n tests sur animaux horreur , mensonge = "aucune' cruauté!

Là, ils parlent des cigarettes testées sur les animaux :

www.smokinganimals.com

http://forum.doctissimo.fr/nutrition/vegetarien/marque-concernant-rouler-sujet_1624_1.htm

Là, ils parlent des cigarettes testées sur les animaux. Il y a des photos choquantes :

www.stopvivisection.info/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=6

antispecismenord.canalblog.com

http://veganrevolution.free.fr/articles3/tabac.html

www.cah-research.com/french_version/animal_model_fr/introduction.htm

News du 10 octobre 2006.

cIGARETTES TEST2ES SUR LES ANIMAUX

Quand on dit tabagisme passif, on pense à la fumée inhalée « au passage » par les proches et surtout les enfants et même les foetus.

Ce que l'on ne sait pas c'est que nos animaux de compagnie eux aussi en profitent.

Les chiens et même les chats fument quand leurs maîtres fument. Et les conséquences sont graves. On s'en doutait ; différents tests menés en laboratoire avaient montré que la fumée de tabac donnaient des cancers à de nombreux types d'animaux de laboratoire. Les hamsters développaient plutôt des tumeurs du larynx, alors que les rats et les souris avaient un sur-risque de cancer du poumon. Ca c'est de l'expérimentation mais ce danger existe aussi quand vous fumez chez vous. Des études très complètes ont été menés. Pour le chien par exemple, un épidémiologiste John Reif a pris en compte de nombreux facteurs : le nombre de fumeurs dans la maison, le nombre de cigarettes fumées, le temps passé par le chien dans la maison, l'âge, le sexe, la taille et la forme du crâne du chien.

Ses conclusions sont incontestables : un chien exposé à la fumée de tabac de son maître a un risque à peu près deux fois plus élevé de développer un cancer du poumon qu'un chien de maître non fumeur. Ca c'est pour les chiens au museau court. En revanche, ceux qui ont un long nez (comme le berger allemand) ont un risque plus élevé de cancer nasal : ces chiens auraient un système de filtration supplémentaire et leur risque d'avoir un cancer à cet endroit serait donc supérieur.

Les signes précurseurs de la maladie chez le chien sont peu typiques : une toux chronique, une perte de poids et une fatigue anormale.

Et pour éviter cela, il n'y a qu'une solution : arrêter de fumer.

Plus récemment c'est l'impact du tabagisme humain chez le chat qui a été démontré. Celui-ci non seulement inhale la fumée ambiante, mais en plus il ingère des particules toxiques quand il se lèche pour faire sa toilette. Donc que ce soit par inhalation ou contact le tabac est nocif pour lui. Et pas un peu : Les chats de maîtres fumeurs sont deux fois plus susceptibles de contracter un cancer mortel, appelé lymphome, que les autres chats. Ce risque est triplé si le chat est exposé 5 ans ou si son maître fume au moins 20 cigarettes par jour. Et il est quadruplé quand ses deux maîtres fument. Ce lymphome est le cancer le plus commun chez le chat.Et il est grave, puisque 25 % des chats qui contractent cette maladie ne survivent pas plus d'un an, même sous chimiothérapie.Et ne cherchez pas d'autres coupables : les chercheurs se sont intéressés à l'influence du régime alimentaire, de la stérilisation de l'animal, de l'âge, du sexe, de la race, du mode de toilettage, du milieu de vie, de l'utilisation de produits anti-puces, de shampoing et même à la prise de médicaments par voie orale. Mais la fumée de cigarette a été le seul facteur significativement corrélé à l'apparition d'un cancer chez le chat dans cette étude.Les vétérinaires devraient informer leurs clients de ce risque.

Cet article a été écrit le 5 juin 2007.

Les cigarettes sont testées sur les animaux.

