fruitflies or even dogs (and I’m the biggest dog lover you’ll ever find) are not sentient. Which is to say self-aware. That’s a big difference.
And I’m not even going to touch your claims that animal activists have never hurt anyone.
Aron
on November 7th, 2011 at 6:01 pm
@Ron,
Sentience is not a binary attribute. As many other morally relevant properties it is graded in nature. To argue that a mouse or monkey has the same level of sentience, emotion or cognition than a normal human is simply wrong.
Animal activists have caused uncountable damage and harm. When people feel terrorized in their own homes, when they receive calls threatening their children, when they see their cars go up in flames in the middle of the night, that’s all harm — both psychological and physical.
It is a blatant abuse of our freedom of speech to incite to violence with the only goal to advance a social goal. Moreover, it is hypocritical for AR extremists that lack respect for democratic society to shield themselves with free speech when convenient. A quick look at the NIO web site reveals a clear anarchist culture. Anarchists that, nevertheless, want their free speech protected?
on November 8th, 2011 at 7:57 am
@Ron
You said:
“Other modalities exist which if pursued, could give better information at a fraction of the cost”
Could you enlighten us?
Also, your comment, here:
“Rather than focus on fruit flies, explain to me how some primates are sentient and others are not.”
Are we agreed, then, that fruit flies are not sentient? If so, could you please voice your agreement that harassment of
the undergraduate studying fruit flies was completely unjustified?
And lastly:
“Camille Marino does not advocate violence.”
Are you on drugs, or just functionally retarded? It astounds me that you can write that with no hint of irony. The level cognitive dissonance on display, here, is palpable.
on November 8th, 2011 at 8:25 am
Ron,
If SPLC wants to do a follow up on animal rights hate groups, it would be well advised to look at your South Florida Smash HLS, where members use Westboro Baptist Church style tactics to harass scientists, veterinarians, animal caretakers, business owners and others at their work and home.
And Ron, I’ll bet you are glad you had antibiotics and painkillers to get over your dog bite this summer. You and your dog recovered because of animal research. Thank the animals that led scientists to develop these treatments for humans and animals!
on November 8th, 2011 at 11:21 am
Ron “No animal activist, however radical, has ever physically harmed any living, feeling, thinking being in any of their actions. ”
Ron, your lies are getting tedious. Just ask Brian Cass, who was attached by baseball bat wielding AR thugs, or Peter Taylor, who was injured when an AR letter bomb exploded.
And of course there have been many other cases where it’s only through good fortune that animal rights extremists dis not seriously hurt or kill their victims http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/feb/01/maryohara
http://speakingofresearch.com/.....extremism/
And don’t even get me started about the number of animals that have died – or decimated the local wildlife – after being “liberated” by AR extremists http://blogs.seattleweekly.com.....activi.php
on November 8th, 2011 at 11:40 am
Indeed, I hope SPLC follows up on this story with a wider coverage of radical animal rights groups. I have noticed they have indeed covered some past criminal acts (such as the attempted murder of a researcher and his family at UCSC and fire bombings at UCLA). Perhaps it is now time to concentrate on the intellectual leaders of the movement, such as Dr. Steve Best at UT El Paso. Such individuals deserve equal attention from SPLC as any other academic that might be inciting to violence against abortion doctors, blacks or jews.
Can we imagine what would happen if a Professor in a respectable university were to say that violence against blacks is justified? Why is Dr. Best allow to provide intellectual support to hate organizations like NIO? It baffles the mind that this individual has retained his tenure. Doesn’t UT El Paso have a faculty code of ethics as any other respectable academic institution? Perhaps a call from SPLC to the UT President Office would provide some answers?
on November 8th, 2011 at 1:39 pm
I don’t understand how people can claim that non-human primates are not self aware, when institutions like the University of Wisconsin-Madison have published journals that say otherwise.
http://www.plosone.org/article.....12865.s002
on November 8th, 2011 at 5:14 pm
Jason,
I never said that non-human primates are not self-aware. Some of them all. But not all of them.
Ron claimed that ALL animals are self-aware. And that makes us ALL of us aware that he is a fool.
