UCLA vivisector Jentsch prefers a forum where positions other than his are not represented..

[Guest guest]

http://thomaspainescorner.wordpress.com/2009/09/13/jentsch-prefers-a-forum-where-positions-other-than-his-are-not-represented/

 

 

 

Jentsch prefers a forum where positions other than his are not represented….

 

 

J. David Jentsch, the personification of the banality of evil….

“I found the letter from Dario L. Ringach and J. David Jentsch (Ringach and Jentsch 2009) that appeared in the September 2009 issue very disingenuous. During April of 2009, I gave Dr Jentsch the opportunity to “discuss, debate, and express our opinions on the importance . . . of animal research (Ibid).†He declined my offer to debate the subject at UCLA complete with UCLA security at the event.â€

–Ray Greek MDPresident, Americans For Medical Advancement (www.curedisease.com)

Editor’s Note: The Journal of Neurophysiology published Ringach’s and Jentsch’s editorial letter but declined to publish Greek’s submission, which appears on this post below Ringach’s and Jentsch’s.

J Neurophysiol 102: 2007, 2009; doi:10.1152/jn.00578.2009

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Enough Is Enough

TO THE EDITOR: The ultimate scientific mission of our community is to understand how the brain works in health and disease. Because the functions of the brain depend on molecular, cellular, and network level processes, achieving this goal requires the ability to directly interrogate those mechanisms. Doing such work in humans would require the development of noninvasive techniques at appropriate spatial scales of resolution—technology that is not going to be available in the foreseeable future. As a consequence, progress in many areas of neuroscience relies on the use of invasive methods in animals. If we were to stop such work, both the ability to advance our field and the ultimate, desired development of alternative, noninvasive methods, would largely come to a halt.

The need for direct, invasive studies is not unique to neuroscience; however, the absolutely necessity for research on complex organisms, including nonhuman primates, is. Whether studying sensory processing, motor planning and execution, memory processes, and executive cognitive functions, nonhuman primates, by virtue of their close phylogenetic relationship to humans, makes them indispensible subjects that play a unique, irreplaceable role in our endeavor to address disorders of the CNS.

These facts, although self-evident to most scientists, are not appreciated by animal rights activists that attack our research on at least two grounds. First, they argue that research in animals cannot—and will not—produce the knowledge necessary to lead to cures for human disease. Second, they argue that even if such cures could be found using animals, work with animals is unethical and should not be performed at all.

These views are gathering new adepts on a daily basis, largely because they are presented to the broad public without an opposing force from the scientific community or from the governmental agencies that fund the studies. One consequence of this situation has been a dramatic increase in animal rights extremism in recent years. At UCLA, we have seen our cars and homes set ablaze or flooded. We have been sent letters packed with razors and received countless death threats. Our children and neighbors have been terrorized. Misguided activists within the Los Angeles community openly incite others to violence and then brag about the resulting crimes, going so far as to call plots for our assassination “morally justifiable.â€

Despite being in the spotlight, our work is not different from the majority of articles appearing in the pages of this Journal and has always been in compliance with all the regulations on the use of animals inresearch. Investigators using primates, mice, or flies have been assaulted, so nobody can feel at ease. With an expanding list of investigators listed in the extremists’ crosshairs, it is clear that anybody could be next.

Enough is enough! We believe time has come to express our outrage at the activities of animal rights extremists and to request from our political representatives the security we and our families need to carry out ourwork. We believe that time has also come to discuss, debate, and express our opinions on the importance and ethics of animal research. Perhaps, most important, the time has also come to defend our research collectively and not to let only those under attack confront their plight alone.

On April 22nd, a new organization, Pro-Test @ UCLA, held a rally of 700 scientists, staff, and students that stood together in favor of the responsible use of animals in biomedical research and in solidarity with those under attack. At the event, Americans for Medical Progress, Speaking of Research, and Pro-Test @ UCLA called on our community to add their signatures to a petition in support of research and against animal extremisms. A similar petition in the UK , crafted in response to attacks on Oxford University , was signed by a number of politicians, including then Prime Minister Tony Blair. This was a critical milestone that marked the turn against extremists and their agenda in the UK .

We ask that you join us in mobilizing the entire scientific community to defend biomedical research. You can start with the easy step of signing the petition at www.raisingvoices.net, which already counts with nearly 10,000 signatories. Write to your representatives explaining the dangersof the escalating animal rights extremism for basic and translational research and urge your colleagues to do the same. Reach out to your students and local communities to explain the value of research; no one has a greater responsibility for explaining and defending your research than you do. If you teach medical students, make sure they understand the contribution of animal research to the material they are learning. Come up with your own ideas about how to make a difference and share them with us.