Le tabac est nocif et testé sur les animaux. Un nouveau tabac non testé sur animaux et sans additifs ? Pour les fumeurs irréductibles ?
http://veganrevolution.free.fr/articles3/tabac.html
Le tabac a systématiquement été testé sur les animaux. Des chiens, des primates, des cochons d'inde, des hamsters, des lapins, des moutons, des poulets, entre autres, ont dû subir - et subissent - des tests ininterrompus jusqu'à la mort.
Pourtant ils n'inhalent pas naturellement de la fumée. Les tests utilisent donc des ventilateurs mécaniques, des masques...
tout cela pour aboutir à une seule conclusion : le tabac ne donne pas le cancer à ces animaux, donc le tabac ne donne pas le cancer.
Voilà comment l'expérimentation animale, fraude scientifique, sert les intérêts des industries.
Des intérêts énormes et en conflit avec la santé des gens. Aujourd'hui, selon les chiffres de l'OMS (Organisation Mondiale de la Santé),
5 millions de personnes meurent chaque année en raison du tabac ;
65 millions de personnes en sont mortes depuis 50 ans.
Ce qui n'est pas très étonnant, vu que la fumée et les cigarettes contiennent plus de 5.000 composants, dont certains sont très dangereux pour l'organisme : le cyanure, l'arsenic, le méthanol, le goudron, le monoxyde de carbone et bien sûr, la nicotine.
C'est la nicotine qui provoque l'accoutumance; elle passe en 7 secondes dans le cerveau et est absorbé à 90% par le sang.
Des chiens à qui on met des électrodes sur le pénis pour voir les effets des cigarettes, des tests sur des foetus de primates...
une barbarie inutile à la base et le fait qu'elle continue montre à qui elle sert idéologiquement, et non pas soi-disant scientifiquement.

En achetant des cigarettes ou des cigares, on contribue à ce que les tests sur les animaux se perpétuent. Ces expériences sont financées par le lobby du tabac, donc avec l'argent des fumeurs.

Une pétition contre les tests sur les animaux pour faire les cigarettes :

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/759977084

Technology Review 08/2006, Fokus

Manfred Liebsch wechselte quasi über Nacht die Seiten. Bis 1988 untersuchte der Toxikologe neue Chemikalien an Mäusen, Ratten, Kaninchen und Hunden. Aus seinen Experimenten sollte er ableiten, wie die Stoffe auf den Menschen wirken. „Die Versuche dienten der Sicherheit des Menschen. Aber ich fand es zusehends schlimmer mit anzusehen, wie ein Kaninchen erblindete, weil die Substanz, die ich ihm ins Auge geträufelt hatte, das Organ reizte“, sagt Liebsch. Nach acht Jahren war Schluss mit den Tierversuchen. Liebsch kündigte und heuerte am Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung in Berlin an. Dort entwickelt er alternative Testmethoden, die ohne Tierversuche auskommen.
Der Test auf Augenreizung am Kaninchen ist zum Symbol für die grausame Seite mancher Tierversuche geworden. Eine schier endlose Debatte über die Notwendigkeit der Experimente kam in den 70er-Jahren in Schwung. Deutschland setzte in der Diskussion als erstes ein Zeichen. 1986 wurden Tierversuche für dekorative Kosmetika vom Lippenstift bis zur Wimperntusche verboten. Mehr als ein Jahrzehnt später, 1998, wurde das Verbot hierzulande auf alle Kosmetika ausgeweitet. Die EU zog nach. Seit 2005 ist europaweit Tierexperimenten mit Kosmetika ein Ende gesetzt.

Was die Inhaltsstoffe anbelangt, besteht derzeit jedoch lediglich die Vorgabe, tierversuchsfreie Alternativmethoden vorzuziehen, wenn die Behörden solche anerkennen. Problem dabei: Für viele Nebenwirkungen existiert bis heute kein anerkannter tierloser Test. Ob ein Stoff über mehrere Generationen hinweg Schaden bei den Nachkommen anrichtet, erfahren die Toxikologen nach wie vor nur aus einer Studie an Ratten. Neue kosmetische Wirkstoffe werden auf ihrem Weg aus dem Labor in den Einkaufswagen deshalb nach wie vor auch an Tieren getestet. Ein endgültiges Verbot will die Europäische Kommission in zwei Etappen durchbringen. Tierversuchsmethoden für kurzzeitige Gesundheitseffekte wie Haut- und Augenreizung müssen bis 2009 gestoppt sein. Die übrigen Prüfungen, die in erster Linie die langfristigen Nebenwirkungen auf die Gesundheit abklären, sollen bis 2013 umgestellt werden.

