Sep21
Vivisector of the Week!
Posted at 04:15 PM | Permalink
| 
Comments (43)
Fall is here, and the sounds of songbirds chirping morning greetings can be heard outside your window, while the animal moms and dads of the world rustle through the freshly fallen leaves seeking out a hearty breakfast for their children. Meanwhile, back in the lab, Jeffrey Cynx is busy as a bee burning lesions into the brains of the songbirds he's rounded up, while the folks at Taser International are furtively tasering as many animals as they can get their hands on to see if they have heart attacks.
That's right—it's time to pick out one of the slimiest "scientists" in the animal-experimentation game and crown this week's Vivisector of the Week! Last week's winner (by a slim margin of 5 to 4) was Thomas Langfitt, who takes his seat next to UConn's David Waitzman as this week's Vilest Vivisector. Tom may be dead, but his lifelong dedication to smashing animal's heads will never be forgotten!
So suppress those gag reflexes and cast your vote, 'cuz we've got two guys whose lousy scientific practices are rivaled only by the extreme cruelty of their methods, and this week's gonna be close! Ladies and gentlemen, your contestants …
Jeffrey Cynx, Vassar.
The NIH recently launched an investigation into a laboratory at Vassar College, where Jeffrey Cynx has been cutting into birds' backs, castrating male birds, burning lesions into their brains, and ripping out their tracheal nerves. After a whistleblower reported that these animals were also allegedly being denied veterinary care and dying—even prior to the experiments—PETA wrote to Vassar College to ask (very politely), WTF? We're working on getting these experiments stopped, but in the meantime, if you like songbirds, you may want to cast your vote for today's first contestant, Vassar's very own Jeffrey Cynx!
Rick Smith, Taser International.
 |
As always, thanks for voting, and check back with us next Friday* to find out who will be next week's Vivisector of the Week!
*The PETA Files cannot guarantee that they will remember to do this every week.
TAGGED:
rick smith Jeffrey Cynx don't tase me, bro
Comments
These low-lifes deserve a special vivisectors' hell. It is hard to choose which callous demon is the worst but I will go with Rick Smith, he gets my vote. Now if you will excuse me I have to regurgitate my vegan lunch into my barf bag and get a box of tissues for my tears and anger.
Posted by: Ana | September 21, 2007 04:58 PM
other lowlifes who never should have been born!
Posted by: rufus | September 21, 2007 05:05 PM
Well they're both pretty brutal, and completely pointless, but this week my vote goes to:
Rick Smith, Taser International. What a complete douche.
Posted by: Marianne | September 21, 2007 05:12 PM
Vassar is horrendous and im glad hes being stopped -
Posted by: Stasya Berber | September 21, 2007 05:27 PM
Hm... both of them are sick. It's slim, but I think I'll vote for Jeffrey.
Posted by: Quwen Quiola Qyiz | September 21, 2007 05:35 PM
Believe it or not, I have published research on birdsongs myself! But not lab stuff - computer analysis of songs recorded in nature, no harm done to the talented singers. Get this: over the course of a few years, you can see the songs evolve - some of them spread through the population like fads. Very cool.
So I have to give my vote this week to Jeffrey Cynx. After looking over some of his research on Google Scholar, I see a lot of suffering and cruelty behind such earth-shattering conclusions as this: "These data show that high levels of testosterone can lower the frequencies of elements in zebra finch songs." I'm just not seeing how we are better off knowing that, and the birds are very definitely not better off for having taught us that.
Posted by: Steve | September 21, 2007 05:47 PM
Jack, my vote was one of those lost last week so maybe I can vote for both of these repugnant sickos this week?
If not my vote goes to the Taser maniac, only because he is obviously a sadist let loose to fulfill whatever fantasies goes on in that sick mind! Mind you I have to say anyone torturing birds also deserves an honorary place in the Wax Museum´s Chamber of Horrors!
Posted by: Maureen | September 21, 2007 06:39 PM
Damn...tough choice. Like choosing between scum and mildew. Hard to tell who the most dedicated sadist is, but since that picture of Rick is a bit creepy he gets my vote. Excuse me now while I go and disinfect my keyboard.
