The University Of Utah is literally allowing deadly and tortorous sadism to be perpetrated in the name of science and education. The human race has no shame.

Posted by: Brien Comerford | November 11, 2009 05:09 PM

What I have always failed to understand who sanctions these horrific experiments : and what could these experimentors be capable of doing if asked. And does anybody on this site know or have any dealings with these beings to fully understand what makes them so damn vile and cruel., or indeed what drives them on : other than a possible sadistic make-up : and can you imagine if they turn up for work in a temper or mood over some issue : the extra suffering & abuse these poor sentient creatures must be exposed to; in release of their frustrations..it is beyond all comprehension~surely.

Posted by: keith | November 11, 2009 06:08 PM

it took A LOT of guts and courage to go undercover especially since the uncover agent saw and possibly had to partake in the sever incredibly immoral unethical painful torture of these innocent beings.Thank you so much for going undercover and risking your life, as well as forcing yourself to capture all this.Thanks because most people have no idea that the toothpaste the squirt in their mouth, the lipstick their paste on, the shampoo their use or even the cancer treatment they get comes from kidnapping, imprisoning, and torturing as well as slowly or quickly killing these and many more innocent beings lives.It makes no sense to harm let alone kill another life to supposedly save anothers.I can not truly know how frightening and painful the hellish experiences these animals go through but to me it sounds similar to what happened to humans in the Holocaust, possibly worse.I look forward to the end of all animal cruelty and with it the end of animal testing aka animal murder.

Posted by: simara | November 11, 2009 06:42 PM

How dare they call themselves Scientists. What a sham. Ruthless tortures and merciless killers. Lab Nazis. How do they live themselves. Oh, I forgot they don't have consciences.

Posted by: Saucy | November 11, 2009 08:38 PM

Surely, we have evolved from archaic experiments and can come up with more humane ways to get the results needed. And besides, the results haven't always played out with humans when they have been tested beforehand on animals. And last time I checked, I have never caught my four cats wearing eye shadow or lipstick, so why test it on them and I would never want to see them or any animal abused or mistreated in the name of science. Respectfully, karen

Posted by: karen johnston | November 12, 2009 12:32 AM

This must stop why don't they test on homeless people? Same difference if you ask me!

Posted by: michelle van der merwe | November 12, 2009 03:40 AM

This shut be make illegal ALL over the world. If some one want to try thing out why not do it on them selves. No cause poor defenseless animals can't speak up for them selves. Pure evil bast++#ds

Posted by: danielle riley | November 12, 2009 04:04 AM

This is the most disgusting thing. These people are going to burn in hell.

Posted by: Erica | November 12, 2009 09:13 AM

Robert's photo and story is heartbreaking! Robert reminds me of my cat Felix---adorable---so it is especially painful for me. BUT THE PAIN THAT ROBERT ENDURES IS INEXPLICABLE. This is not science---only the nazis would consider this "science". Human beings are monsters that vivisect; and vivisectors are subhumans.

End vivisection now!!!

Posted by: AAG | November 12, 2009 10:17 AM

It breaks my heart that a poor sweet cat like Robert, who only wanted a happy home to go to, instead gets taken away to be tortured.

Shelters should not be allowed to sell animals, for a mere $10-20 no less, to institutes like this. I guess they do it to make it look like they have a high adoption rate.

Posted by: Jason | November 12, 2009 12:51 PM

Ah... but thanks to animal testing in the past, we're all here today able to argue about the cruelty to animals. And, thanks to animals helping produce insulin, those that are insulin-dependent (genetic) diabetic live to see another day.

(Not ignorance here BTW - just simple researching places that ain't PCRM).

Posted by: Mel | November 12, 2009 02:35 PM

what you failed to include in your account is what the experiments are for. some animal tests are necessary, such as testing surgical procedures, medications and vaccines. Some are frivolous and should be stopped like testing cosmetics on animals

Posted by: Tom | November 12, 2009 03:34 PM

Mel: I don't get your remarks.

Back in the day maybe that is all they had, BUT now with DNA and computers etc.. we have advanced in our research.