Technology Review 08/2006, Fokus

„Es dauert etwa ein Jahrzehnt, bis eine Methode entwickelt und dann rechtlich verbindlich ist“, sagt Liebsch. Erst 2004 hangelten sich vier tierversuchsfreie Methoden für die kosmetische Wirkstoffprüfung in die Bücher der Organisation für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung (OECD). Sie werden bei der Zulassung von Chemikalien, Kosmetika oder Arzneimitteln nahezu weltweit verwendet und akzeptiert. Ein kritischer Punkt für viele Innovationen in der Kosmetik ist ihre Wirkung auf die menschliche Hautbarriere. „Ein Wirkstoff, der bis in die Blutbahn durchschießt, hat von vornherein verloren. Deshalb ist die Prüfung der Hautpenetration auch die erste wichtige Hürde für jede neue interessante Substanz“, erklärt Walter Diembeck, Leiter der Abteilung Bioverträglichkeit, Forschung & Entwicklung der Beiersdorf AG in Hamburg.
Er und Liebsch haben einen tierfreien Test für die Hautdurchdringung maßgeblich mit entwickelt. Nach zwölf Jahren des Feilens und Prüfens wurde die herkömmliche Methode mit Ratten oder Schweinen von einem Experiment an isolierter Schweinehaut abgelöst. Dafür werden Tiere nicht eigens getötet, sondern lediglich die Abfälle genommen, die beim Schlachten übrig bleiben. „Die Schweinehaut ist der menschlichen Haut viel ähnlicher als etwa die einer Ratte“, sagt Diembeck. Die Rückenhaut des Schweins wird gereinigt, rasiert und auf Briefmarkengröße zugeschnitten.
An diesem Flecken Tierhaut wird getestet, wie weit ein neuer kosmetischer Wirkstoff eindringt. Ein neuer UV-Filter beispielsweise wird darauf verteilt, einmassiert und wirkt dann 24 Stunden ein. Zwischendurch nimmt Diembeck Proben aus verschiedenen Hautschichten und sieht nach, bis wohin der Stoff gewandert ist. Nach Möglichkeit sollte der Filter auf der Oberfläche bleiben und nicht in die Haut einziehen. Dagegen beantworten Gewebestücke aus gezüchteten menschlichen Hautzellen, so genannte Hautmodelle, die Frage, ob neue Schaumbildner oder Anti- Aging-Substanzen möglicherweise die Haut verätzen. Büßen die Zellen binnen drei Minuten an Vitalität ein, ist der Stoff sofort aus dem Rennen. Dem Menschen würde er sonst hässliche Narben zufügen.

Technology Review 08/2006, Fokus

Mit einem ähnlichen Test könnte bald auch geprüft werden, ob ein Anwärter für ein Schönheitsmittel eventuell die Haut reizt. Das könnte beim Menschen juckende Rötungen, Pusteln oder Quaddeln hervorbringen. „Am Hautmodell lässt sich solch ein Debakel glücklicherweise vorhersehen“, sagt Liebsch.
PLATZENDE ÄDERCHEN
Auch wenn Tierversuche immer nötig sein sollten, mit seiner Arbeit ist Liebsch zufrieden: „Wir haben schon einiges erreicht.“ Während in den 80er-Jahren noch mehr als 100 Tiere herhalten mussten, um die Giftigkeit eines Stoffes beim Verschlucken zu ermitteln, seien es heute weniger als zehn. Dennoch weiß auch er, dass noch ein hartes Stück Arbeit vor ihm und seinen Kollegen liegt, um Tierversuche weiter einzuschränken. Für die Vorhersage schädlicher Wirkung auf Fortpflanzung und Entwicklung fehlen bisher in weiten Teilen tierfreie Tests.
Selbst der Test am Kaninchenauge ist noch nicht aus den OECD-Vorschriften verschwunden. Zwar hat die EU-Kommission 2005 vier tierversuchsfreien Alternativen oberste Priorität eingeräumt, aber im Zweifel muss noch der Kaninchentest nachgeschoben werden. „Das kommt zum Glück nicht sehr oft vor. Im vergangenen Jahr hatten wir 440 solcher Tierversuche“, berichtet Liebsch. Bevor ein neuer Inhaltsstoff für Haut- oder Haarglätter in das Auge des Tieres geträufelt wird, muss er beispielsweise zuerst an einer Hühnereimembran getestet werden. Diese Membran umhüllt das Eigelb in einem etwa zehn Tage alten, bebrüteten Ei. Die dünne Haut ist ähnlich wie die Schleimhaut des Auges von feinen Blutgefäßen durchzogen. Lässt ein Wirkstoff die winzigen Äderchen der Membran platzen, fließt sofort Blut aus. Ein sicheres Zeichen dafür, dass der Stoff für die Kosmetik nichts taugt – der Test beim Kaninchen erübrigt sich.
Obwohl die Methode mit der Hühnerei-Membran seit Jahren praktiziert wird, stockt die Anerkennung bei den Behörden. Die Krux: Der Neuling muss sich mit den alten Tierversuchen messen. Doch deren Ergebnisse sind oft widersprüchlich. „Vor 25 Jahren hat man mit weniger strengen Standards gearbeitet“, sagt Beiersdorf-Forscher Diembeck. Außerdem ähnelt das Kaninchenauge gar nicht so sehr dem menschlichen, da es beispielsweise eine um 50 Prozent geringere Austauschrate der Tränenflüssigkeit aufweist.
Insofern sind die Daten aus den Kaninchentests also wenig aussagekräftig, und trotzdem muss sich jeder neue Test gegen sie behaupten – nicht der Mensch ist der Maßstab, sondern der alte Tierversuch. So schreibt es das Standardprozedere für die Anerkennung einer neuen Testmethode vor. „Wir müssen endlich anfangen zu akzeptieren, dass man aus Tierversuchen andere Erkenntnisse gewinnt als aus Zellkulturen oder Hautmodellen. Deshalb sind diese nicht notwendigerweise schlechter. Sie sind einfach anders“, resümiert Liebsch. „Entscheidend ist, aus welchem der beiden Tests man mehr für den Menschen lernen kann – und da schneiden die tierlosen Tests bisweilen besser ab als der Tierversuch.“

