Dr. Kirshner Responds to the Journal of Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus Concerning Experimentation on Rabbits

Dr. Kirshner Responds to the Journal of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus Concerning Experimentation on Rabbits

Advancing the Interests of Animals: You wrote a letter to the editor of Journal of The American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus as a response to an article you found objectionable titled,

“Globe perforation during strabismus surgery in an animal model: Treatment versus observation.”

How did you become aware of the article? What specifically in the article by did you find objectionable?

Dr. Lori Kirshner: The thing that initially caught the attention of all of us, Peter, Dr. Larry Hansen and I was the sentence in the discussion section of the article, which reads,

"Due to anatomical differences between human and rabbit eyes, we cannot generalize the results of this study to human subjects.”

This was shocking to us because it effectively undermines the reason for the experiment on rabbits and the entire article. The title of the paper we replied to, as you mentioned above, is “Globe perforation during strabismus surgery in an animal model: Treatment versus observation.”  You can’t with a straight face refer to a performing research on an animal model (meaning an animal model of human disease) and later say that you cannot generalize the results to humans. So it is simply appalling. 

AIA: What was your motivation in submitting the letter?

LK: Well, after Peter and I decided a reply was appropriate, we asked Dr Hansen for his opinion and input. He is a Professor of Neuropathology at UCSD, and we knew he was opposed to unneeded research on animals. And he agreed that we should submit a letter, and provided his input. Our goal was to point out the absurdity of the research and that this well respected journal would publish this paper. Peter, as you know, is Pediatric Ophthalmologist and a member of the society which publishes this journal. We also wanted to bring attention to the issue of thoughtless vivisection to the medical community, which we feel is overall, fairly insulated to the various issues of efficacy and ethical concerns. 

AIA: What was the reaction to the letter when it was published?

LK: Well, I have to say I think we really attracted the Journal’s attention! First, there was a written reply by the authors in which they offered the usual arguments for testing on animals, advancing science and so on. Then, and I was very excited when I initially saw this, there was an additional reply by the editor in chief, Dr David Hunter, also defending the article and its methods. That’s pretty rare, that an editor in chief chimes in to defend an article.

AIA: As an aside, do you know any of the authors or Dr. Hunter?

LK: No, I do not, but Peter has told me he is familiar with Dr. Hunter's work and role in the Pediatric Ophthalmology community. Remarkably, in Hunter's defense of the article, he claims that we took part of it out of context and did not read the sentence "Due to anatomical differences between human and rabbit eyes, we cannot generalize the results of this study to human subjects.” as it should have been read. Well, in my opinion, this really brings out the desperation of their defensiveness.

If the whole thing hinges on taking the essential part of our objection out of context, then as Editor in Chief, Dr. Hunter could have and should have simply dismissed our letter as not worthy of publication. But he could not because there was more to the issue that taking a sentence out of context. We were questioning the thinking and rationale behind the research. Plus, if the sentence in question is so problematic, why did the reviewers or editors not correct it? Well, I am going to guess (and I mean guess) that the reviewers failed to recognize the problem because they are not tuned into the animal welfare elements involved in vivisection.

AIA: What do you think you achieved? Did you win a battle here?

LK: Well, one does not win these skirmishes. I doubt anyone will close down his or her animal lab after reading our letter. But I am hopeful that perhaps we may spark a greater sense of thoughtfulness when performing research on non-human animals. Why am I doing this research on animals? Is this research important? Will the results of this research advance science in a meaningful way? These are questions that I believe ought to be carefully considered by those who perform scientific research on non-human animals and to me it is evident the authors of the present paper did not ask these questions.

AIA: Do you oppose all research on animals?

LK: Let me say that I strongly believe we do way too much research on animals. I think a lot of it is unneeded. I think the Bagheri study is an example of this. No matter what this study found, it would not change anyone’s practice of surgery on a human. So the authors state they are advancing science; that is their rationale. Dr. Hunter assures the readers that the animals were treated appropriately. Well, maybe. My view is that if you are going to torture and kill sentient beings in the name of science, you should be doing better science. But if the value you place on the life of a rabbit is zero, then it doesn’t matter at all what you do to them. So even with institutional animal care and use committees, talk about the fox watching the henhouse, this is the current reality of medical research.