Together we can have a profound impact on what is growing into an important public debate. If we stand together as a community, we will be heard.

Address for reprint requests and other correspondence: D. L. Ringach,Departments of Neurobiology and Psychology, Jules Stein Eye Institute,David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles,Los Angeles, CA 90095-1563 (E-mail: dario)

Dario L. RingachJ. David JentschDepartments of Neurobiology and PsychologyJules Stein Eye Institute; and Departments of Psychology and Psychiatryand Biobehavioral SciencesDavid Geffen School of MedicineUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesCalifornia

=============================================================================================

I submitted the attached as a letter. Amazingly it was rejected.

Ray Greek MDPresident, Americans For Medical Advancement (www.curedisease.com)

TO THE EDITOR:

I found the letter from Dario L. Ringach and J. David Jentsch (Ringach and Jentsch 2009) that appeared in the September 2009 issue very disingenuous. During April of 2009, I gave Dr Jentsch the opportunity to “discuss, debate, and express our opinions on the importance . . . of animal research (Ibid).†He declined my offer to debate the subject at UCLA complete with UCLA security at the event.

Further, my request for a debate was not centered on the emotive subject of vivisection or rights for animals, but rather the value of using animals in research touted as predictive for humans. That is a very scientific and unemotional topic. Not one likely to incite riots! There is no better way to “Reach out to your students and local communities to explain the value of research (Ibid)†than to participate in a public debate at your own university with your own security in attendance on a topic that is science oriented not philosophy or ethics oriented.

Americans For Medical Advancement (www.curedisease.com) does not oppose research using animals per se. We do deny animals can be used as predictive models for human disease and drug response and think that animals as predictive models is how animal-based research, on the whole, is sold to society in general (Shanks et al. 2009). Our board is composed of vegans and meat-eaters in equal proportion. If Dr Jentsch is unwilling to discuss and debate with us, I am not sure he really wants to discuss and debate but suspect rather, that he prefers a forum where positions other than his are not represented.

I have made this offer, to publicly debate the merits of using animals in research, many times and been turned down far more often than not. I take this opportunity to once again state publicly and for the record:

1. I am willing to discuss and debate the importance of animal-based research in a public forum.

2. I propose the debate be held on a university campus complete with their security to allay safety concerns.

3. The subject will be the scientific merits of using animals as predictive models in drug and disease research.

4. If that topic is debated, I then propose a second debate on the value of using animals in basic research.

If the animal-based research community really wants to explain to the general public what they do and what the value is, then I look forward to the hundreds of emails I shall be receiving, taking me up on my offer.

If “no one has a greater responsibility for explaining and defending your research than you do (Ringach and Jentsch 2009),†I would have expected Dr Jentsch to welcome the opportunity I presented. Alas, such was not the case. I now challenge the readers of the Journal of Neurophysiology to the same.

Ray Greek, MDPresident, Americans For Medical Advancementwww.curedisease.com

Ringach DL, and Jentsch JD. Enough Is Enough. J Neurophysiol 102: 2007-, 2009.Shanks N, Greek R, and Greek J. Are animal models predictive for humans? Philos Ethics Humanit Med 4: 2, 2009.

Thomas Paine’s Corner wants to periodically email you links to the most recent material and timeless classics available on our diverse and comprehensive site. If you would like to receive them, type “TPC subscription†in the subject line and send your email to willpowerful

For the latest updates on the animal liberation movement, visit NAALPO at http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/

If you have a Facebook account, don’t forget to look up Thomas Paine’s Corner’s Facebook page via the “search†feature and become a fan.

And if you have a MySpace account, don’t forget to friend Thomas Paine’s Corner at www.myspace.com/anarchovegan

Watch the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4 and go vegan. Do it for your health, for nonhuman animals and for the Earth!

To support or undertake animal rights and liberation activism in the Kansas City area, visit Bite Club of KC at http://biteclubkc.wordpress.com/.

 

[Guest guest]

What a jerk! Someone needs to dissect him....