Cet article a été écrit le 1er février 2007.

Cigarette and smoke testing on animals

Even though U.S. federal law does not require that tobacco products be tested on animals, thousands of animals are still kept in restraints like smoke masks and body holders and subjected to horrific experiments every year.
Experimenters have taken large grants from cigarette manufacturer Philip Morris; from government agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Institutes of Health; and even from the March of Dimes, to inject animals with nicotine, force them to inhale smoke and addict them to tobaccoo.
Examples of their smoking experiments on animals include :


- Cutting holes in beagles' throats through which the dogs are forced to breathe concentrated cigarette smoke for a year.

- Inserting electrodes into dogs' penises to measure the effect of cigarette smoke on sexual performance.

- Strapping masks to the faces of rats and monkeys and permanently restraining them to force them to breathe cigarette smoke constantly.

- Forcing dogs to be on mechanical ventilators and chronically exposed to cigarette smoke.

- Restraining Rhesus monkeys in chairs with head devices and exposing them to nicotine and caffeine to determine how caffeine and nicotine affect breathing.

Experiment after experiment attempts on even more in rats, mice, hamsters, lambs, dogs, cats, monkeys, and other animals need to be put to a stop at once! This is so disgusting and horrible that animals are forced to go through this. Do your part and help to put this cruel testing to a stop.

News du 18 août 2001.

AMERICAN SPIRIT CIGARETTES BUTTS OUT OF ANIMAL TESTS
First-Ever"Cruelty-Free" Smokes Hailed by PETA

Contact: Jay Kelly 757-622-7382
Smokers who care about animals can breathe a sigh of relief: American Spirit has broken ranks with big tobacco and become the first-ever cruelty-free cigarette in the U.S. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco even includes a factoid to that effect in many packs (see attachment) that says: “Did You Know? Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company does not engage in the practice of testing any of our tobacco products on animals.”

American Spirit has taken a leadership role in the tobacco industry by being the first company to refuse to fund any smoking tests on animals. Other tobacco companies pay experimenters to cut holes in beagles’ throats and strap facemasks to rats, apes, and monkeys, forcing them to breathe concentrated cigarette smoke for up to a year. This occurs despite the fact that our knowledge of the dangers of smoking has come solely from human clinical studies and autopsies of human victims of lung disease. Experiments on thousands of animals are funded every year, even though federal law does not require cigarettes to be tested on animals. Smoking experiments on animals have been illegal in the U.K. since 1997, and the effects of tobacco and nicotine on the human body, including links to lung cancer, emphysema, and other diseases, are well known.

In May of 2000, two-time Oscar-winner Jack Lemmon sent a letter to the U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee on health and human services, asking that federal funds no longer be used to bankroll smoking experiments on animals. Said Lemmon, “Please make sure animals no longer suffer and die just to prove something we already know—that tobacco kills.”

Pity the primate

As you read this, pregnant monkeys at the federally funded Oregon Regional Primate Research Center (ORPRC), at Oregon Health and Sciences University (OHSU), are confined in small, barren metal cages, while their fetuses are exposed to nicotine. ORPRC experimenter Eliot Spindel has acknowledged that "the deleterious effects of maternal smoking during pregnancy are all too well established." Yet his five-year study, during which he will kill the baby monkeys and dissect their lungs, is funded with tax money through 2004.

ORPRC, the center that garnered headlines for "creating" ANDI, the sole survivor of 40 embryos implanted in rhesus monkeys in an attempt to create a baby monkey with a jellyfish gene, receives $15 million in federal tax dollars each year to subject approximately 2,500 primates to a variety of cruel experiments. Matt Rossell, a former primate technician at ORPRC, is one of the icenter's most outspoken critics. Rossell worked at ORPRC for more than two years and was responsible for the psychological well being of the primates. According to Rossell, animal technicians at ORPRC frequently made mistakes because they were forced to rush through their jobs at an assembly line pace. The mistakes, such as giving injections to the wrong monkeys, lead to discomfort, stress, and incorrect data. Rossell is "convinced that no useful scientific research could ever come out of there."

