|Biography Articles Advise & Dissent Books Book Him! Search Contact Home|
All of this hatred came from a single piece I wrote on PETA's failed attempt to show that Covance was brutally torturing animals instead of using them for medical tests. Logic would dictate that drug companies do not benefit from and therefore will not pay for sadists running around kicking monkey butt. But logic and facts are not PETA's forte, hence the following.
Not Just Evil, but Filthy as Well
There are laws on the books against torturing and terrorizing animals. But as I demonstrated and as can be readily confirmed by the video that PETA CHOSE to display, there is nothing of the sort going on at Covance. If after 11 months PETA could find no wrongdoing on Covance's part, do you think they would have done so in 12 months? As to child abuse, who's the abuser? You would have countless children sicken and die each year from lack of medical care due to lack of medical experimentation. Thanks for a chilling look into the mindset of a real thug – somebody who assuredly makes use of the medicines that animal research has made possible but would imprison those who made those medicines available or who support them. If you're so enamored of monkeys over men, I suggest you move to the ape section of the nearest zoo. No, come to think of it, that WOULD BE the torturing and terrorizing of animals.
You don't know anything about me bitch. You would have made the perfect Nazi. You live your pathetic life based on the idea that "might makes right." You are the real thug. Same with those cowardly animal abusers at Covance. Filth, nothing more and nothing less.
Bitch? That would make me a female dog, which would mean I would have rights as opposed to being a human and having none. And without conceding anything you wrote, I note that you obviously believe that "stupidity makes right."
To Become a Respected Journalist, Be a Fanatic
Sorry, but you will never become a well respected [sic] journalist by stealing lies and re-writing them with your own words – that is a double no-no in the world of journalism. Unfortunately, this argument that you are presenting is not your own and you are simply trying to present a negative outlook on PETA without being able to back up your facts. I am a member of PETA and I am one of the kindest people in the world – and that is not me flattering myself, but that is me telling you about myself and who I am. I clean animals off the road, because filthbags run them over and think it is alright to keep driving and forget about pollution concerns or if the animal is even still alive. I mean, the football game is on and you wouldn't want to miss it. I own many pets because I would rather see them alive than dead.
I eat food that uses less resources [sic] on our atmosphere [a rather strange way of putting it]. I don't eat meat and I spread my beliefs to others – that includes fat, sick, and dying people who ate meat their entire life and now they are dieing [sic] of cancer and obesity. If only PETA and veganism would be given more positive support, we wouldn't have a nation full of fat and unhealthy people. People like myself [sic] show the utmost respect to all living beings, animals and human. When journalists such as yourself [sic] feel the need to make people like myself [sic] look bad just to make yourself [This is obviously a very "self" conscious person.] look like a daring news reporter, you are only making yourself look ignorant and arrogant at the same time. I've been a member of PETA for 10 years and I have the cleanest record in the world, not one ticket, violation, arrest, etc. in my entire life. But somehow, a guy like me is a threat as a terrorist. The same guy who wouldn't hurt a fly is now a potential terrorist. You probably think God created animals for consumption. But hey, we will always have a world of ignorance.
Dear Mr. Madachik:
How fascinating to hear that a million stories have already appeared on an event that occurred just days before I wrote about it. Goodness but those writers are fast – and so many of them!
As to the use of hearsay, I stand guilty as charged. You see, while there's no evidence either that you're a journalist or lawyer I happen to be both and therefore know a bit about these things. In a court of law, hearsay is bad but in journalism it's good because it means you're not simply spewing your own thoughts. So yes, when I quoted from law enforcement testimony that was hearsay – as well as valid and true.
Either you didn't actually read the piece or you know that it's completely backed up with facts. As with your interpretation of hearsay, neither option makes you shine. On the other hand, I have no doubt that you are the kindest person on the planet – as well as the most humble.
I see that in addition to being a journalism expert and, yes, one of the world's kindest people, you also have tremendous medical expertise. You are among the select few who know that only meat eaters become fat, sicken, and die. But pray sir, why should I "feel the need to make people like [you] look bad" when your letter does a far better job than I ever could? I'm glad you don't get parking tickets, but the FBI and ATF say you do belong to an organization that provides aid and comfort to groups that routinely commit arson and other heinous crimes. In most people's book, that doesn't exactly put you in the "kind" category. It actually makes you quite vicious. I do believe you might not hurt a fly; it's your attitude towards humans that's worrisome. But you're quite right about living in a world of ignorance. Thanks for the reminder.