 

 

----

 

 

Shannon Morgan

9/14/2009 4:18:38 PM

animalconnectiontx ; ntar_network ; EndPharmaceuticalVivisectionFraud ; --==rObOt==--; Char Duncan; Ellen Johnston; George Crass; Lola; Animal Rights Resources; animalrightsandvegans ; Animals Advocates; AnimalsNeedUsNow ; ARAs; extreme-animal-rights ; Fortheanimals7; ; In Solidarity with Animals; Planet4Animals; Speak 4 Animals; Vegan_Animal_Rights

UCLA vivisector Jentsch prefers a forum where positions other than his are not represented..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://thomaspainescorner.wordpress.com/2009/09/13/jentsch-prefers-a-forum-where-positions-other-than-his-are-not-represented/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jentsch prefers a forum where positions other than his are not represented….

 

 

 

 

J. David Jentsch, the personification of the banality of evil….

“I found the letter from Dario L. Ringach and J. David Jentsch (Ringach and Jentsch 2009) that appeared in the September 2009 issue very disingenuous. During April of 2009, I gave Dr Jentsch the opportunity to “discuss, debate, and express our opinions on the importance . . . of animal research (Ibid).†He declined my offer to debate the subject at UCLA complete with UCLA security at the event.â€

–Ray Greek MDPresident, Americans For Medical Advancement (www.curedisease.com)

Editor’s Note: The Journal of Neurophysiology published Ringach’s and Jentsch’s editorial letter but declined to publish Greek’s submission, which appears on this post below Ringach’s and Jentsch’s.

J Neurophysiol 102: 2007, 2009; doi:10.1152/jn.00578.2009

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Enough Is Enough

TO THE EDITOR: The ultimate scientific mission of our community is to understand how the brain works in health and disease. Because the functions of the brain depend on molecular, cellular, and network level processes, achieving this goal requires the ability to directly interrogate those mechanisms. Doing such work in humans would require the development of noninvasive techniques at appropriate spatial scales of resolution—technology that is not going to be available in the foreseeable future. As a consequence, progress in many areas of neuroscience relies on the use of invasive methods in animals. If we were to stop such work, both the ability to advance our field and the ultimate, desired development of alternative, noninvasive methods, would largely come to a halt.

The need for direct, invasive studies is not unique to neuroscience; however, the absolutely necessity for research on complex organisms, including nonhuman primates, is. Whether studying sensory processing, motor planning and execution, memory processes, and executive cognitive functions, nonhuman primates, by virtue of their close phylogenetic relationship to humans, makes them indispensible subjects that play a unique, irreplaceable role in our endeavor to address disorders of the CNS.

These facts, although self-evident to most scientists, are not appreciated by animal rights activists that attack our research on at least two grounds. First, they argue that research in animals cannot—and will not—produce the knowledge necessary to lead to cures for human disease. Second, they argue that even if such cures could be found using animals, work with animals is unethical and should not be performed at all.

These views are gathering new adepts on a daily basis, largely because they are presented to the broad public without an opposing force from the scientific community or from the governmental agencies that fund the studies. One consequence of this situation has been a dramatic increase in animal rights extremism in recent years. At UCLA, we have seen our cars and homes set ablaze or flooded. We have been sent letters packed with razors and received countless death threats. Our children and neighbors have been terrorized. Misguided activists within the Los Angeles community openly incite others to violence and then brag about the resulting crimes, going so far as to call plots for our assassination “morally justifiable.â€

Despite being in the spotlight, our work is not different from the majority of articles appearing in the pages of this Journal and has always been in compliance with all the regulations on the use of animals inresearch. Investigators using primates, mice, or flies have been assaulted, so nobody can feel at ease. With an expanding list of investigators listed in the extremists’ crosshairs, it is clear that anybody could be next.

Enough is enough! We believe time has come to express our outrage at the activities of animal rights extremists and to request from our political representatives the security we and our families need to carry out ourwork. We believe that time has also come to discuss, debate, and express our opinions on the importance and ethics of animal research. Perhaps, most important, the time has also come to defend our research collectively and not to let only those under attack confront their plight alone.

On April 22nd, a new organization, Pro-Test @ UCLA, held a rally of 700 scientists, staff, and students that stood together in favor of the responsible use of animals in biomedical research and in solidarity with those under attack. At the event, Americans for Medical Progress, Speaking of Research, and Pro-Test @ UCLA called on our community to add their signatures to a petition in support of research and against animal extremisms. A similar petition in the UK , crafted in response to attacks on Oxford University , was signed by a number of politicians, including then Prime Minister Tony Blair. This was a critical milestone that marked the turn against extremists and their agenda in the UK .