Page 2

Blood money

Despite the wishes of Oregon voters and the wealth of data proving that cigarettes harm people OHSU will receive an additional $200 million to expand its research program. This money is part of the 1998 multi-state settlement agreement in which the tobacco industry paid the state of Oregon an initial amount of $27.5 million. The state was also rewarded a yearly payment, which began in 2000, of between $73.6 million and $96.3 million depending on various factors. The tobacco settlement money was intended to reimburse the public for tax dollars spent on financing public health for those afflicted with tobacco-related illnesses. In November 2000, Oregon voters decisively defeated two proposals for spending the tobacco settlement payments, because they allocated little or no additional money for tobacco prevention.

Cigarette manufacturers and government agencies also fund smoking experiments on animals. According to Dr. Neal Barnard, president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), in 1996 the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded 123 grants totaling $28,099,418 for research focusing on cigarette smoke or nicotine. A full 40 percent of the grants involved animal experiments, on which NIH squandered $10,276,391. Dr. Barnard reports that, in 1996, U.S. taxpayers coughed up:

- $133,132 to John C. Longhurst at the University of CaliforniaDavis to study how nicotine affects the cardiac reflexes of cats.

- $183,628 to Hakan W. Sundell at Tennessee's Vanderbilt University to use mechanically ventilated lambs to study nicotine exposure and its effects on ventilation. (Supposedly, this information relates to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) in humans, although it has already been documented that maternal smoking accounts for about 30 percent of SIDS cases.)

- $104,214toJames R. Pauly atthe University of Kentucky, whose grant abstract stated, "The outcome of pregnancy is adversely affected by maternal use of tobacco products." Nonetheless. he wanted to study the effects of nicotine on the unborn babies of female mice.

- $100,199 to Barry A. Trimmer at Tufts University in Massachusetts to study nicotine-resistant tobacco hornworms, who mainly eat tobacco plants.
Even health charities, such as the March of Dimes and the American Cancer Society, use donor contributions to impose tobacco addiction on animals.

Page 3

An industry smokescreen

Despite the massive amounts of money spent on animal studies, everything we know about cancer and other smoking related illnesses has come from human epidemiological (population) and I clinical studies, not from animal experiments. Ironically, animal experiments misled the public for years because rats, mice, dogs, and other animals do not develop lung cancer as humans do. The tobacco industry used this misleading data to its advantage for years, claiming that smoking did not cause lung cancer in humans. According to the California-based animal rights group In Defense of Animals (IDA), one experimenter reported in a leading medical journal in 1957 that "the failure of many investigators to induce experimental cancers, except in a handful of cases, during fifty years of trying, casts serious doubt on the validity of the cigarette-lung cancer theory." However, 27 human studies had already established a clear link between smoking and cancer.

There are now reams of data on the link between smoking and cancer, but the tobacco industry is still desperately grasping for anything that might convince the public that smoking isn't dangerous. It's time for the tobacco industry to pull its head out of the cloud of smoke and face the facts: Smoking causes cancer. It is also the leading cause of pulmonary illness and death in the United States, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, influenza, and pneumonia. In addition, smoking contributes to cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, and birth defects. Yet the pointless experiments continue. Millions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of animal lives are wasted on experiments that are so cruel and unnecessary they have been illegal in Britain since 1997. U.S. federal law does not even require tobacco products to be tested on animals. The money wasted on worthless animal experiments could be much better used for education, health services, or drug addiction treatment programs for pregnant women.

Page 4

Snuffing out animals experiments

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is out to light a fire under tobacco companies until they snuff out animal tests for good. PETA is currently targeting Philip Morris, the number one cigarette manufacturer in the country. Using a parody of Philip Morris' Marlboro cigarettes, PETA developed a billboard advertisement proclaiming, "Murderer," to warn smokers that Philip Morris kills animals in cruel laboratory experiments.
In April 2001, PETA introduced a shareholder's resolution asking Phillip Morris to quit funding experiments on animals. The resolution would also have required the company to direct that its tobacco settlement contributions to the Council for Tobacco Research or other research organization be used only for non-animal research.