The fact of the matter is, you are WRONG – the event that you discuss in your article did not occur days before you wrote about it. [453 pompous, self-righteous words omitted.]
The event discussed was Covance suing PETA. Covance filed that suit on June 6, 2005. My piece first appeared on June 15. To most people that qualifies as "days." Bye-bye.
Apparently Logic Is No Longer Taught in Law Schools
Dear Mr. Fumento:
I would also like to comment on your dismissal of monkeys pacing in cages (in the process of going insane – that's a scientific, as opposed to rhetorical, comment) as depicting abuse. It's not the research itself that is deplorable – it's the complete lack of acknowledgement that these are living, sentient beings. And as for your comment about how all abuse is already neatly taken care of by the Animal Welfare Act, all I can say is please read former Presidential speechwriter Matthew Scully's "Dominion, The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy" and David J. Wolfson, Esq.'s "Beyond the Law: Agribusiness and the Systemic Abuse of Animals Raised for Food or Food Production."
I apologize if this is all too much "fanaticism" for you, Mr. Fumento, but I simply could not refrain from commenting on your glib assessment of a very pertinent, very valid and ever-growing social movement.
Sorry about that one-sidedness. I suppose you'd probably make the same claim if I wrote about Adolf Hitler. In fact the two are related in that, like PETA, Hitler had contempt for humans but loved animals. And PETA has tied itself to Hitler by repeatedly saying that the slaughter of 12 million humans in the Holocaust is comparable to eating animals. You seem to be the last person on earth to not know that PETA is militantly vegan, and therefore does oppose the killing of all chickens. Indeed, one of the Holocaust comparisons involved broiler chickens - though admittedly KFC only uses fryers. I guess that pulls PETA out of the "fanatic" category, huh?
Again, you completely mischaracterize the PETA position when you say, "It's not the research itself that is deplorable . . . " What part of "Even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we'd be against it," don't you understand?
"And as for your comment about how all abuse is already neatly taken care of by the Animal Welfare Act . . . " Goodness, did I really write that. Let's check the piece. My version says, "Real abuse would also violate the Animal Welfare Act, USDA Animal Welfare Regulations and Standards and send drug companies to labs that take better care of their animals." But maybe if you're using a different web browser like Opera or Netscape it reads something else.
I realize that the practice of law often entails grotesque distortions and ignoring inconvenient facts. That's why I'm no longer in it, though I remain a member of the bar. I'd say you're well on your way to a glorious future in the legal profession. I hear the Mafia might be hiring. Certainly they're a more honorable bunch than PETA.
Our Animals' Bodies, Ourselves
Dear Ms. Curtis,
Yes and those alternatives to animal testing are...? Why has nobody informed the FDA and the pharmaceutical companies about them? Why would the drug companies, always accused of caring about nothing but money, be tossing it away on needless and expensive animal tests? You can label animal experimentation "torture" if you want. Personally, I find getting hate mail from grotesquely uniformed readers to be a form of torture. But "senseless?" Make your case.
Mind-reading Human Hater
I see that you feel it is o.k. to allow an animal to suffer, but not a human. i [sic] believe that people who have a disease that is being tested should be the ones to volunteer, or convicts on death row should be forced to be tested. why [sic] take an innocent, healthy animal and make it suffer. [sic] they [sic] feel pain also. You pick one incident to write your article on. why [sic] don't you ask the organizations that monitor these horrors to show you what goes on. disgusting. [sic]
i [sic] bet you don't believe in the death sentence for people convicted of murdering others but think it is ok [Is it "O.k," or "ok" or is either one okay?] for a woman to abort a baby who is alive inside the womb but unable to defend itself.. [sic]
you [sic] people make me sick.
Dear sara r,
I just love people who blindly impute opinions to others and then attack them on those grounds. Actually, I do believe in the death sentence for murders and I oppose abortion. I also don't believe it is okay to allow an animal to suffer needlessly. But if experimentation on animals will save humans, then yes I'm all for it. Human drugs ARE all tested on humans; the animal stage merely comes first. What you're saying is let's skip the animal part and go directly to humans, thereby killing off lots of those nasty homo sapien things.
