Oct30
How Ingrid Broke Her Wrist
Posted at 11:47 AM | Permalink
| 
Comments (32)
After I posted a recent interview featuring PETA President Ingrid Newkirk, a lot of people have been asking how she ended up with a cast on her arm. When I asked her how it happened, she told me she’d broken it while disciplining her assistant, Starza, but—difficult as Starza can doubtless be sometimes—I suspect that the truth isn’t quite so dramatic. The closest I could get to full disclosure was an article that came across my desk a few days later that’s slated for the next issue of PETA’s quarterly magazine Animal Times. It’s a great little piece, so here it is for anyone who’s curious about how Ingrid ended up with that cast. Warning: this is a classic bait and switch—she’s going to turn the tables on you and make you think about, like, animal suffering—but as I say, it’s a great little piece.
"Just as I was setting out to launch my new book, Let’s Have a Dog Party!, I met a wet floor and went splat, neatly snapping the bones in my wrist. Ooh, the pain! Thank goodness for IV drips. Lying on the emergency room gurney, I thought of a seagull I had seen with a broken wing who was being tormented by boys, of the fox in our fur-farming video with a broken leg, and of the monkey who caught his arm in a laboratory cage and broke it. How had they coped without pain relief of any kind? And not just with the screaming pain of their injury, but with the simultaneous fear of attack by the humans who were clearly out to harm and even kill them? Even though they may try to hide it, animals feel pain just as much as humans do.
While researching our Animal Liberation Display, we found that during the days of human slavery, whites claimed that blacks did not experience pain as acutely as whites did. Blacks’ stoicism in the face of total domination, like that of animals today, was taken as positive proof that they were almost immune to physical pain. The same mindset allowed families to be torn apart because Africans were also, most conveniently for their owners, thought not to have the same emotional and familial ties. Some mothers walked a dozen miles every night, after a day of hard field work, to glimpse or hold a child sent to another plantation.
Families are still being torn apart. Chimpanzees used in “cute” ads like those for computer supply company CDW, which earned this year’s top Litterbox Award, are just babies, torn away from their mothers and forced to dress up in silly costumes and grimace for the camera (minus their canine teeth, which are always pulled). By the time they are 8 years old, they are too strong to be managed and are “retired” to filthy, depressing roadside zoos or laboratories, never to see their families again.
Times change and victims’ identities shift, but old, worn-out, flawed arguments remain. Please join us in vigorously bursting these balloons that drift everywhere around us. Every word spoken, every myth challenged, and every pamphlet posted and video link shared puts a pin in them. Thank you."
-Ingrid Newkirk
TAGGED:
Comments
Ingrid is a very communicative writer, and empathetic as always. Hope she has a speedy recovery.
Posted by: Mike Quinoa | October 30, 2007 12:07 PM
She is so inspiring! Everytime I read something of hers, I soak it all in and memorize it!!!
I LOVE Ingrid's passion!
Posted by: Jaclyn | October 30, 2007 12:19 PM
Long Live Ingrid!!
Posted by: Carla | October 30, 2007 01:18 PM
Ingrid your are so nice person, you deserve the best, you think like me, I love the animals and when I see a suffer animal, I feel like if it is me. I wish you the best, your heart is so beautiful, I am proud of you.Thank you Ingrid you are so nice for the animals!
Posted by: liliana | October 30, 2007 02:44 PM
all my best wishes to INGRID! she is my hero because no words can describe my thankful feelings for her and her amazing job!
Posted by: claudia marrapodi | October 30, 2007 03:05 PM
Yeah those wet floors are worse than headcrabs!
Caution: THIS IS SPARTA.
Posted by: Caboose | October 30, 2007 04:00 PM
Hmmm ... weren't IV drips (and the painkillers delivered thereby) tested on animals? Ingrid! I thought more of you...
Posted by: Greg | October 30, 2007 04:20 PM
Ingrid has put into poetic words my own feelings of compassion for animals abused in laboratories or the food industry, when I am at the receiving end of potential pain (dentist) or the cause of potential pain (procedures on my patients), and how fortunate we are to have anesthetics available and are able to understand why all this is happening to us.