We ask that you join us in mobilizing the entire scientific community to defend biomedical research. You can start with the easy step of signing the petition at www.raisingvoices.net, which already counts with nearly 10,000 signatories. Write to your representatives explaining the dangersof the escalating animal rights extremism for basic and translational research and urge your colleagues to do the same. Reach out to your students and local communities to explain the value of research; no one has a greater responsibility for explaining and defending your research than you do. If you teach medical students, make sure they understand the contribution of animal research to the material they are learning. Come up with your own ideas about how to make a difference and share them with us.

Together we can have a profound impact on what is growing into an important public debate. If we stand together as a community, we will be heard.

Address for reprint requests and other correspondence: D. L. Ringach,Departments of Neurobiology and Psychology, Jules Stein Eye Institute,David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles,Los Angeles, CA 90095-1563 (E-mail: dario)

Dario L. RingachJ. David JentschDepartments of Neurobiology and PsychologyJules Stein Eye Institute; and Departments of Psychology and Psychiatryand Biobehavioral SciencesDavid Geffen School of MedicineUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesCalifornia

=============================================================================================

I submitted the attached as a letter. Amazingly it was rejected.

Ray Greek MDPresident, Americans For Medical Advancement (www.curedisease.com)

TO THE EDITOR:

I found the letter from Dario L. Ringach and J. David Jentsch (Ringach and Jentsch 2009) that appeared in the September 2009 issue very disingenuous. During April of 2009, I gave Dr Jentsch the opportunity to “discuss, debate, and express our opinions on the importance . . . of animal research (Ibid).†He declined my offer to debate the subject at UCLA complete with UCLA security at the event.

Further, my request for a debate was not centered on the emotive subject of vivisection or rights for animals, but rather the value of using animals in research touted as predictive for humans. That is a very scientific and unemotional topic. Not one likely to incite riots! There is no better way to “Reach out to your students and local communities to explain the value of research (Ibid)†than to participate in a public debate at your own university with your own security in attendance on a topic that is science oriented not philosophy or ethics oriented.

Americans For Medical Advancement (www.curedisease.com) does not oppose research using animals per se. We do deny animals can be used as predictive models for human disease and drug response and think that animals as predictive models is how animal-based research, on the whole, is sold to society in general (Shanks et al. 2009). Our board is composed of vegans and meat-eaters in equal proportion. If Dr Jentsch is unwilling to discuss and debate with us, I am not sure he really wants to discuss and debate but suspect rather, that he prefers a forum where positions other than his are not represented.

I have made this offer, to publicly debate the merits of using animals in research, many times and been turned down far more often than not. I take this opportunity to once again state publicly and for the record:

1. I am willing to discuss and debate the importance of animal-based research in a public forum.

2. I propose the debate be held on a university campus complete with their security to allay safety concerns.

3. The subject will be the scientific merits of using animals as predictive models in drug and disease research.

4. If that topic is debated, I then propose a second debate on the value of using animals in basic research.

If the animal-based research community really wants to explain to the general public what they do and what the value is, then I look forward to the hundreds of emails I shall be receiving, taking me up on my offer.

If “no one has a greater responsibility for explaining and defending your research than you do (Ringach and Jentsch 2009),†I would have expected Dr Jentsch to welcome the opportunity I presented. Alas, such was not the case. I now challenge the readers of the Journal of Neurophysiology to the same.

Ray Greek, MDPresident, Americans For Medical Advancementwww.curedisease.com

Ringach DL, and Jentsch JD. Enough Is Enough. J Neurophysiol 102: 2007-, 2009.Shanks N, Greek R, and Greek J. Are animal models predictive for humans? Philos Ethics Humanit Med 4: 2, 2009.

Thomas Paine’s Corner wants to periodically email you links to the most recent material and timeless classics available on our diverse and comprehensive site. If you would like to receive them, type “TPC subscription†in the subject line and send your email to willpowerful

For the latest updates on the animal liberation movement, visit NAALPO at http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/

If you have a Facebook account, don’t forget to look up Thomas Paine’s Corner’s Facebook page via the “search†feature and become a fan.

And if you have a MySpace account, don’t forget to friend Thomas Paine’s Corner at www.myspace.com/anarchovegan

Watch the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4 and go vegan. Do it for your health, for nonhuman animals and for the Earth!

To support or undertake animal rights and liberation activism in the Kansas City area, visit Bite Club of KC at http://biteclubkc.wordpress.com/.