When you say, "You people make me sick" I suspect the real meaning comes through if the word "You" is dropped. So assuming you have any human friends, which is quite a leap on my part, and one of them develops breast cancer, then we'll take a drug that's gotten no further than a Petri dish and administer it to her. Right now breast cancer has about a 90 percent cure rate ( thanks to animal testing) but her chance of benefiting from this drug will be close to zero. Let's say that "friend" were you. Wouldn't care much for that would you, sara r?
As for the one incident, that's called a "hook." It makes a piece timely. But if you had bothered to read it, you would have seen it was about PETA and animal activists generally. And if you had read it you would have seen that I watched their video (telling everyone else where they could view it), the one that was supposed to be so horrific, and found it was actually what's supposed to go on in an animal lab. Those labs save human lives, which in the case of certain humans is most unfortunate.
i [sic] happen to be quite popular with the human element, but will honestly say that i [sic] love animals more because of their purity of heart and their unconditional love, and also because someone has to defend the defenseless, the unborn, and any creature who is mistreated because they can't defend themselves. i [sic] will go to my grave fighting for those who can't fight for themselves.
Somehow I don't think you're going to be too popular with victims of any disease when you say that potential new drugs should be tested on them in order to spare pain to a mouse or rat or even monkey. It's you who view animals as our peers. If you want to believe a rodent (or a fruit fly, for that matter) is your peer I will not attempt to dissuade you. Just be sure to get its permission. We will someday find another way; eventually supercomputers will be so powerful that we can essentially replicate a human immune system in them. That will delight everybody, from pharmaceutical companies to patients. Unfortunately, that day is at least ten years off. Only a fanatic would believe we should simply stop drug discovery until then. As to companies ceasing to use animals for testing, please name one. Just one.
It's sad how you idealize animals, thereby denigrating humans. Maybe your poodle has unconditional love, but how about all those carnivorous animals that tear other animals apart for food or injure and sometimes kill during competition for mates. Is that love? If so, it's certainly conditional. Every year, countless Africans are loved to death by crocodiles. And since I do oppose abortion, I must say I find it sickening that you would compare a lab rat to an unborn child. I certainly have better things to go to my grave fighting for.
i'll [sic] have to find the list, but i [sic] know a lot of cosmetic companies don't test on animals anymore – it says so right on the labels, so it is not only me. i [sic] just don't understand why you still say it is ok for an animal to suffer, but not a human – when the animals are tested like humans for research. we [sic] have to stop playing God anyway. we [sic] were never supposed to know the answer to everything. it [sic] his His [sic] plan how we live , not ours. anyway [sic], what is the purpose of all this testing to find cures for all these diseases if they are not finding out what causes them, or not willing to stop the cause. we [sic] know it is pollutents, [sic] the water, processed foods, etc. that are causing these diseases, but is anyone going to stop this – no, of course not, – progress you know – so what is the point!
Wrong again concerning cosmetics. As I wrote in a previous piece, "Don't readily dismiss the need for animals in cosmetics testing either. Some cosmetics are labeled 'Cruelty-free' or 'Not Tested on Animals,' but it's basically a sales gimmick. All the individual ingredients must be animal tested under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, enacted after many American women were injured by an eyelash dye called Lash-Lure."
I also just don't understand why you think animals are on the same level as we are. You keep trying to couch your arguments in Christian terms, but the Bible says man has been set over the animals. That said you won't find too many atheists, either, who share your viewpoint that, say, their children are of no greater importance or value than a lab rat. Why don't you survey a few parents you know and get back to me on it?
And then somehow learning becomes equated with "Playing God." Tell me sari r., beyond what point are we (or were we) supposed to stop gaining knowledge? The end of the 19th Century; last year; next year? Ignorance may be bliss but it's hardly blessed.
It makes a heck of a lot of sense to know how to cure a disease even if you don't know the cause. How would you like it if a doctor said to you, "Sari, you have a form of cancer that's got a 95% cure rate but we're not going to apply the cure because we don't know the cause." Your insurance company might be happy, but you wouldn't.
Finally, it speaks volumes that you don't know that animals have been used for many decades in order to find out what does cause disease and to prevent it. Rodents have proved to be poor models for testing potential carcinogens, but in some areas they've been extremely useful and findings from these tests have been used in implementing regulations and preventing sickness and death. God help us if people like you had the run of the show.
Herewith, a Reason to Think Little of the Human Species
There's one other thing I never understood. As a human, why is it a moral imperative that I attach so much value to human life, that I embrace people as passionately as you seem to think I should? That's right: I think extremely little of the species. Do I have to love humanity because I'm human? Sure, some people are fine, but certainly not many, DEFINITELY not all. And with primates sharing 98 percent of our DNA, do you hold their lives to be important and worthwhile? Of course you don't.