Aron
on November 8th, 2011 at 6:37 pm
Amazing… Some of the text in the NIO extremist web site strikes me as awfully close to criminal solicitation.
http://definitions.uslegal.com.....icitation/
“A person is guilty of solicitation to commit a crime if, with the purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission, he commands, encourages or requests another person to engage in specific conduct which would constitute such crime or an attempt to commit such crime or which would establish his complicity in its commission or attempted commission. It is immaterial that the actor fails to communicate with the person he solicits to commit a crime if his conduct was designed to effect such a communication.”
on November 9th, 2011 at 9:49 am
Justin,
Solicitation? No, no, no! Animal rights activists would NEVER encourage violence!
Ha!
on November 9th, 2011 at 11:51 am
@Aron,
You are right. I simply forgot the “animal rights” movement is one based on compassion.
Seriously, I hope some of these researchers of the universities would take the text of their website to the courts and have them decide if this amounts to criminal solicitation or not.
on November 9th, 2011 at 3:32 pm
All,
I must say, when I refer to AR organizations, I am of course referring to extremists. I have a great deal of respect for the ASPCA and donate money to them and their fellows charities as often as I can.
There’s a big difference between charity and direct action.
on November 9th, 2011 at 4:06 pm
@Aron,
Same here. Lots of respect for ASPCA… but not much for PeTA nor HSUS. Having said that, I would note that none of these organizations take enough time to condemn the violent elements within their movement. Apparently, they fail to recognize the damage they can do to them.
on November 9th, 2011 at 5:56 pm
It is sad that this has been taken to such extremes. As a pre-clinical researcher, I am happy that concerns over animal well-being in research have brought about a greater appreciation of the need to respect, care, and use animals appropriately for research. Yet, for the more radical groups to be so ignorant as to the need and benefits of this type of research produces such unnecessary ill-will and pits researchers and activists against one another. It would be far more beneficial to develop a collaborative team in which both sides would continue to work to improve the lives of those animals that give so much to mankind.
on November 10th, 2011 at 6:22 am
@wlcomeau – Animals “give” nothing – Everything they have is taken by force… Anyone who uses this term is trapped in the Golden Books where cows “let down” their milk and wool and eggs are generously provided by sheep and hens.
I think calling something for what it is is a great first step towards viewing the issues for the reality that it is… These are helpless, sentient beings whose bodies are exploited for profit. Go from there with the truth and it’s no wonder “science” that uses nonhumans is becoming so greatly contested.
The “deal” was to “reduce, refine, replace” in order to maintain an “ethical” position – Clearly with the continued use – indeed the EXPANSION of animal-testing this criteria has NOT been met. At what point will a lie be named as such – And what recourse is there when the lie is accepted as truth?
on November 10th, 2011 at 7:50 am
@Bea,
These animals are not sentient. Enough with the lies.
on November 10th, 2011 at 9:24 am
Whether it’s animal research or the recent undercover investigation of abuse on factory farms, not enough is done to stop the cruelty and punish the abusers. If laws were honestly passed and enforced, maybe the animal liberationists wouldn’t have so much ammunition to work with.
on November 10th, 2011 at 9:56 am
I am NOT an activist of any type, BUT the HELL that is inflicted on animals in this country is appalling, and something has to be done.
I disagree strongly with their methods, but watch on HSUS video on the way animals are treated, and you will never forget it.
Compassion for animals is common among the good guys, but not among the bad ones. One of the surest signs that a biblical figure is a player in God’s redemptive plan is the person’s decency to the beasts of the field. Humane treatment of animals is seen here with Noah and will be repeated by Moses, Rebecca, Laban, and a host of others. It is not a coincidence that Christ is referred to as the ‘Good Shepherd’.
As St. Francis of Assisi said: “If you have men who will exclude any of God’s creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise with their fellow men.”
After watching some of the videos on the way animals are treated across our society makes one point very clearly – - who are the REAL animals, and it is not of the four-legged kind.
on November 10th, 2011 at 10:41 am
You post home addresses,pictures, and phone numbers of people on that site in a section that is called “most wanted”, at the same time you are calling them murderers,sadists and other vile things and you’r site link’s to guid’es on how make bomb’s and arson if you are not trying to incite by doing that what the hell is point of doing this?