Posted by: Jacob Dijkstra, M.D. | October 30, 2007 04:44 PM
Ingrid has put into poetic words my own feelings of compassion for animals abused in laboratories or the food industry, when I am at the receiving end of potential pain (dentist) or the cause of potential pain (procedures on my patients), and how fortunate we are to have anesthetics available and are able to understand why all this is happening to us.
Posted by: Jacob Dijkstra, M.D. | October 30, 2007 04:45 PM
Greg,
So what's your answer? Were IV drips tested on animals as you insinuate, and if they were, did they need to be?
The painkillers may have been tested on animals, but that is more of a legal requirement than an indication of medical efficacy. Ingrid would have no choice in that matter.
"Responding to a public outcry regarding drug safety (after the Thalidomide tragedy), the U.S. Congress passed the previously unpopular Kefauver-Harris Act in October of 1962, which, among other things, mandated that all drugs undergo preclinical testing to demonstrate their safety and effectiveness. The FDA has interpreted these preclinical standards as a call for mandatory animal testing. This interpretation expressed the will of the bill's sponsor, Senator Estes Kefauver, but was based on a misunderstanding of the science behind drug testing."
"Although some adverse drug reactions (ADR) are not very serious, others cause the death, hospitalization, or serious injury of more than 2 million people in the United States each year, including more than 100,000 fatalities. In fact, adverse drug reactions are one of the leading causes of death in the United States." (Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: A meta-analysis of prospective studies. Journal of the American Medical Association Apr 15, 1998; 279: 1200 - 1205.)"
These are drugs that have ALL passed animal testing with flying colors. Animal testing doesn't seem to be doing the job.
Posted by: Mike Quinoa | October 30, 2007 05:55 PM
I notice she didn't refuse treatment from the medical treatments that resulted from experiements on animals.
Posted by: Mars | October 30, 2007 07:10 PM
Greg (no last name?), the FDA demands that non-cosmetic drugs are tested on animals. Until this outdated requirement is finally abolished and researchers become more innovative, we (the public and medical professionals) can protest but have no choice but to abide by this rule. The fact that these medications, intended to relieve pain, are tested on animals is at least an acknowledgement that animals are capable of feeling pain and we should take this into consideration whenever we interact with them.
Posted by: Jacob Dijkstra, M.D. | October 30, 2007 07:12 PM
I hope her physician checked her for osteoporosis after her fall. As it turns out, I don't advocated getting dietary calcium from dairy. Rather, vegetable calcium is much more absorbable and easier on the GI tract. Collards, yum.
Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | October 31, 2007 12:18 PM
True CCMD, but milk, especially organic, tates good.
Posted by: Caboose | October 31, 2007 04:01 PM
Mike Q wrote;
"These are drugs that have ALL passed animal testing with flying colors. Animal testing doesn't seem to be doing the job."
It seems animal testing did do the job and continues to do so. Fact is that no amount of testing will result in a safe,effective drug that works exactly the same on every human.You err in thinking that such a test exists. It doesn't and never will.It is impossible to predict all the variables within the human population but testing,including animal testing, does give a general idea of the effects that CAN occur.
Still, "ingrid is a hypocrite and even agravates her position since she publicly stated she would oppose medical advances if tested on animals. I guess she meant oppose unless SHE, and by the looks of it I use she in assumption because it's kinda hard to be sure,benefits from it.Typical of those with the socialist/communist mind set.
Posted by: Mars | October 31, 2007 04:19 PM
Jacob Dijkstra, M.D.
I really appreciate your compassionate and intelligent comments. Welcome!
Posted by: Ana | October 31, 2007 04:23 PM
mars - the wanker king is back on stage but this time without his brains and balls - these were already blown away decades ago! farewell you sicko wacko - you bored me stiff!!!
Posted by: ANACONDA | October 31, 2007 05:11 PM
Mars, don't forget...if they had tested chocolate on dogs, humans would never be allowed to touch it! Then what would we hand out to trick-or-treaters tonight?
(I know, there's other candy besides chocolate, but still)
Posted by: BullyDawg | October 31, 2007 05:44 PM
Come on Ana, aren't you going to give your new Dutch friend any grief about posting his credentials?
Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | October 31, 2007 06:16 PM
I myself have experienced broken bones and the severe pain with it. I often marvel at how animals are so brave and noble and endure such horrible pain. It is most heartbreaking to see kittens with broken limbs trying to get food or run away from malicious children. I agree with Ingrid. One day our society will look back on thre treatment of animals on our times as cruel and outdated.
There is no need for animal testing. It is archaic and usually in place to save money for big pharma and other industries that are practicing it. It's time for change. We can no longer accept torturing animals as ok for a great cause. It is not acceptable.
Posted by: James Fontanetta | October 31, 2007 07:22 PM
I myself have experienced broken bones and the severe pain with it. I often marvel at how animals are so brave and noble and endure such horrible pain. It is most heartbreaking to see kittens with broken limbs trying to get food or run away from malicious children. I agree with Ingrid. One day our society will look back on thre treatment of animals on our times as cruel and outdated.
There is no need for animal testing. It is archaic and usually in place to save money for big pharma and other industries that are practicing it. It's time for change. We can no longer accept torturing animals as ok for a great cause. It is not acceptable.
James Fontanetta
Posted by: James Fontanetta | October 31, 2007 07:23 PM
To Mars:
Animal testing is pretty gruesome. But I'm sure that doesn't matter to someone with a conservative/neocon outlook.
Posted by: Tricia | November 1, 2007 12:52 AM
For those that are new readers of the PETA files, you need to be aware that animal testing is actually harmful to humans. Prescription drugs have killed more people in the US than all illegal drugs combined. Humans and non-humans may have similarities in their physiology and genetics, but they are not the same. Scientists who recognize how detrimental animal testing has been, have likened such testing to a "crapshoot".
Drugs and other treatments can be tested safely using many non-animal methods, especially with technological advances; however, historically more advances were made using autopsies, clinical observations and in vitro testing. Scientists have used animal tests to "confirm" that a particular treatment is safe, however they have to try with numerous species until they find one that actually responds favourably to a treatment. More than 90% of drugs that were "proven" to be safe in animal tests failed in human testing.
Animal testing has also delayed the discovery of various treatments, as scientists spend billions of dollars and decades on useless animal research.
Scientists have spent billions of dollars curing cancer in mice, but the treatments that have been effective were NOT proven safe with animal testing.
Penicillin may never have been discovered if the current laws about animal testing existed back then, because penicillin killed several species - it was in vitro testing that showed the effectiveness, and the scientists would basically take the drugs themselves to see if it was safe.
Look into the history of Thalidomide - they continued to prescribe this to pregnant women, despite knowing that their children were being born with severe birth defects, because the animal tests continued to "prove" that the drug was not teratogenic.
Also, the asbestos fiasco is another example, as is the tobacco industry.
A great book that can explain this in far greater detail than anyone can provide on this blog is "Sacred Cows and Golden Geese". It is not written by animal rights activists and the issue of animal cruelty is not even remotely used in the authors' arguments.
Posted by: Michele | November 1, 2007 10:38 AM
Chris, the amount of calcium may be more absorbable but the concentration of calcium in vegetables can be lower. ie 64% of the calcium contained in brussel sprouts can be absorbed, you just have to eat 400g to absorb the same amount of Ca absorbed from a glass of milk.
Or you could eat 3 pounds of spinach instead of having a glass of milk(unfair comparison, included for dramatic effect).
Posted by: rojo | November 1, 2007 10:58 AM
Wishing Ingrid all the best for a speedy recovery!
***********
Here I go again with another "cut and paste" in order to negate the terribly ERRONEOUS comments by the space cadet, MARS.
1. animals and human animals do NOT have the same physiologies - as well as each human animal has his/her own unique DNA. Therefore, ANY animal testing is automatically inaccurate! Therefore, animal testing CANNOT give even so much as a general idea of how it will affect and/or effect human animals.
2. pharm. co's. rely on an out-moded legal clause that allows them to get their drugs on the market faster than their competitors for the sake of the almighty dollar. When they are SUED -which is more OFTEN than realized- for their latest meds that have caused illnesses or fatalities, they have another med waiting in the wings to be marketed to re-cover their lawsuit losses!