My guess is that the human species' opinion of you is at least as low as your opinion of it.
What an inane, childish and stale response. After all, I'm a human: where is your tender caring concern for me? Apparently you only like people who agree with you. And that actually makes you a bit of a misanthrope.
By the way, when is your next soporific piece coming out, this time about Christian zealots who continue to lobby for the death of gynecologists who perform abortions? Oh, wait. THAT doesn't bother you. More people have died at the hand of these fanatics than at the hand of animal rights activists (our victims number about zero). Right wing think tankers like you don't generally reserve much editorial space for THESE victims. Misanthrope!
Yes, and Saddam Hussein is also a human. So was the guy with the funny little mustache whose killing of 12 million people PETA has compared to eating meat in one case and killing broiler chickens in another. Where is my caring concern for them? Apparently I only like people who agree with me, and that makes me a bit of a misanthrope. But only towards you.
I Don't Think, Therefore I Am
Animals have suffered at the hands of "man" since men and women disobeyed God. God told them to eat of the seeds and fruit in Paradise, but man's earthly legacy is to not only eat God's creatures, but to torture them as well in the name of "science."
Will "science" cure socially/sexually transmitted diseases from humans, or are you referring to the crime of bestiality in comparing humans to animals? [Huh?]
You sound like an eye-for-an-eye guy, Mr. Fellow, not a sensitive, God-fearing human who respects ALL of creation. Animals are Normal [sic]. It is humans who abuse (unsafely) their own and others [sic] bodies (AIDS). "Science" should experiment on humans to cure humans. Sometimes violence is necessary to limit the power of human "animals."
Dear Ms. Pulaski:
If you think a monkey is more than your equal, I will be the last to argue with you.
Dear Mr. Fumento:
I am a creationst [sic], not an evolutionist. I believe in God, not guinea pigs.
I was unaware that anybody worshipped guinea pigs. Why am I always the last to know? But I find it interesting that even though you believe God put us on the top of the pecking order, "Sometimes violence is necessary to limit the power of human 'animals.'" Please let me know when you're a bit less than thoroughly confused.
Not the Brightest Human Hater
To: RSVP for Hudson Institute Events
Dear Sir or Madam,
This message is for Michael Fumento. He wrote a letter in the Plain Dealer which was against P.E.T.A. [sic] I can't reach him at his E-mail [sic] address. I think he is going to lose in his battle to destroy P.E.T.A. [sic] P.E.T.A. [sic] has a lot of support in Great Britain.
Dear Miss Sweet,
So I'm engaged in a "battle to destroy PETA?" PETA is fighting humanity, and it's humanity's job to fight back. I just made a few minor contributions. And I find it amusing that while you think a column was a letter, you can't get an e-mail address to work (plenty of your PETA pals somehow managed), and you can't even spell PETA, you are nonetheless sure it will prevail. I can just picture you walking with your dog, he waiting patiently as you stop to mark every fire hydrant.
Well, that's the Last Puppy I'll ever Eat!
I haven't eaten anything with eyes, for over 20 years..(i'm [sic] 42;) after seeing a picture of puppies being barbequed on a skewer in China....
Unless you like atherosclerosis, diabetes, and too many diseases to mention, you'd give up your steak and pork...
Peta [sic] alienates people and comes off as fanatics...
but [sic] there is nothing worse than seeing any animal or person captivated [Nicole Kidman captivates me, but I don't see any problem with that.] and slaughtered...and [sic] unless you're into S&M, you wouldn't want metal rods attached to your nipples indefinitely so someone could smile with a stupid mustache...
If Einstein, Ghandhi [sic], and so many prefer another way...maybe we don't have to kill animals so humans can continue to gorge...
I'm a gorgeous, sexy woman [And humble. Don't forget humble.] and nothing turns me off more than seeing a man eat a bloody steak...
Experimenting on animals who are 98% [sic] our genome seems wrong...
There are plenty of animal owners who submit their animals to testing if they become cancerous...just [sic] like all the Aids [sic]
patients literally dying to try what's new...and [sic] clams work pretty well for tons of research.. [Clams?]
they can never extrapolate the data from primates anyway...