on November 10th, 2011 at 10:53 am
I wonder if animal rights zealots are guided by some extremist religious view, or just mental illness. Life consumes life to survive. using the logic of animal rights extremeists people who would kill people who kill animals, then they must favor killing animals that kill other animals for food. That would pretty much wipe out a sizeable chunk of the animal kingdon. I know a militant Vegan who put her dog on a vegan diet- and sure enough, it died from malnutrition. Consuming animals as food is how nature works. And interesting how the animal rights cult decided that only sentient lifeforms have any value. Isn’t that ‘species racist’? Most of these hardcore animals rights people have serious mental health problems- they can’t connect to their fellow human being, feel hatred for humanity, and find justification in that hatred by joing the animal rights cult mindset. Most hardcore animal rights people I have met despise humanity.
on November 10th, 2011 at 12:05 pm
If the NIO believe this researcher is public enemy #1, they’ve apparently never been to an animal control facility or kill ‘shelter.’
on November 10th, 2011 at 12:10 pm
@Bea,
It is true that animals “give” nothing. Indeed, much research involves taking their lives but in a way that minimizes their pain and suffering with the use of analgesics and anesthetics. Society believes that such work is morally permissible because it has the goal of eliminating the suffering that illness brings to human kind and no other options are available a the present time.
Animal activists may disagree with the ethical or scientific basis of such a position, but if they want to be part of a democratic society where moral disputes are resolved via civil discussion they ought to learn the rules of engagement. Their threats, intimidation and harassment are not to be tolerated any more.
on November 10th, 2011 at 2:53 pm
These animal rights folks never seem to remember that in nature animal are hunted and killed all the time. That is just the circle of life, some feed on vegetation and others feed on them and then their bodies feed the vegetation. Perhaps someone should remind them that the place in nature for vegetarians is as prey, and that humans are further along the food chain. It is our natural place in life to kill and eat meat, just as other omnivores do.
on November 10th, 2011 at 4:23 pm
While i am against animal testing myself, i find what these morons do as terrorism plain & simple. There are others ways of going about ending this type of testing, but threatening to harm people or vandalizing their property, will never achieve anything positive.
on November 11th, 2011 at 9:12 am
While I oppose militant action, I recognize that nonhumans are personal beings who can think, feel, experience emotions, and who rightfully belong to themselves. Thus, our sense of fairness should admit that animal research is wrong and the animal model should be replaced. In fact, animal research also fails in the study and treatment of human diseases.
Lab animals experience physical and emotional pain. Indeed, pain relief has often been witheld because it is thought to compromise research. And unlike other animals who almost always kill for survival, most humans have a choice of food. We are the only animal who kills for gratuitous reasons. The history of agriculture shows that human oppression is rooted in the domestication of other animals. In my view, it’s a good idea to “strike the root”.
on November 11th, 2011 at 9:26 am
Research is one thing and factory farming is another. Chickens and pigs will eat you if you fall down among them and can’t get up but I believe that all of our commonly eaten meats are becoming less healthy by the use of hormones and antibiotics anyway. Combine that with the environmental concerns and the waste of them eating grain first, and it’s pretty clear that our diet will become more and more vegetarian.
on November 11th, 2011 at 12:48 pm
Camille is the biggest hypocrite it has ever been my displeasure to exchange emails with. Animal rights? She doesn’t give a rat’s ass about animals! Here’s the truth: Camille hates PEOPLE. Next time you have the misfortune to speak to her remember to ask her about the cat she STARVED TO DEATH by insisting it eat a vegan (and totally inappropriate) diet. You might also ask her just exactly what role she played in the DEATH of her own mother. She was quite candid about this with me and if you go through the mass of archived emails on her NIO site you’ll find her admissions are all there. She is very smart but, she is also a KOOK of the highest order and a very dangerous one at that. No, I doubt she’d ever pull the trigger (though maybe she might “trip” over the plug wire) on anyone in person but, she’d be there in the room egging them on. Basically, she’s a monomaniacal space cadet with delusions of grandeur and a coward to boot. Who knows, maybe she’s an agent provocateur. The only upside to her lifestyle is that she’ll more than likely die young as a result of her highly dangerous dietary habits.
on November 11th, 2011 at 4:35 pm
Aron, most nonhuman animals (dogs, rats, cows, cats, bears, snakes, even cockroaches, etc.) do have self awareness. The mirror test is only one example.
on November 11th, 2011 at 8:38 pm
Ellie,
Yup. Because when I show my dog, a beagle/border collie (two of the smartest breeds) a mirror, he realizes he’s looking at himself, right?
Wrong. He looks at it and keeps walking.
If there was a smell, he might think it belonged to him. But there is no self-awareness.