And of course the other huge issue of efficacy  - I have to mention that. The use of animals as models for human disease, especially in drug development, frequently leads us astray and causes harm to people, as in the case of Vioxx. Merck paid more than 3,000 claims to families of people killed an injured by Vioxx – that’s almost 5 billion dollars! What did animal experimentation accomplish in this case? It gave false assurances that Vioxx would be safe and effective for humans, thereby causing an estimated 27,000 to 55,000 preventable deaths! So, I hope for a time in the near future when we will look back upon the practice of vivisection as an ancient cruelty from unenlightened times, like slavery and torture.

AIA: The article cited is Bagheri A, Erfanian-Salim R, Ahmadieh H, et al. Globe perforation during strabismus surgery in an animal model: Treatment versus observation. J AAPOS 2011:15:144-147.

The citation for the letter by Drs. Kirshner, Spiegel and Hansen is: Globe Perforation during strabismus surgery in an animal model. J AAPOS 2012;16:217-218.

The author’s reply to our letter may be found here: J AAPOS 2012;16:217-218.

Dr. Hunter’s Editor’s note’s citation is: J AAPOS 2012;218-219.

Animal Lover?

By: Marilyn Ramos

 

 

Should you be a vegetarian or a vegan if you call yourself an animal lover? If you run an animal welfare organization should you be vegetarian or vegan? If your organization has the word “animal” in its title should you be an advocate for all animals?

My biggest pet peeve has always been people who casually call themselves animal lovers. When I ask if they are vegetarian, or if they attend rodeos and circuses, or if they wear leather or wool, they give me a funny look and then start hemming and hawing. The conversation usually ends with them admitting that they just love their dog or cat, not that they love all animals.

This leads me to another thing that annoys me and that is organizations and charities that have the word “animal” in their names. I recall after going vegan deciding to look for local volunteer opportunities where I could help animals. I was excited when I learned of an organization whose name insinuated that they advocated for all animals. I signed up with them to get more information and to be apprised of fundraising opportunities.

The first invitation I received was for a dinner and a Pets on Parade event. I was excited to go to the event until I had to choose my dinner on the RSVP card. I had a choice between beef or chicken!!  How can you have the word “animal” in your organization’s name yet serve animals at your fundraiser? Surely, I wasn’t the only one who would find this hypocritical. The next day I called the organization and advised them that I was vegan and wanted to know what options were available to me. The woman who answered my call was not particularly nice and said they could accommodate me with either fish or pasta. I told her that fish was not vegan since they too are animals. I then asked how the pasta would be served (I wanted to make sure there wasn’t an alfredo sauce or cheese sauce). She said she could not answer that question and I would have to take it up with the chef the evening of the event. I let her know that I was very disappointed that an organization with the word “animal” in its title and an organization that is listed as an animal welfare organization would be so dismissive of a vegetarian/vegan person who was looking to support their organization.

I chose to forego the event since it was clear that this organization was not about helping all animals but simply about helping cats and dogs. Now don’t get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with wanting to help cats and dogs but I don’t think you should have the word “animal” in your organization name if you don’t truly help all animals.

Another organization with the words “love” and “animals” in its name recently held a fundraiser at a hamburger joint! Yes, let’s eat cows, pigs, turkeys and chickens while we raise money for cats and dogs and while we hypocritically state that we love all animals.

Why am I bringing this up? What’s the big deal? It is a big deal because I believe that any organization that professes to be an animal welfare organization or an animal rights organization should work for ALL animals. I believe casually inserting the word “animal” into your organization name when you don’t work for all animals is insulting and disrespectful to those organizations and those people who do work for ALL animals. I believe including the word “animal” in your organization name comes with responsibility. I don’t believe calling yourself an animal lover is right either when you do nothing to help ALL animals.