It's about violence...not [sic] about stopping cures...I'm [sic] all for stem cell research, pro-choice...i'm [sic] jewish [sic] ....i [sic] just don't see why we have to kill what's already breathing....
just [sic] to lighten this up...i [sic] [sic] used to say i [sic] don't eat anything with eyes, except my boyfriend...here's [sic] my photo...to [sic] show you someone you condemn so harshly...
[Photo of not particularly gorgeous woman with cat attached. Er, I mean the photo was attached to the e-mail, not that the cat was attached to the woman – though my own cat has used her claws to put me in that awkward position.]
IDOK@[one of the internet services normally associated with stupid hate mail]
For the record, I don't eat puppies either. Since you can name only two geniuses who were vegetarian, I think we can presume that most geniuses eat meat. Not only do "they" extrapolate from primate data all the time, but primates make the best animals to extrapolate from precisely because they are closest to us in the gene pool.
and [sic] you're nasty...
Ooh! Ouch! You've cut me to the quick! I'm really just a little puppy dog myself. Regarding the moron thing, please don't extrapolate from yourself to all those who write to me much less all those who read my column. But speaking of which, prithee who is this incredible doctor who cured this still incurable disease by testing drugs on himself? Is he from our dimension or just another solar system, because you see I've been writing about AIDS since 1987 and somehow he slipped under my radar screen – as did "everyone" no longer dying when the CDC says that in the latest year for which data are available over 16,000 Americans succumbed.
[Insert own "sics"]
okay...sorry i'm just too busy to find that docs name...i meant the lifespan of aids victims increased dramatically after he developed the cocktail...he was a researcher and pricked himself...
thanks for controlling yourself and trying to be humorous... a great book for you is 'diet for a new america'...heir to baskin robbins..
or andrew vachss' latest...
sincerely the summa cum laude woman who's glad you don't eat puppies...
Okay, we'll agree to disagree except on one point. You have thoroughly confused two AIDS issues. The doctor you're referring to, Robert Willner, was not a drug researcher. Rather, he was a troglodyte who claimed HIV doesn't cause AIDS. He took a syringe of allegedly HIV-positive blood and acted as if he jabbed himself several times. We don't know that he even jabbed himself; we do know that the chance of infection with HIV-contaminated blood through jabs is miniscule. We also know beyond doubt that HIV does cause AIDS.
First Get Your Facts Straight
To the Editor:
I just read Michael Fumento's article "Standing up to PETA" in the N.Y. Post. That he claims that "animal testing is necessary for discovering new drugs and critically important treatments" only depicts how uninformed he, like most people, really is. As a journalist, he should do his homework before making accusations; I suggest he contact the Physicians Commitee [sic] for Responsible Medicine to learn what's really going on in the medical-research community, unless he considers them to also be "fanatics", rather than the concerned humans they, and PETA members, really are (and this concern, believe it or not, extends to all species – including the human species). After watching that horrid video and reading his obviously biased. [sic] condemning article, my resolve has only been strengthened to continue my support for PETA.
PRIMUM NON NUCERE [sic],
Dear Mr. DeRienzo:
The president of the so-called Physicians Committee," which actually has precious few physician members, also runs the PETA Foundation. So I'm told to contact PETA for an outside opinion on PETA; to contact fanatics for an outside opinion on fanatics. The main purpose of PCRM is to force vegetarianism down our throats. "Primum non nocere" (the proper spelling) doesn't actually appear in the Hippocratic Oath as many people believe, though a close rendition does appear in the Hippocratic Corpus and was clearly intended to apply to humans not to animals. Remember humans?
[147 words of animal droppings deleted.]
As for Dr. Neal Barnard running PETA, once again you seem to be misinformed. He may, indeed, be a member, but he is not in charge of the organization. He is, however, first and foremost, a physician (with a heck of a lot more medical training, I daresay, than you), as are Dr. Haber, Dr. Vioxx, [Is this a real name?] Dr.Akhtar, and Dr. Amador, to name some of the "precious few".
Dear Mr. DeRienzo:
Somehow you keep finding a way of stuffing your foot further down your throat. I did not write that Bernard ran PETA, I wrote that he "runs the PETA Foundation." The official name is the Foundation to Support Animal Protection and its director happens to be the president of PETA, Ingrid Newkirk. Quite an interlock, is it not?