But I’ll give you a fighting chance to prove what I feel are silly ideas. Present to me an article from, say, ‘Nature,’ supporting your position. I think such an eminent journal would be appropriate for such momentous findings.
The ball, as they say, is in your court.
on November 11th, 2011 at 10:00 pm
The SPLC has a history of denouncing radical animal rights activists? How many of them are on the hate list?
on November 12th, 2011 at 3:23 pm
Heya, Dickie!
How about the Animal Liberation Front? Is that good enough for you?
Maybe you need to keep looking for those terrorist training camps.
on November 13th, 2011 at 12:31 am
Aron, while dogs apparently don’t recognize themselves in a mirror, they demonstrate self awareness in other ways. For example, they understand hierarchy, so they must have an idea of themselves in relation to others. Another example, when dogs are in distress, they have an awareness that something in relation to themselves is not what it should be. And no doubt they are aware of their own physical sensations. There are probably other examples, but I think dogs (and many other animals) clearly have a sense of themselves / aka self awareness.
Btw, funny thing about dogs and a mirror test — I wouldn’t say my dogs demonstrated self recognition, but they also didn’t bark as they certainly did bark at other dogs. So why not? I don’t know what they were thinking, but it seems they didn’t see the mirror as another dog either.
How would a dog show self recognition in a mirror anyway? How do dolphins and elephants show it? They don’t have hands to point to something as chimpanzees do. I imagine the most dogs could do is show an interest.
I think some scientists are way too arrogant. Because some researchers decided a mirror test was a valid measure of self awareness, nothing else counts? If they were willing to think beyond the lab, they would find other examples of self awareness.
Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson is a psychologist who studied nonhuman animals, and found they think and feel a whole lot more than we usually give them credit for. As did Mark Bekoff, former Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, who shows nonhumans are emotional beings.
on November 13th, 2011 at 4:02 pm
Ellie,
I asked for proof. You gave me names. Obviously you know what I’m talking about.
Self awareness and awareness of physical sensation are two wholly separate conditions. One requires conscious mentation. The other merely requires a functioning nervous system.
While I will never claim that animals involved in research live ideal existences, I believe that researchers attempt to make the animals as comfortable as is possible. Unnecessarily Stressed subjects give false results.
Please, I would be very intrigued to read relevant scholarly articles. And I would be more than happy to change my opinion. Just provide the proof.
on November 13th, 2011 at 10:24 pm
Aron, what proof are you looking for? Are you saying
emotions and an understanding of hierarchy are not
indications of self awareness? If so, I disagree. Even
physical sensation involves some degree of self recognition.
That this is a new field of study is not surprising — because science uses animals, it’s easier for researchers to be unaware of what they’re capable of thinking and feeling. As James Masson explained, the subject of nonhuman emotions is taboo: “When an elephant gets emotional”: http://www.independent.co.uk/n.....21235.html
Nevertheless, some scientists have been willing to venture into forbidden territory:
“Mice in the Sink, On the Expression
of Empathy in Animals” by Jessica Pierce: http://www.environmentalphilos.....Pierce.pdf
From Science Daily:
“New Research Finds Some Animals Know Their Cognitive Limits”: http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....071311.htm
“Rats Capable Of Reflecting On Mental Processes”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....121856.htm
“Evidence Points To Conscious ‘Metacognition’ In Some Nonhuman Animals”:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....172644.htm
Also
“Do Animals Have Emotions? Of course they do!” by Marc Bekoff: http://www.newworldlibrary.com.....fault.aspx
There are more articles available on the web, and books by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson — “The Pig Who Sang to the Moon, the Emotional World of Farm Animals” and several others.
on November 13th, 2011 at 10:38 pm
To All: It’s important to understand that car bombings and the like do not represent animal rights advocacy. The assumption here is that David Jentsch’s car was bombed by an animal rights activist, but if this person was, he would eschew violence. See “Capers in the Churchyard: Animal Rights Advocacy in the Age of Terror” by Lee Hall.
on November 13th, 2011 at 10:58 pm
Denis Alexander said, Sentience is not a binary attribute. As many other morally relevant properties it is graded in nature. To argue that a mouse or monkey has the same level of sentience, emotion or cognition than a normal human is simply wrong.