I think that this responsibility also extends to animal shelters and rescues.  Animal shelters house mostly cats and dogs but they also do occasionally house other animals – rabbits, snakes, goats, etc. A few years ago, a local shelter permitted a gourmet market to boil live lobsters and serve them in a “Claws for Paws” fundraiser event. They got a lot of flak for it and the good people at that shelter are now doing their best to walk the talk and not have fundraisers where animals are served.

I have to admit that I don’t understand how people who run and work at shelters / rescues / welfare organizations can work all day with cats and dogs trying to make their lives better then go home and eat a steak or chicken for dinner. Why the disconnect? Why the blinders? Is it rational to think that some animals are pets and some animals are food? I think some people think this way so that they can justify eating and wear some animals while working for the welfare of other animals.

My favorite animal rights quotation is from Jeremy Bentham, an 18th/19th century philosopher. He said, “The question is not, "Can they reason?" nor, "Can they talk?" but rather, "Can they suffer?"

I wish everyone who worked at these shelters and organizations who truly only work on behalf of cats and dogs yet have the word “animal” in their names or how they describe themselves would take this quote to heart. All animals matter and all animals should have their interests advanced so that we can ALL share in a better world.



Why Lennox?

By: Marilyn Ramos

For anyone who spends any amount of time on Facebook (or any other social media site) you have no doubt heard about Lennox and the "Save Lennox" movement. I've had no less than 15 friends over the last two weeks post about Lennox, link to newspaper/TV stories about Lennox, asked friends to pray for Lennox, etc.  You get the picture. The story of Lennox and his plight have gone viral.

If you have no idea what I'm talking about, then you are probably wondering who is Lennox and why is he so important. Well, Lennox is an American bulldog/Labrador mix in Belfast, Ireland sentenced to die on July 12, 2012, for the "crime" of looking like a pitbull.  In short, the United Kingdom has a dangerous dog law on its books known as the "Dangerous Dog Act" ("DDA") and if a dog's measurements meet a certain standard for "pitbull types", he or she can be seized from a home without a warrant and put to death.  The assumption is that just looking like a pitbull means the dog will behave badly, either now or some time in the future so he or she must be killed.

Lennox was taken from his home in May 2010 despite not having had any complaints lodged against him. In fact, Lennox not only served as a family companion but he also served as a therapy dog for a disabled daughter in the family. 

To add insult to injury:

1) Lennox wasn't even the original target of the warrant (the "dog police" mistakenly went to the wrong address and poor Lennox's life was never the same again);

2) the DDA was amended recently to incorporate additional criteria that the dog at issue must also be proven dangerous. Unfortunately, Lennox is still being held prisoner because he was seized BEFORE the amendment went into effect so the fact that he's never been proven dangerous is a moot point; and

3) not once have the Belfast authorities permitted his human family to visit him during his two years of imprisonment (they won't even tell the family where Lennox is being held).

One is never really sure why a story goes viral but in this case, Lennox has gotten the attention of celebrities all over the world (even Cesar "the Dog Whisperer" Millan has offered to bring him to the United States) and has been the subject of numerous petitions seeking his release.  

Incredibly, high ups like the Minister of the Dept. of Agriculture and Rural Affairs and the First Minister of Northern Ireland have been brought into the mix. Even a last ditch effort has been made with the Queen, seeking a "royal prerogative of mercy" for Lennox. If they are not able to save Lennox, then his family is demanding to at least have the right to say goodbye. As they eloquently stated, "We cannot bear the thought that Lennox will die without being reminded of the hearts and hands that love him."

Now if that last line didn't bring a tear to your eye, you aren't human!

But why write a blog about Lennox? Well, this blog isn't really about Lennox. This is about the billions of other animals who are just like Lennox but who don't garner as much attention.

Where is the pardon request for the beagle suffering in an animal lab testing facility?

Where is the outcry for the calf taken away from his mother after only a few hours and sold off to the veal industry?

Where is the petition seeking to free the bull about to be killed in the bullfighting ring?