I have never said I feel superior to humans generally, but I have no trouble feeling superior to you. How are these practices "outdated?" What has replaced them? Several years ago PETA claimed there were computers so powerful that they could imitate human physiology, to which I quoted an expert as saying there would be no such thing for well over decade. That timetable, unfortunately, has not been moved up. And why does not only the FDA but every major drug regulatory body in the world (and probably all the minor ones) insist on animal testing before human testing if "these experiments are useless when applied to the human being."
Nixon's declaration of war on cancer was 32 years ago and by no means bore fruit nearly as quickly as proponents had hoped. But death rates from all cancers combined fell 1.1 percent per year from 1993 to 2001. Breast cancer is now curable about 90 percent of the time. Five-year survival for all cancers combined is now at an, all-time high of 58 percent – hardly bearing out the need for "a miracle from above." The "miracle" has been from medicines which were first tested on animals. That may not mean much to you; nothing else seems to. But perhaps it might if you or a loved one were a cancer survivor. Finally, yes I remember God. And I believe He put us neither on par nor below the level of animals. On that we'll just have to disagree.
Animal abuse is a sad, highly complex issue yet you smear everything together. Lumping PETA in with guerrilla groups is irresponsible. Too bad for everyone.
– a [sic] card carrying [sic] PETA member
"Compassion is the basis of morality." – Arnold Schopenhauer
Sorry, but it wasn't "guerrilla" or even "gorilla," it was "terrorist." And the "lumping" was done by the FBI and ATF.
"He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot." – Groucho Marx
Ethics are not improved by correct spelling, asshole.
Apparently you didn't notice it in a message of only two sentences, but I corrected a lot more than your spelling. And perhaps ethics would be improved by not tossing the word "asshole" at everyone who demonstrates your ignorance. That adds up to a lot of assholes.
Big woop [sic]. You corrected my spelling. Too bad you missed the message. Asshole.
Actually, you misspelled "whoop" as well. But you did get "asshole," right. I suspect you've used that one often enough and been corrected on its spelling often enough that it explains why you finally got it right. Now go away forever; an animal is being tortured in your name.
From PETA's Core Support
Mr. Micheal [sic] Fumento:
I am writing to respond to your recent article titled "PETA must be stopped" in the Opinion section of the Lake City Reporter. You have managed to twist PETA's noble work into some sort of horrible thing, as if they're the ones who are a threat to people. Congratulations. Now I have to work on fixing those false impressions.
I found you're sic article to very offensive and misleading. You stated that "all animal testing" was "necessary for discovering new drugs and critically important treatments", which is incredibly false; animal testing is of little use to humans because different animals will react differently to diseases or chemicals, which is also misleading (even more so than your article) and can have terrible results.
You made PETA sound like a bunch of kooks and terrorists. It is their business who they donate money to and what they promote. I think the money given to PETA or ALF is money much better spent than if it were donated to an animal testing "charity" or lab. I don't know what you're [sic] problem is with PETA but it is a bit out of control; you don't need to be telling people about an "animal activist problem". Animal activists are the hope of the world and are in no way harmful to regular people; you seem a little paranoid, though.
I just want to ask you to stop giving false impressions; you seem like a fool, telling people about how "dangerous" these PETA "bullies" are.
A Proud PETA Person
It's said that wisdom comes with age and I'm afraid you've done nothing to dispel that aphorism. Your heart may be in the right place (if a bit on the small and cold side), but your "facts" all come from the same wrong place – PETA itself. If "animal testing is of little use to humans" then why are animals universally used to test new drugs? What is it that the drug companies and the FDA don't know that PPP Ashley, 14, does? True, no animal is a perfect surrogate for a human but many decades of use indicates they're a lot better than going straight from test tubes to humans. We also know enough about animal physiology to often recognize that the results in an animal may be different from those in humans and to apply that knowledge. As it happens the monkeys I wrote about are the most useful animals for drug testing because they belong to the same family (primates) as humans.
Who PETA contributes money to and promotes is the business of anyone who hears PETA's message, which is why I relayed that information. Or are you telling me that it's nobody's business that a self-proclaimed "civil rights group" gives money to and sings the praises of the Ku Klux Klan and the American Nazi Party? I also find it very sad that we have 14-year-olds in this country who think it's okay to give money to groups the FBI has rightly labeled as terrorist organizations because they wantonly burn down laboratories and even people's homes. Are there other terror groups you support?
I spelled out in a column what my problem with PETA is; that you've decided to ignore it is not my fault. If animal activists are the hope of the world, god help us. They're not even the hope of animals, as the story below about two PETA members picking up 31 animals from shelters and promising to find them homes but killing them instead indicates.