The resolution served its purpose‹it generated a lot of discussion about smoking experiments on animals. PETA's matchbooks, advising, "Don't get burned by Philip Morris. They're using your money to hurt animals," were distributed at the shareholder's meeting and gave many people cause to reconsider their support of the tobacco giant. Apparently, Phillip Morris doesn't take kindly to criticism. The company recently announced plans to change its name to Altria, perhaps to distance itself from anti-smoking backlash. (It's been reported that Phillip Morris has already bought Web sites with names like AltriaKills.com so that its opponents would not get to them first.) But Phillip Morris doesn't need to change its name, it needs to change its horrible practice of testing on animals.

People should realize that if they smoke, they not only put their life at risk, they also help pay to inflict suffering on innocent animals. The best way for smokers to help animals is to butt out cigarettes for good. Both animals and people will breathe a little easier. Heather Moore is a staff writer for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).

Page 5

The March of dimes hurting not helping

Under the pretext of researching birth defects, the March of Dimes has funded numerous experiments on animais. March of Dimes experimenters have addicted pregnant animals to alcohol, nicotine, and cocaine, even though we already know that these substances can harm a developing baby. These substances are not always administered to animals in the same manner in which humans are exposed to them. In some experiments, for example, animals are given nicotine intravenously, whereas humans are exposed to nicotine by inhaling cigarette smoke.

In one experiment funded by the March of Dimes, vivisectors injected nicotine into pregnant rats via electric pumps that were implanted in their backs. Even the authors of the study pointed out that "the chronic infusion used in this study ... does not replicate the human situation because it does not have the repeated boli of nicotine that results from repeated cigarette smoking in humans, nor does it have the diurnal variation of high nicotine levels during the day and lower levels at night."
The results of these experiments are not reliable, as vast differences exist between species, and data taken from one species cannot always be correctly applied to another. Different species of animals vary enormously in their reactions to toxins and diseases, as well as in their metabolism of drugs.

Animals are also rarely given chemicals, such as nicotine, on the same time schedule as humans. Usually, animals are given large amounts of a substance over a short period of time, while humans are generally exposed to small amounts over long periods of time. The evidence is already in: Pregnant women, especially, should not smoke. Human studies have shown that, infant deaths would decrease by as much as 10 percent if women who smoke (25 percent of pregnant women) gave up cigarettes during pregnancy. There is no reason for the March of Dimes to torture animals and waste donor contributions. Many similar charities, including Easter Seals and Birth Defect Research for Children, put all their funds into programs that directly benefit babies and never waste a penny on cruel animal experiments. Check out MarchOfCrimes.com for more details on how the March of Dimes hurts animals instead of helping babies.

Page 6

Win the War on Cancer

In 1972, President Richard Nixon signed the Conquest of Cancer Act, initiating the "war on cancer." That "war" has become a losing battle. Since 1971. the National Cancer Institute has grown into a $2 billion-a-year federal funding source for cancer researchers, and the American Cancer Society has doubled its annual income from public contributions. Every year, $30 billion is spent on cancer research, detection, and treatment in the United States, yet cancer remains our nation's number two killer. It doesn't have to be this way. According to the World Health Organization, up to 90 percent of all cancers are preventable. Clinical studies have proved that most cancers are caused by smoking and by eating high-fat foods, foods high in animal protein. and foods containing artificial colors and other additives. Smoking also promotes atherosclerosis and robs the body of oxygen. It is one of the primary factors that cause heart attacks, as well as cancer.

Make an IMPACT

• For more information on how both smokers and nonsmokers alike can help animals, please visit these PETA web sites:
  SmokingAnimals.com
  HelpTheMonkeys.com
  MarchOfCrimes.com
  
• In Defense of Animals - Boycott OHSU
  
• Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
  
• Foundation for a Smoke-Free America
  
• Americans for Medical Advancement
  
• Coalition to Abolish Animal Testing
  
• American Anti-Vivisection Society
  
• Primate Freedom Project
  
• 
  
• Page 7
  

December 11, 2005

The smoking vegans

Need to feel good about yourself? Try jerking off.

I had an interesting conversation with jsteak a few nights back, and never had a chance to report. Thankfully, I'm around the internet for a few moments, so you get a brand spanking new post. Apparently, she explained, we’re not vegan. This according to some forum user over at Vegan Freak HQ. At first I was incensed, but after we talked some more about it, I think I understand. They’re right. We’re not vegan. Except I don’t understand, and they’re not right. The argument was that as cigarettes are tested on animals, smoking cigarettes makes one not vegan. First of all, not all cigarettes are tested on animals. Frankly, I think this is besides the point. But let’s say that using products tested on animals makes someone not vegan. If we take this as true, then there are no vegans. None. Not any. Zilch. Because almost everything is tested on animals. Pharmaceuticals, detergents, even vegetable cooking oils are all animal tested.