3. NEW and HIGHLY ACCURATE NON-ANIMAL TESTING methods are being employed more and more, slowly but surely in pharm. co's. - especially those who aren't particularly making "sweetheart" deals with the govt.!
4. Until the NEW and HIGHLY ACCURATE methods are employed by at least MOST pharm. co's, we do NOT have a choice most of the time but to take the meds that have been tested on animals how ever toxic, having detrimental side-effects, causing other conditions, or fatal that they may be!
HOWEVER, we don't have to sit back and allow the innaccurate, painful testing on the animals to occur!
Testing on animals began in ancient times. This is now the year 2007! with modern technology!
The space cadet is way behind the times, which typical of a narrow-minded, uneducated, stubborn person, with a hunter (killer) mentality, who just wants to be more "right" -even though wrong- than cares about human beings or any innocent animals' lives!
Posted by: Ariel | November 1, 2007 01:39 PM
Don't be silly. Milk tastes disgusting.
Posted by: Kenna | November 1, 2007 04:59 PM
To all you morons who think that Ingrid is a hypocrit for accepting pain killers..
Weather or not Ingrid or any of us except the use of painkillers on humans such as ourselves, will never change them testing on animals. Now protesting animal testing that the govornment has "mandated" is not a bad idea, but if you do so, then it should be the harmful drugs that cause painful reactions, not the painkillers that make it easier to cope and less painful for anyone injected with them.
Knowing that animal testing is still going on in some places, dispite all efforts to stop it, one who is outraged by this should feel a sense of comfort knowing that the animal will hopefully be lucky enough to receive a pain killer (which the majority dont).
You who speak with no rationalizations about this, obviously do not really care about the welfare of animals in the long run. Obviously you are just out to find anything that one might concider a flaw when it comes to Ingrid.
Well just so you know- you failed, better luck next time jerks.
Posted by: Julia | November 1, 2007 05:35 PM
Mars,
You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth. First, you say animal testing did the job, and then you say it only gives a general idea. Considering the hundreds of thousands of people that die each year from adverse reactions to animal tested and approved drugs, a "general idea" falls far short of the mark.
If researchers focused on personalized medicine (pharmacogenomics, in vitro tests, epidemiology, clinical research, microdosing, DNA chips, computer modeling), and abandoned the unreliable and misleading animal model, we should be able to vastly reduce (and hopefully someday eliminate) the amount of human suffering from ADR's.
As you pointed out, drug reactions vary from person to person. Trying to factor in a whole different species into the equation is obviously ludicrous. If you research vivisection, you'll find it has all to do with money, grants and legal shielding, and precious little to do with medical science.
Posted by: Mike Quinoa | November 2, 2007 12:09 PM
Mars,
You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth. First, you say animal testing did the job, and then you say it only gives a general idea. Considering the hundreds of thousands of people that die each year from adverse reactions to animal tested and approved drugs, a "general idea" falls far short of the mark.
If researchers focused on personalized medicine (pharmacogenomics, in vitro tests, epidemiology, clinical research, microdosing, DNA chips, computer modeling), and abandoned the unreliable and misleading animal model, we should be able to vastly reduce (and hopefully someday eliminate) the amount of human suffering from ADR's.
As you pointed out, drug reactions vary from person to person. Trying to factor in a whole different species into the equation is obviously ludicrous. If you research vivisection, you'll find it has all to do with money, grants and legal shielding, and precious little to do with medical science.
Posted by: Mike Quinoa | November 2, 2007 06:27 PM
Hope she enjoys that animal-tested IV drip. Hypocrite.
Posted by: James A. | November 9, 2007 03:50 PM
I’ll just refer you to PETA’s Animal Testing page, that unambiguously states:
Send back items that you have from companies that test on animals...
Posted by: John K Clark | November 15, 2007 04:40 PM
Hello everybody, my name is Damion, and I'm glad to join your conmunity,
and wish to assit as far as possible.
Posted by: DamionKutaeff | March 23, 2008 09:59 AM