P.S.: When writing to somebody, you'll find that you're taken more seriously if you spell his name correctly.
Might Makes Meat
Our society's dealings with animals are largely based on "might makes right." Indeed, as a Jewish "non-fanatic," and notwithstanding PETA's recent apology for its Holocaust comparison, I think the analogy is quite apt.
I kill billions of germs when I use an antibiotic, but I don't put them on par with mice just as I don't put mice on par with men. That's called perspective. You equate the raising and slaughtering of animals with torture but most of us call it supplying food to an omnivorous species. It's not a matter of "might makes right;" it's a matter of nature. When a big fish eats a little one or a lion eats an antelope, do you think they're making some sort of philosophical assertion? Actually, maybe you do.
Finally, you're also completely wrong about the alleged PETA apology on the Holocaust. The quote I used from President Ingrid Newkirk comparing broiler chickens to Holocaust victims dates back to a Washington Post interview from 1983 and she never even pretended to apologize for it. You're confusing it with the PETA attempt to again analogize eating meat to killing Jews and other "undesirables," this time in comparing meat to "Holocaust on Your Plate." That campaign began in 2003, ending two years later when Newkirk buckled under pressure and stated, "We know that we have caused pain," and "This was never our intention, and we are deeply sorry." To this Simon Wiesenthal associate dean Rabbi Abraham Cooper asked, "Did they know the impact this campaign would have when they started it two years ago? Absolutely." Said Cooper, "They leveraged the victims of the Shoah [the Hebrew word for the Holocaust] to promote their issue. The victims of the Shoah should not be leveraged to gain copy in a newspaper or airtime on TV."
Does being a Jew fill you with such self-loathing that you don't mind being compared to a broiler chicken or a steak? I'll bet the 12 million people of all religions and beliefs who died in the Holocaust felt otherwise.
In response to your article "PETA must be stopped" last month:
There is abundant evidence of harm to humans as a result of experiments on animals.
[63 words omitted.]
Billions of dollars have been spent trying to inflict AIDS on animals over the last 20 years, and these efforts have been entirely futile. Though researchers have succeeded in infecting chimpanzees with HIV, none has progressed to AIDS. Given this inability to produce an adequate animal model, it is foolish to assume that animal experimentation will lead us to therapies and cures for this terrible disease.
[338 words omitted.]
Thank you for your time.
Dear Mr. Madsen:
Don't bother thanking me; it only took a glance at your letter to see you are completely ignorant. For example, there are a massive number of AIDS therapies currently in use with a huge number far along in the pipeline. Each and every one was tested on animals. Why is it foolish to assume what virtually everybody but Tony Madsen seems to know?
Well, firstly [sic], you expect readers to read what your opinion is – why shouldn't you take the time reading what my opinion is. [sic] [So he writes, even as he amply demonstrates why his e-mails aren't worth the pixels they're written with.] And as a matter of fact, I do have science on my side. All those "massive" numbers of AIDS therapies are in reality two or three. Unfortunately, two of them didn't even make it further than clinical tests. The most successful one so far, was never tested on animals.
[Rest of blather omitted.]
Dear Mr. Madsen:
According to the latest FDA update, available at http://www.fda.gov/oashi/aids/virals.html, there are 25 different drugs approved for direct treatment of HIV. This doesn't include a far longer list of drugs used to treat the secondary infections so common to AIDS. I do believe I've made my case. Now go away; some of us have to work for a living.
Dear Mr. Fumento and Mr. Avery [sic]
[Dennis and Alex Avery work at an adjunct institute to Hudson. Why she chose to CC them I have no idea.]
It is apparent to me that my friend [omitted] Madsen, who sent me a copy of his letter to one of you, doesn't know much about your "Hudson Institute" and therefore wasted his precious time on responding to you.
The fact that you call yourself "Think TANK" is kinda funny though, and sorta arrogant, wouldn't you say?
Dear Ms. Aulig,
Actually I don't refer to myself as a think tank (or "think TANK"), the people I work for do. I think I have a good sense of humor, but I fail to see what's so funny except that you confused an individual with an organization. Even that's not exactly a side-splitter.
As to your friend wasting his time; there we agree. If he doesn't even know that all AIDS drugs were first tested on animals then he really ought to be spending his time on self-education rather than advertising his ignorance and carbon-copying it to someone who seems to share the same handicap.