Now, granted, many animal advocates do all of the above on behalf of animals. However, the plight of the average animal does not get the attention of the average person. The average person does not advocate for ALL animals.

I'm happy for Lennox and his family that their story is being told; however, I am always astounded at the disconnect people have to other animals who suffer as much if not more than Lennox. I spent some time reading the comments by people who were outraged by Lennox's story and cared enough to comment on a newspaper article or comment on a Facebook posting. Why Lennox though? Why this dog? Why not express the same compassion and concern for other animals?

I think about the time that millions throughout the world have taken to speak up for Lennox; however, the overwhelming majority of these people ate animals today and wore animals today. After signing a petition on behalf of Lennox, they may have had bacon for breakfast, put on their favorite leather shoes or bought tickets to the circus. Totally unphased by the hypocrisy they have just participated in.

I ask, again, "Why Lennox?"

If Lennox doesn't make it beyond July 12^th, then I hope that his passing is not in vain. I hope that maybe, just maybe, his plight and the overwhelming concern the world has given him will have opened the eyes of some who might also ask, "Why Lennox?" Then perhaps they'll go one question further and ask, "Why not every other animal?".

Hot Diggity Dog

By: Marilyn Ramos

Another 4^th of July holiday is gone which means another Nathan’s Famous Fourth of July International Hot Dog Eating Contest (that’s a mouthful…pun intended) is also gone. This year, Nathan’s held its ninety-seventh annual contest. Five-time-defending champion, Joey Chestnut, won again by devouring a record-tying 68 hot dogs (and buns) in ten minutes.

Now, I’m sure most of you have seen video clips or snippets of this nausea inducing contest. People dunking hot dogs and buns into water and shoving them into their mouths as fast as possible. For what? What purpose does this serve? For the right to claim that they ate the most hot dogs in ten minutes? Who would want this distinction? Where is the nobility and prestige in that? I question the mentality of a person who wants that to be their claim to fame.

What’s also nausea inducing is the movement to make gorging your face a sport called Competitive Eating. It makes no sense whatsoever.

The implications of this hot dog eating contest are multi-fold.

First, the toll on the body is shocking. Each Nathan’s dog has 290 calories, 710 milligrams of sodium and 17 grams of fat. In total, stuffing 68 hot dogs and buns into your body means almost enough calories as someone on a 2,000-calorie-a-day diet would need in ten days. The long term effects of “competitive eating” have not yet been fully studied since this is a new phenomenon. However, if you deem yourself an ‘athlete” in this new “sport” then the long term effects can’t be good especially when we know that “competitive eating” involves mostly unhealthy foods.

Second, putting veganism and animal rights aside for just a minute, devouring 68 hot dogs in ten minutes is also cruel when you think of the millions of starving people around the world. Heck, forget the world, think of the millions starving right here in the United States (or, at least, those who are “food insecure” as they are now called). Almost 15% of Americans are “food insecure” with 5.5% of those having very low food security. That means, over 15 million Americans don’t have enough food to sustain them on a daily basis. I wonder about the child sitting in front of his/her TV who hasn’t had food that day. I wonder what he/she thinks when they see that much food piled onto a plate. When they see it disappear in ten minutes flat, do they wonder, “Who needs that much food at once?” or “Why can’t I have some?”.

If one were to argue that it is okay to eat animals (not my position) because they are used to feed the masses, then how is it “respectful” to either the animal or the starving child to have ONE person eat 68 hot dogs in ten minutes? Multiply that by the number of contestants, multiply that by how many times these contestants practiced and multiply that by the number of increasing “competitive eating” contests out there. What you get is a lot food being wasted. Food that is not used to sustain you or provide you nutrition but food used simply as a game…a sport. Food that the person barely tastes because it is being inhaled at an alarming rate. Gluttony run amok.

Whenever I see one of these competitive eating contests, I can’t help but feel saddened when I think of the animals sacrificed and the people starving everywhere. To be so glib about devouring that much food in such a short period of time makes me wonder about our priorities. Besides that, how does this one 4th of July gorge fest honor our freedom, our independence or our founding fathers? It doesn't.