————
They don’t have the same level of cognition as average humans, but they experience pain and emotions just like we do. And they have a personal interest in their well being, just as we do in ourselves. The line between humans and other animals is a convenient illusion.
on November 13th, 2011 at 11:13 pm
Numero 10 said, I work with rats to try and find a treatment (hopefuly a cure) for various autoimmune diseases. My rats are bred for this purpose, they are kept warm, well fed, handled with care, and I use anesthetics overdose to euthanize all my rats. I only uise the very minimum to generate statistically-significant data.
My neighbor, on the other hand, uses sticky pads to trap mice that enter her garage and attic when it gets cold outside and lets them die of starvation before throwing them in the trash. Such inhumane treatment of rodents would never be allowed in a research lab without serious justifications,
————
What possible justifications could there be? And two wrongs don’t make a right.
on November 13th, 2011 at 11:46 pm
concerned citizen said, “animal research is intended to benefit mankind, it is critical to screening new therapies and making sure those therapies are safe.”
———–
Animal research is intended to mitigate the pharmaceutical company’s responsibillity in law suits that follow when drugs harm humans.
on November 15th, 2011 at 7:50 am
It’s all good fun that you write these long articles and stuff but you don’t seem to understand that this is a war. We don’t care about the criticisms you have. While the comparison to a baker is not entirely helpful it does have merit. Vivisectors never willingly publish pictures of what they do precisely because it is so horrific. At least this time you have actually got some quotes instead of spouting nonsense about how the ALF act like anti-abortion activists. As much as you may like that analogy noone has ever come close to being killed by the ALF. Until that time comes pipe down with your exaggerations.
on November 15th, 2011 at 8:05 am
p.s. Aron the ALF is neither left wing not right wing
on December 10th, 2011 at 10:37 pm
To say no testing based on animal research has helped to treat or cure human ailments is asinine. Snake venom is used in alzheimers, cancer and other medical research. Insulin and horses, pig organs and so on. I mean seriously…..snake anti venom is from snake venom! Groups like ALF want no research whatsoever and not even animals for food, clothing or pets. Total vegan society. So where are we supposed to grow those vegetables? On decimated wildlife habitats cleared for plowing. And then water them by draining the wetlands and swamps. Great way to save the animals there.
Next time the animal rights extremists decide to splash some red paint, they should try it on leather clad bikers instead of old ladies.
on December 15th, 2011 at 1:35 pm
Robert W, that we may have benefited from some animal exploitation does not justify it, or suggest we can’t obtain the same or greater benefits in other ways.
Animal agriculture uses more water and other resources, and creates more greenhouse gases than the transportation industry. The following article published in the Cornell University News explains further: http://www.news.cornell.edu/re.....k.hrs.html
And as Earth Save explains: http://www.earthsave.org/environment.htm
“It takes 2,500 gallons of water, 12 pounds of grain, 35 pounds of topsoil and the energy equivalent of one gallon of gasoline to produce one pound of feedlot beef ……. 70% of US grain production is fed to livestock.
5 million acres of rainforest are felled every year in South and Central America alone to create cattle pasture.
Roughly 20% of all currently threatened and endangered species in the US are harmed by livestock grazing.
Animal agriculture is a chief contributor to water pollution. America’s farm animals produce 10 times the waste produced by the human population……. (continued)”
on December 22nd, 2011 at 2:13 pm
“Vivisectors never willingly publish pictures of what they do precisely because it is so horrific.”
By the way, where are the pictures of the cat that Marino killed by experimenting on it with a vegan diet? (An incident that makes her a liar when claiming never to have committed a crime as well as a hypocrite.)
It must be a charming photo album.
on March 18th, 2012 at 9:03 pm
You published quotes against an interviewed person specifically stated wishes, what a high standard of excellence and ethics! :( x 100000
It’s sad you drag people trying to do valuable anti racism, anti homophobia, through the mud of your overtly dishonorable statist and corporatist agenda and utter lack of journalistic ethics, shame!
on April 10th, 2012 at 10:06 pm
It is very sad to see people (Pamela) how she says that she feels for the hell that her friend David Jentsch aka murder, has went through over the past year ,But the bigger question should be throughout that year of hell he went through he went to work day after day to TORTURE Primates and other animals.I feel that problems in a persons life is a result of things that they have done past and present .To those of you that say vivsector help mankind ,they also said that about Slavery.PS to SPLC you label Marino NIO as a hate group because they speak out aganist vivisectors, if they spoke for a humans you would praise them . VERY SADDEN