And here’s the thing about people who make worn-out, banal, asinine comments to the effect of “smoking isn’t vegan”: these people are not only assholes, but really pompous assholes. Allow me to expound. In the act of not smoking, you accomplish nothing beyond affecting your personal health. Do I feel better that I smoke a brand of cigarettes not tested on animals? Sometimes. But I don’t delude myself by thinking it’s actually saving any. In fact, the same can be said about veganism as a whole. There are more vegans than ever today. There are also more animals being slaughtered than ever. Clearly, being vegan isn’t enough. It needs to be combined with public outreach, direct action, and anti-capitalism. For some people though, moral pompousness is enough. For self-congratulatory fuckwits like you fine folks, being vegan, not smoking, and everything else they do, has but one purpose: to make you feel good about yourself as a substitute for actually challenging any real structures of oppression. In fact, everything you do is geared towards this. Not smoking does absolutely nothing to make the world better. For you, it’s just a superiority trip. Don’t kid yourself. You’re not the next Rosa Parks, you’re just some smug sod who needs to get their feel-good fix.

Next time, try jerking off instead.

Incidentally, I’m done being apologetic about smoking. Do you have a problem with my smoking? Why don’t you go play hide-and-go-fuck-yourself. I’m not budging on this any more. It’s ridiculous. On the list of social injustices, if you rank smoking on it at all, let alone in a high-up place, that’s because you are either a total moron or a loser virgin.

Cet article a été écrit le 4 février 2007.

HelptheAnimals PETITION: Cigarette & Smoke Testing on Animals

AnimalVoicesAlert

URGENT: DEADLINE 2-10-07
Signatures: 2,499
Goal: 15,000

www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/759977084?ltl=1157245560]http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/759977084?ltl=1157245560
www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/759977084?ltl=1157245560

PETITION: Cigarette and smoke testing on animals
Target: Michael E. Szymanczyk, Chairman & CEO, Philip Morris Companies, Inc.
Sponsor: Jess Boswell

Even though U.S. federal law does not require that tobacco products be
tested on animals, thousands of animals are still kept in restraints like
smoke masks and body holders and subjected to horrific experiments every year. Experimenters have taken large grants from cigarette manufacturer Philip Morris; from government agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Institutes of Health; and even from the March of Dimes, to inject animals with nicotine, force them to inhale smoke and addict them to tobaccoo.

Examples of their smoking experiments on animals include :

* Cutting holes in beagles' throats through which the dogs are forced to
breathe concentrated cigarette smoke for a year.
* Inserting electrodes into dogs' penises to measure the effect of
cigarette smoke on sexual performance.
* Strapping masks to the faces of rats and monkeys and permanently
restraining them to force them to breathe cigarette smoke constantly.
* Forcing dogs to be on mechanical ventilators and chronically exposed to
cigarette smoke.
* Restraining Rhesus monkeys in chairs with head devices and exposing
them to nicotine and caffeine to determine how caffeine and nicotine affect
breathing.

Experiment after experiment attempts on even more in rats, mice, hamsters,
lambs, dogs, cats, monkeys, and other animals need to be put to a stop at
once! This is so disgusting and horrible that animals are forced to go
through this. Do your part and help to put this cruel testing to a stop.

Page 1

Smoking Animals

www.smokingahttp://www.http://www_

www.smokingahttp://www.http://www_

www.smokinganimals.com/facts.html

www.smokinganimals.com/facts.html

Cigarette companies have hidden behind animal experiments for
decades, trying to forget that everything we know about lung cancer and
other smoking related illnesses has come from human epidemiological and clinical studies, not from animal experiments. Even though U.S. federal law does not require that tobacco products be tested on animals and even though smoking experiments on animals have been illegal in Britain since 1997, thousands of animals are still kept in restraints like smoke masks and body holders and subjected to horrific experiments every year.

At this very moment, pregnant monkeys at the Oregon Regional Primate
Research Center (ORPRC) are being kept in small, barren metal cages,
their fetuses exposed to nicotine. Funded by the U.S. government, ORPRC
experimenter Eliot Spindel acknowledges that "the deleterious
effects of maternal smoking during pregnancy are all too well
established.effects of maternal smoking during pregnancy are all too well
established.<WBR>" Yet his five year study, during which he will kill the b

This is one of countless examples of cruel and completely
unnecessary experiments. Experimenters have taken large grants from
cigarette manufacturer Philip Morris; from government agencies, including
the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Institutes of Health; and even from the March of Dimes, to inject animals with nicotine, force them to inhale smoke and addict them to tobacco--a substance that they would never normally encounter or imbibe if left in peace.