Finally, I wonder if the average person craves a hot dog more after seeing Nathan’s annual hot dog eating contest. I think they probably do. Heck, in just writing this blog I craved a veggie dog even though I haven’t eaten one in over six months. I went food shopping yesterday and bought a pack of veggie dogs and a pack of hot dog buns. But I digress, I think that these competitive eating contests spawn imitators and I can envision these macho guys in their backyards holding their own hot dog eating contests. Not because they are hungry but because they want some silly title they can lay claim to or to show off among their friends. Mature, right?

I think of the cows, pigs and turkeys who suffer so on factory farms. The months they spent confined, abused, exploited, and scared. Their sacrifice a mere blip, a mere shove down a throat. Their pain and suffering a mere stepping stone to a tacky Nathan’s “championship” belt.

In my ideal world, everyone would be vegan. But, I’m a realist and don’t believe that will ever happen so if people are going to eat animals then, at a bare minimum, I would hope that they would be more MINDFUL of the suffering and the sacrifice. Be more MINDFUL of the toll it takes on the animals and on the environment and on people. Of course, if they were more MINDFUL then they probably wouldn’t be eating animals in the first place. Ignorance is bliss but we must all strive to turn that ignorance into education and, hopefully, make this world a better place. A better place for animals. A better place for the hungry. A better place for future generations.

  

Au Revoir to Foie Gras

By: Marilyn Ramos

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated”. Mahatma Ghandi

On July 1st, the sale and production of foie gras will be illegal in California. Senate Bill 1520 was passed in 2004 and made California the first state to enact such a ban. Author, John Burton, stated that “we just shouldn’t be cramming a tube down a duck's throat and forcing in food to make foie gras," and that foie gras production is "an inhumane process that other countries have sensibly banned. I'm pleased California will be next on the list."  It should be noted that a dozen or so countries also ban foie gras. These include Switzerland, Israel, Denmark and the United Kingdom.

As the deadline looms, numerous articles are being written about the ban. Some articles have waxed poetic about foie gras parties and bashed the “animal rights crazies”. I wish one day someone would explain to me what is so crazy about caring for animals, their welfare and their humane treatment.

I, for one, find it disheartening that so many do not see the inherent cruelty of foie gras. Maybe that is because so many people are either ignorant or purposely choose to be left in the dark about how their food is made (especially when the cruelty is blatant). Out of sight, out of mind I suppose.

As you probably know, foie gras is French for fatty liver. The livers of ducks and geese are fattened up by force feeding them several times a day for 12 to 18 days via a steel tube (gavage) so that their livers expand to an abnormally large size. You can find videos online showing the production of foie gras. It is not a pretty sight. Not only are the ducks and geese roughly handled, but they suffer pain, injuries, organ damage and infection from the harsh process. Some can’t walk from the extra weight and some even die from exploding stomachs. Even the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) does not support the practice.

I need to point out that the process of producing foie gras is cruel and inhumane but it is only half the story. The treatment of the animals immediately prior to and during slaughter is also cringe-worthy (as it is for most meat production). Ducks are shocked with electrified water and then have their throats slit to allow the blood to drain. Marcus Henley, the operations manager of Hudson Valley Foie Gras states:

“The heart has to continue beating so when the throat is cut, blood pumps out for a time. This is standard in all animal slaughter, although some religious customs preclude stunning. We are not comfortable with that. The bird has to be alive at the point where the throat is cut so the blood pumps out.”

Advocates of foie gras claim the animals don’t suffer. I’m sorry but that is like a rapist saying his victim liked it or must’ve enjoyed it if she didn’t fight back. Unfortunately, some people will reject all evidence put before them that shows foie gras production is cruel, because they simply want to eat it without feeling guilty about it.