Posted by: Mike Quinoa | September 21, 2007 06:48 PM
IDIOTS !
i love peta !
Posted by: Franco | September 21, 2007 06:51 PM
Rick Smith gets my vote. It sounds like he is really enjoying these "experiments" - like he's Rambo or something. Absolutely shocking and disgusting (though as usual, it is really hard to choose between the two of these "scientists", because they are both sickos).
Posted by: Michele | September 21, 2007 08:14 PM
Jeffrey Cynx
Posted by: AnimalLib | September 21, 2007 08:41 PM
wow this Rick smith fellow gets my vote. He knows what a tser does. It shocks. Case closed. no more need for animal "experiments" i think he must enjoy it. PETA needs an undercover to get proof!
Posted by: Russell | September 22, 2007 11:32 AM
Rick Smith, as sick as they come. I wonder why we have so much violence in the US? Maybe because of freaks like him.
Posted by: Claire | September 22, 2007 11:56 AM
It's hard to vote between two such monstrous beings. Can we even call them human? Yes Newt, there really are such things as monsters...and there are far too many in this world. With PETA standing strong beside of us, we will reduce them to the nightmare world where they belong. My vote is for both since there is no distinction between these or any of the rest of the monsters who perform such ghastly, inhuman actions against innocent beings.
Posted by: Laura Shumaker | September 22, 2007 12:39 PM
Actually, I wanted to test to see if my post makes it, and if it does...I vote for Rick Smith because he just looks so darn tough posing with a rifle. I think I will send him a polite (or not) note letting him know what I think of his "scientific" activities and asking him what having that rifle is supposed to be compensating for.
Posted by: Doug | September 22, 2007 12:57 PM
Hey Steve, that's neat stuff. I was watching a woodpecker in the woods the other day, and it was fascinating how he/she was going up and down the tree doing exploratory taps before picking a spot to do some serious head-banging.
Posted by: Mike Quinoa | September 22, 2007 03:11 PM
Vassar has a long history of animal torture.
Ask them about how they used to hire students to bash turtles over the head with hammers to conduct useless research.
They will do anything for our tax dollars.
Posted by: kelly | September 22, 2007 05:30 PM
Do you know this one from YouTube?
"Don't tase me, bro"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xzkd_m4ivmc
Posted by: hugo pottisch | September 22, 2007 05:31 PM
And meanwhile Vassar preaches about being "progressive" and "liberal"
It's like a sewer there.
Posted by: kelly | September 22, 2007 05:32 PM
Though they are both sick F**** my vote goes to Rick smith. I am so sickened that I am speechless.
Posted by: Taylor | September 22, 2007 09:14 PM
Anybody that has used a Taser to save their life shouldn't complain.
Posted by: Mars | September 22, 2007 11:56 PM
It must be '' Nerd Face Smith '' how would he function in the army I wonder., cry for his Mummy first night away !! Wanker !!
But folks we Peta members are aware of these horrors that exist in experimental labs ; but is the General Public. I sent the Bambi Kosher Slaughter to a friend in Texas.,and in her ignorance she asked was this legal..I doubt she was even aware of religious practise.
Posted by: keith | September 23, 2007 10:43 AM
I can never decide between these creeps. I despise them all equally.
Posted by: sherri | September 23, 2007 08:14 PM
Well, Mars, since we already know what a taser does--it tases--why shouldn't we complain? I'm sure that anyone "that has used a Taser to save their life," doesn't really care what injuries their attacker sustains.
But wait, I forgot. There are people around who couldn't care less that defenseless animals suffer for no reason. Life's much easier if you can just stand by and let it happen.
(And for anyone whose life has been saved by a Taser, do you care whether the Taser that saved your life was tested on innocent animals, death-row inmates--or people like Mars?)
Posted by: Doug | September 23, 2007 08:16 PM
I find it funny that you will fill your blog without the ability for others to argue alternatively. Then again, that would show the weakness of your argument when faced with logic and fact. You will not allow dissenting views because, in the end, you cannot refute them.
By all figuring, had slavery been fought today in the same way, publicly, openly, and EVENLY, in the same way that PeTA has fought for animal rights, slavery would have ended within a week. You have had how long? Why not turn your cause of today to making sure that CHILDREN are not mistreated. Oh, but that takes conscience. Talking about animals, you may PREACH.