BushWatchersNews:

http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=bushwatchernews&start=0&scoring=d]http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=bushwatchernews&start=0&scoring=d
AnimalVoicesAlerts:http://groups-beta.google.com/group/AnimalVoicesAlerts
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/AnimalVoicesAlerts
AnimalVoicesNews: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/AnimalVoicesNews
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/AnimalVoicesNews

page 2

Organic cigarettes?

Not just organic, but "all natural" and not tested on animals and certified "cruelty free" by PETA. Did I mention that there's a native American on the box? This is brilliant niche storytelling. There's a percentage of smokers who are able to get by the internal inconsistency (I won't say oxymoron because the word police say I'm misusing the term) of the term "organic cigarettes" and love the story. No, the Marlboro man isn't going to switch. But there's no way this little company would ever get him to switch... not enough money, not enough time.

But for smokers with the worldview that they want to be careful what they smoke, that they want a gourmet product, this is a great flash of insight. No, I'd never be a tobacco marketer. I won't even do speaking gigs for them. But once a little company has decided to take that moral leap, the idea of upselling affluent smokers with this story is both hysterically funny and apparently quite effective.

Attachments

http://blog.sethgodin.silkware.com/FindAttachment/3181/1117119267672/american_spirit.jpg]american_spirit.jpg

http://www.silkware.com/SilkWare/WebObjects/SilkWare.woa/wpa/com.silkblogs.wo.delivery.Actions/2296/entryAtt

Useless

Results from animal tests are not transferable between species, and therefore cannot guarantee product safety for humans...In reality these tests do not provide protection for consumers from unsafe products, but rather they are used to protect corporations from legal liability. -- Herbert Gundersheimer, M.D.
`Researchers' often justify vivisection for its effects on human life but - sadly - this has never happened.
Many decades of vivisection practice haven't brought a single practical result; billions of animals die in laboratories and nobody has come up with a scientific proof of usefulness for such experiments.
Animal experimentation is simply a good business: "researchers" can publish large amounts of papers simply repeating the same useless experiments on different animals and under slightly different conditions.
Chemical, pharmaceutical, and cosmetic industries test on animals but these tests are definitely not significant. As an example, cigarettes have been sold for many years as absolutely non dangerous because tests on animals showed there was no relationship between smoke and cancer.
The only significant tests are so stupid to be even more useless: if you burn dogs alive (it happens !) you'll find out they all die, but you don't need to test, everybody can tell you.
Some folks place lipstick on dogs' eyes, then in their mouths and see a suffering blind dog, but still alive. So they can write something like "avoid contact with eyes" and "not lethal in case of ingestion". I think the first suggestion should be given without any experimentation; the second advice is false: lots of substances are lethal for humans, but not for animals.
Tests on animals are just a formality to be legally authorized to sell potentially dangerous products. The real guinea pig is you!

Page 1

Là, ils parlent des cigarettes testées sur les animaux :

http://www.veganrepresent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6885

Animal Testing 101

http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=7,0,19,0','width','255','height','195','title','An]http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=7,0,19,0','width','255','height','195','title','An

www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer','movie','swf/James_C'

Overview of Animal Experimentation, Narrated by Actor James Cromwell'

An Overview of Animal Experimentation, Narrated by Actor James Cromwell
"Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: 'Because the animals are like us.' Ask the experimenters why it is morally OK to experiment on animals, and the answer is: 'Because the animals are not like us.' Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction."
-Professor Charles R. Magel

As many as 115 million animals are experimented on and killed in laboratories in the U.S. every year. Much of the experimentation-including pumping chemicals into rats' stomachs, hacking muscle tissue from dogs' thighs, and putting baby monkeys in isolation chambers far from their mothers-is paid for by you, the American taxpayer and consumer, yet you can't visit a laboratory and see how the government has spent your money. You can't even get an accurate count on the number of animals killed every year because experimenters and the government have decided that mice and rats and certain other animals don't even have to be counted.

Animal experimentation is a multibillion-dollar industry fueled by massive public funding and involving a complex web of corporate, government, and university laboratories, cage and food manufacturers, and animal breeders, dealers, and transporters. The industry and its people profit because animals, who cannot defend themselves against abuse, are legally imprisoned and exploited. Fortunately for animals in laboratories, there are people who care. Some of them work in labs, and when they witness abuse, they call PETA. Thanks to these courageous whistleblowers, PETA's undercover investigators and caseworkers, who sift through reams of scientific and government documents, have exposed what goes on behind laboratory doors.