So as many restaurants will be hosting Au Revoir to Foie Gras parties over the next two weeks, I’ll be saying Au Revoir to ducks gasping for air, geese choking on blood, ducks suffering from liver malfunction, geese having tubes crammed down their throats, ducks unable to hold up their heads because of so much damage to their necks. I’ll be saying GOODBYE to the inhumane treatment of ducks and geese in California. I hope that the old saying, “As goes California, so goes the nation” will become a reality when it comes to foie gras in this country.

Animals Today – May 20, 2012. Hardy Jones explains Peruvian dolphin strandings. Marina Dervan promotes An Act of Dog

On this show, Lori was first joined by conservation filmmaker and author Hardy Jones. Hardy is recently back from Peru where nearly one thousand dead dolphins and porpoises have washed up onto the beach. He shared some new insight as to why this might have happened. Hardy also has a new book titled The Voice of the Dolphins.

During the discussion with Lori, the topic of health benefits of omega 3 fatty acids came up. Lori did not mention this, but for vegans, a product called Omega Zen, provides omega 3s derived from algae. That’s what we take.

Then, Marina Dervan came on to discuss the project, An Act of Dog. Artist Mark Barone is painting 5500 dog portraits to support companion animal welfare. Listen in to find out how to buy one and support this massive undertaking. A very exciting project, we think you will agree. 

Here is the link to the show.

Orangutans Need Our Help

By: Marilyn Ramos

A couple of days ago, a friend posted on Facebook an article from 2009 that challenged vegans to care about wildlife as much as they do factory farms. Initially, I took issue with the article and my friend’s posting because she is not a vegan and I thought she was criticizing vegans. I commented that: first, I didn’t know any vegans who didn’t also care about wildlife and second, that several vegan companies - upon learning about the horrors of palm oil - were transitioning to other ingredients as quickly as possible.

I realized after re-reading the article and thinking about it that I had two subjects for a blog. The first is about palm oil (the second was about the “plant defense” which is the subject of a future blog). Again, the article was by a vegan writing about the palm oil epidemic and how several vegan products (such as Earth Balance) contain palm oil.

For those who don’t know about the palm oil epidemic, it is a vegetable oil found in at least one in ten products (margarine, bread, chips, crackers, soaps, lipsticks, animal feed, etc.). Unfortunately, the increasing demand for palm oil is contributing to the extinction of orangutans. 85% of the world’s palm oil exports come from the oil plantations of Malaysia and Indonesia which are the only remaining rainforest habitats for orangutans (on the islands of Sumatra and Borneo). These habitats are the same lowland forest that the oil palm industry favors for conversion to palm plantations.

In the past week alone, around 100 Sumatran orangutans have been killed in fires reported to have been lit by palm oil companies in Sumatra.

It is believed that without urgent intervention, orangutans may become extinct in just a few years. Orangutans are Asia’s only great ape. Simply put, palm oil plantations = rainforest destruction = orangutan extinction.  A recent report found that almost 90 percent of the orangutan's habitat in Indonesia and Malaysia has now been destroyed. Estimates put the Sumatran orangutan population today at less than 6,600 animals.

Upon reflection, I can see that maybe vegans and other animal advocates may not be giving this emergency the attention it needs. Admittedly, vegans already concentrate on rodeos, circuses, factory farms, animal testing, etc. But do we truly look at alleged vegan products (such as Earth Balance) that may be indirectly contributing to the exploitation and death of animals? Maybe not, but the palm oil situation highlights our need to FURTHER expand our circle of compassion.

It may no longer be okay to just be a vegan who uses products not tested on animals or products that don’t contain animal ingredients.  We need to go beyond that.

The good news is that more and more people know about the horrors of palm oil production. Several companies are now working on sustainable palm oil and those companies (vegan or otherwise) who have been using palm oil which comes from Malaysia and Indonesia are looking for other animal and environment friendly sources.

I urge you to read the ingredients in the products that you use. If you see palm oil then:

1)      Consider switching to another (vegan) product which does not contain palm oil,

2)      Research where that palm oil is coming from,

3)      Support those organizations that are trying to save the orangutan or those using sustainable palm oil, and

4)      Spread the word to your family and friends because I can’t imagine a world without orangutans.