Eat meat. The human body is designed to have it as a part of the diet. Science says so. Want to argue that, too? That is not belief or opinion. Fact-based, dude.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2007 12:27 AM
Well, Jeffrey Cynx sounds like he's Cyunk pretty low, all right, but I'll cast my vote for Rick Smith, the taser guy. Good Lord. He looks like a serial killer. Apparently, he acts like one, too. UGH.
Posted by: Susannah S | September 24, 2007 09:03 AM
Low life Rick Smith!! They both should get a taste of their own medicine! Makes me sick to know I'm breathing the same air as these two dim twits!
Posted by: Carla | September 24, 2007 10:55 AM
Both are monster's, but
The Bully Rick Smith gets my vote.
If you look really close in his eye's you can tell he is a "true danger" to those who are so trusting.
He loves to prey on those weaker than himself.
His soul is simply dead like his eye's.
Posted by: Judith, Freedom Fighter | September 24, 2007 02:18 PM
So let me ask y'all this: Y'all seem pretty interested in peaceful non-violence toward animals, but your posts in this forum strongly advocate grotesque violence toward any person who doesn't agree with you, or acts in a way you dislike. So how do y'all reconcile the two differing attitudes? Violence against animals is an abhorration but violence against humans is admirably heroic? Don't y'all think that's just the least bit hypocritical??
Posted by: Connie | September 24, 2007 04:06 PM
Anonymous,
The very fact that your comments got posted proves there is no censorship of anybody's arguments or opposing views on this board. So quityerbitchin!
And since you're obviously new, this is a site dedicated solely to animal rights. By all means, contribute your talents to opposing the mistreatment of children. You just have to do it on the appropriate site, not here.
As far as having to eat meat...
"It is the position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada that appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases....Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life-cycle including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence."
(As published in PubMed)
Posted by: Mike Quinoa | September 24, 2007 05:43 PM
Anonymous, 9-24-07,
Your comments are a bit confusing, but I am going to try to make some sense out of them.
Yes, this an ANIMAL RIGHTS' blog site, which has not and does not discriminate against anti-animal activists' commenting on here. (I believe you just did, haven't you?)
And since this an ANIMAL RIGHTS' blog site, that should clearly tell you that it is not a blog site about children in particular. Nevertheless, if you were to take the time to learn about animal rights' activism, you would learn that it is a broadly based activism, which extends into many avenues of life and our environment...for one example, concerning children: it is a well known fact by (most) law enforcers, child psychologists, and related professions, that when domestic animal abuse is discovered and reported (by animal activists), it is the red-flag warning to the above professionals that there is quite frequently child abuse occuring in those residences that have children...which otherwise might not have been known. A little extra info: some animal activists are child psychologists, etc., and law enforcers. Other than that, PeTA is not an agency that recruits only members for the purpose of law enforcement and social injustices...or employs any seers who can predict or prevent the mistreatment of children...or an org. that executes the laws in the judicial system afterwards.
Sorry (not) to burst your bubble, but we, as animal rights' activists, can refute anything that is baseless and/or nonsensical with DEFINITE or DOCUMENTED FACTS to the contrary...and we can refute with varieties of demeanor.
You are very, very sadly mistaken that the body was designed to have meat as part of one's diet...as well as you are extremely mistaken that science approves of it. Your misconceptions were repeatedly addressed on this forum to the point of ad nauseum. So if you believe yourself to be so intelligent, and if you really want to face facts based on medical and scientific research, then you should be capable of searching the PeTA archives that addresses those issues, which we profoundly refuted (with FACTS)...or you can research a medical source for information, whereby you will find the same FACTS.
You can congratulate yourself on being the millionth and seventy-fifth person who has expressed redundant, uneducated, and misguided perceptions about animal rights' activism...and since you have so many narrow views filling your mind, I suppose there isn't much room for YOU to have a conscience about anything. Can we now expect a response from you, honestly telling us about all the wonderful things that you do to enhance society, particularly the mistreatment of children? (I expect not) Anyway, thanks for giving it your best shots, feeble though they were...I enjoyed it!