Ok, so we are ignorant, and uneducated, but how about millions of doctors who also believe that experimenting on animals is useless or straight out harmful to humans.
If not believing in your propaganda (on behave [sic] of the bio industry and others) is a "handicap" then I'm proud of it. And I'm sure Tony is too, and so do millions of people.
I feel sorry for the people who don't believe in what they are saying, as this gradually disintegrates not only their personalities and minds but their bodies as well.
And so I'm sorry for you.. [sic]
Dear Ms. Aulig,
All of us are quite ignorant and uneducated on certain subjects, indeed most subjects. For example, I see grass every day and yet I cannot identify only the type I grew up with. That goes for virtually all bushes and probably 98 percent of trees. But I have the humility to admit this and to acknowledge that there are persons who know these things because they've devoted the time and energy to it. Your main problem is that you wear your arrogance on your chest like a badge; indeed, you've inserted a flashing light into it.
"Millions of doctors?" Really. What is your source? You must be referring to a petition; please provide its location. And don't toss at me the alleged membership size of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine because very few of its members are physicians and even if they were their numbers would hardly approach a million. Either you fabricated this number or you borrowed it from somebody who did; neither speaks well for you.
Then you fabricated a motive (I'm working on behalf of the bio industry) and slap it on me without the least shred of evidence. Ever hear the expression "straining to make a point?" I do expect my body to disintegrate one day; in fact, it seems to have already started but that is merely a factor of age. But saying what you don't believe doesn't cause physical decay; it is merely the sort of nonsense I would expect from the typical human hater.
[This was all written in fuchsia in 18-point type.]
I FINALLY HAVE SOMETIME [sic] TO WRITE TO YOU ABOUT YOUR ARTICLE ON STOP PETA, IN MY LOCAL NEWSPAPER ON JUNE 20, 05. WHAT I GATHER FROM YOUR ARTICLE IS THAT YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN STANDING UP FOR SOMEONE WHO CAN'T SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW YOUR OPINION ON ABORTION ACTIVIST [sic] BECAUSE THEY SAY THAT THEY ARE STANDING UP FOR FOR [sic] SOMEONE WHO CAN'T SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES AND THEY KILL MORE PEOPLE THEN PETA ACTIVIST [sic].
I DO SUPPORT PETA IN WHAT THEY DO TO HELP THESE INNOCENT ANIMALS. WE NOW LIVE IN A WORLD THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO TEST ,EAT , OR WEAR ANIMALS AND PEOPLE STILL DON'T CARE!! DO YOU KNOW WHY, CAUSE [sic] I DO IT IS CHEAPER AND THESE PEOPLE ENJOY TORTURING THESE ANIMALS, THEY GET OFF ON IT LIKE FREAKS.
SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU TEACH YOUR FAMILY OR FRIENDS NOT TO STAND UP FOR ANYTHING, TO JUST TAKE IT. OR A BULLY CAUSE [sic] THATS [sic] WHAT THESE LABS AND FARMS AND CLOTHING CO. [sic] ARE . THEY SAYING [sic] THAT THEY ARE BETTER THEN EVERYONE ELSE. YOUR [sic] GOING TO LET THEM HURT YOU AND YOUR FAMILY, I'M SURE YOUR NOT.
THIS IS WHAT ALL YOU SELFISH PEOPLE THINK!!!
YOU ALL NEED TO DO [sic] IS TO TURN THE SITUATION AROUND, YOU BECOME THE LAB ANIMAL BEING INJECTED WITH AIDS AND SITTING IN CAGE [sic] FOR YOUR SHORT LITTLE LIFE , YOU ARE THE COW ON THE FARM BEING BEATEN TO THE SLAUGHTER HOUSE, OR THE RABBIT BEING SKINNED ALIVE FOR YOU TO LOOK GREAT. SO IF YOU WANT TO TEST ON ANIMALS THINK ABOUT DOING IT ON PRISONERS WHICH MOST [sic] ALREADY HAVE THESE DISEASES DON'T LET THEM ALL GO TO WASTE TOO!!!
[And this was written in fuchsia in 24-point type.]
WHAT COMES AROUND GOES AROUND AND I LIVE BY THAT AND YOU SHOULD TOO!! WE MAY NOT BE THE ONLY ONES ON THIS PLANET, YOU ALL MIGHT BE NEXT!!
CHEERS TO PETA
Thank you for such a bold and colorful defense of idiocy.