Posted by: Ariel | September 24, 2007 06:57 PM
Connie,
Allow me to address your fair questions as best as I can.
The violence that is done to animals is a physical reality. Our comments about "violence," as you say, concerning those uncaring, vicious, unconscienable humans who carry out those very real physical animal abuses are just that, comments, not actions...comments filled with deep passions, which expresses our disdain about the animal atrocities that are conducted by human beings...yet human beings are supposed to be the most intelligent species, who should logically know that animals feel pain and suffering just like we do...but the animals cannot speak for themselves and are unwillingly subjected to horrors.
As conscienable and compassionate human beings and as animal rights' activists, we find it highly unacceptable that some of mankind resorts to uncompassionate, needless, barbaric cruelty...just as mankind inflicts upon each other.
So what do we do about this? Well, we are not capable of eliminating all the atrocities in the world concerning people. We don't have sole political power or a magic wand. Therefore, we speak out for the most vulnerable with our deep convictions and very deeply felt human emotions, which at times, has to be expressed as such...rather than restraining it within, which would be stressful.
I suppose you may have gotten angry at times and may have felt a need to openly express your anger in some type of manner that really didn't harm anyone else. Yet, your open expression of verbal anger didn't change you from being a compassionate person or didn't permanently define you as being a hypocrit. I would think of it as rare that no one has never disagreed with you on a very serious matter that was close to your heart and your beliefs or convictons, and you told that person he or she was the greatest person on earth. That, Connie, would be hypocritical, wouldn't it?
To sum this up: we are all human beings who have an array of feelings that we either generally express or restrain...and we all should have compassion, especially for the most helpless and voiceless, but the compassionate part is not a total reality. Anyway, expressing thoughts and feelings is very normal - not hypocritical. However, physical atrocities should never be quietly acceptable because that would be hypocritical of civilized humanity.
Does this answer your questions adequately?
Posted by: Ariel | September 24, 2007 08:23 PM
mike Q,
"nutritionally adequate" is hardly a glowing recommendation.
Posted by: rojo | September 26, 2007 07:39 AM
Rojo,
Scientists normally speak in conservative tones. Don't forget they also said, "healthful" and "provide(s) health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases" and "appropriate for all stages of the life-cycle".
Posted by: Mike Quinoa | September 26, 2007 07:58 PM
OMG... this is beyond cruel.
It is sickening, and SICK!
dear Mike Q: I received alot of revelation before I even attempted to go vegan and to date, even though I am not yet 100% vegan and always been fit, I've never been healthier! What started out to be a plan to help animals has done wondrous things for me physically. In light of my personal testimony others I know are following suit [some for their own reasons] but who cares as long as the animals at risk are reaping the ultimate benefits. amen?!
GO PETA! for largely being responsible for and continuously helpful
in this personal accomplishment.
dear Arial: I've been immensely preoccupied and busy for awhile but sneaked a peak at the PETA Files tonight and see that you are still blessing us all with so much vital information and facts. And, in your [and Mike Q's] inimitable and brilliant form, still dishing and exposing the trolls and detractors. GO PETA!
Posted by: 007 | September 27, 2007 01:53 AM
Good stuff 007. I just came up with this great vegan concoction.
I cook organic quinoa (which, like soy, has a complete essential amino acid protein profile) in a saucepan, and when it's done, but with the heat still on, I add and warm walnut pieces, cinnamon and soy milk. Makes a hearty breakfast (or whatever) and tastes damn good. And you know, if I cook it, it's gotta be simple. Cheers!
Posted by: Mike Quinoa | September 27, 2007 01:29 PM
ooops! could it be I mean "dissing"? oh, whatever!
it's just great [and great reading] how well PETA's pals handle the good,
the bad and the ugly! :)
Posted by: 007 | September 27, 2007 01:41 PM
dear Mike Q... yum! love the walnuts!
I use to be a meat, potato and vegetable girl, soups,stews and pasta galore!
A good cook, but never quite into "gourmet" cooking so the transition into simple vegan meals was no stretch for me as I tend to keep things simple so thank you for sharing!
one good tip deserves another...
A revelation I received at the recent onset of my vegan jouney that worked best for me was that most people eat meat because of the "seasoning." So I simply use my favorite seasoning [received with my past Kansas City filet mignon orders] which I now order [sans filets] and use on various thick sliced mushrooms! Voila! a few steamed veggies, a glass of wine and it's all good.
ps oh! I just realized I didn't order a PETA vegan starter kit! will do so right away because now I am looking forward to it more than ever.
Posted by: 007 | September 27, 2007 04:02 PM
If you or a loved one needed open-heart surgery to save your life, would you forgo it?
What we know as modern medicine is only possible because of animal research. Put your money where your mouth is and visit the shaman (the one who doesn't use any animal parts) next time you have a serious medical emergency. I'll take the ER...
Posted by: Anne | September 27, 2007 10:27 PM
007, I don't know if you are a chocoholic like me, but if so, you will LOVE the chocolate mousse recipe in the vegetarian starter kit. My 11 year old son even likes it, even knowing that it is full of tofu! Also, check out PETA's recipe website for their cherry "cheese" cake. Whenever I whip one of those up for guests, they are just amazed that something so vegan can taste so good! :) And like Mike, I also go for simple recipes - the "cheese" cake one is amazingly simple and fast to prepare (and you can read more of the antics of the anti-PETA people on these blogs while the cake is baking!). BTW, I find that the 55 minute baking time is too long - 40-45 minutes seems to be enough.
So, briefly back to the topic of vivisection - the more I read about this issue, the more I wonder if some people have not simply lost their f***ing minds! It is like a "grown-up", version of those psycho kids who used to burn the wings off flies just to see what would happen...
Posted by: Michele | September 27, 2007 10:33 PM
Anne, you must read "Sacred Cows and Golden Geese" - written by a phyisican and veterinarian from a scientific viewpoint, and is not about animal rights or emotional reactions to animal abuse. It is in fact about how animal testing has harmed HUMANS.
If you read even just a couple of chapters, you will learn that animal testing has NOT advanced our knowledge of medicine in any way. In fact, it has delayed many treatments and has killed or harmed millions of people. Just check out the Thalidomide, tobacco, and asbestos situations that the book describes. The chapter on cancer is also quite enlightening - scientists have spent decades, and billions of dollars, proving only that they can cure (deliberately induced) cancer in non-humans.
Non-humans and humans may have some physiological similarities, but the differences when it comes to the illnesses they contract or their physiological responses are actually enormous.
The most advances in medicine have been from autopspy and clinical observation, contrary to the myth that scientists and the pharmacy industry perpetuate in order to keep the $$$ flowing their way.
It is absolutely disgusting that this practice continues in what is supposedly an enlightened society...
Posted by: Michele | September 28, 2007 10:43 AM
Anne, I bet you didn't know this:
In 1996, 108,000 Americans died in hospitals from adverse reactions to FDA-approved drugs properly administered by licensed medical professionals, as reported by the Journal of the American Medical Association. In the same year, 2.2 million Americans had adverse reactions to FDA-approved drugs.
These are drugs that passed safety testing on animals, but this provides absolutely no guarantee the results can be extrapolated to humans. If you really demand the best of health care, you should insist your tax dollars are spent using human clinical, in vitro, computer modeling and other up-to-date modalities, NOT animal testing.
Posted by: Mike Quinoa | September 28, 2007 12:16 PM
dear Michelle: yum! thank you, thank you, thank you.
re vivesection:
IMHP it is one of the greatest hoaxes perpetuated against humanity
by the worst of mankind. AND, one of the cruelest evils ever perpetuated
against innocent, defenseless animals by the worst of mankind.
FACT: GREED, duplication and/or multiplication of efforts, and too many unscrupulous and/or incompetent so-called scientists are factual reasons enough for anyone to despair over AND to help put a stop to such a travesty of justice against so many poor animals.
Those in favor of vivisection I find are usually DECEIVED, i.e., ignorant of the truth, real facts, and that many are indeed of a questionable nature prone to evil themselves even if it is merely the lurking of it in their hearts.
Posted by: 007 | September 28, 2007 05:15 PM