Not to forget they are not suppost to be allowed to induce such suffering in these animals and they lie about the amount of pain they inflict on these poor helpless animals that are trapped behind close door and can't speech out to get the help they need.
Now,with such cruel,heartless tactic like that how can we ever trust them with the results of there research.
They will never get ahead if they keep going backwards by using animals.
*of course I am not in favor of animals being used for research of any kind.

Posted by: Shari | November 12, 2009 04:13 PM

Mel,

WHAT!?! Ur right when it comes 2 animal testing leading up 2 today's advancements in health technology. But people dont want 2 have 2 argue about animal crulety, they would rather know that all the world's animals are safe. If people want 2 test on something, they need 2 test on those willing 2 give up their own health garuntees, not force innocant animals 2 do it 4 them! IT'S JUST NOT RIGHT!! Would like to be injected with strange chemicals, toxic waste, and even TUMERS?!?! Please write me back and tell me if I have changed ur mind or if u would rather agree with the cruel "scientests" at the "University" Of Utah. Everyone please do so, if u can.

Posted by: Smmy Girl | November 12, 2009 04:14 PM

I am haunted by the photo of Robert. How can a shelter sell cats and dogs to a lab? It would have been kinder to simply put them down if homes could not have been found.

Posted by: Kelley | November 12, 2009 04:15 PM

"Mel"
it is not right, moral or ethical to torture and murder a life to "save" another.
Do some more research -on this site as many many many others on the net there are a plethora of NON ANIMAL testing that is not only ethical and moral but actually has far better results.WE as a species have made an abundance of repeated horrific mistakes and violations to our own species and all others-past wrongs do not excuse present ones.It's 2009 not 1910 join the proper year and learn about non animal testing.

Posted by: simara | November 12, 2009 05:36 PM

"Do some more research -on this site as many many many others on the net there are a plethora of NON ANIMAL testing that is not only ethical and moral but actually has far better results"

--I'll give you a cookie if:

1. You can find a non-animal model for every line of useful research.

2. You can find more examples of non-animal methods producing better results than I can find of them producing erroneous results.

Your statements are naive and untrue.

Posted by: Kalama Halamezad | November 12, 2009 06:26 PM

i don't give a damn what results may come from torturing others. Torture and mutilation is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, CRUEL, SADISTIC, and makes demons of those who do it...results BE DAMNED. The end does not justify the means NEVER EVER EVER.

Those creeps in there doing this are not humans, they are demons straight from hell. To hell they will return when they die.

Hurry up and die filthy vile evil animal torturers! Take your "results" and curiosities and grant money and shove them up your charcoal demon anus.

Posted by: Missy | November 12, 2009 07:28 PM

Yes, I think it is so wrong to repeatively drill holes in various animals brains.--esp. cats.. where they think, feel, and are sensative..verses a thing to be tortured eg. poor "Robert". the artical has haunted me. Since then I have sent many emails to friends, and printed the article out at work, and passed it around. We all need to band together to stop the brutality. I wish i could remove poor "Robert" from that lab in Utah, and bring him home, give the cat the love it deserves. sandy

Posted by: sandy lindblad | November 13, 2009 01:52 AM

Smmy Girl: Mel,
WHAT!?! Ur right when it comes 2 animal testing leading up 2 today's advancements in health technology. But people dont want 2 have 2 argue about animal crulety, they would rather know that all the world's animals are safe.

1. No, they are more concerned about themselves - we are all a greedy, selfish species. A clear-thinking person knows that something suffers - always - so another survives.

Smmy: If people want 2 test on something, they need 2 test on those willing 2 give up their own health garuntees, not force innocant animals 2 do it 4 them! IT'S JUST NOT RIGHT!!

2. An animal will attack if it's threatened - so no - they ain't innocent or defenseless.

And - can you sincerely tell me that you yourself would be willing to be given something that could kill you in order to save an animal?

Smmy: Would like to be injected with strange chemicals, toxic waste, and even TUMERS?!?!

3. Um... sweetheart, you can't inject someone with tumors. They grow inside someone. Toxic waste would be something like chemo, which we already have, and strange chemicals we do to ourselves every day with things other than food and medicine.

Smmy: Please write me back and tell me if I have changed ur mind or if u would rather agree with the cruel "scientests" at the "University" Of Utah. Everyone please do so, if u can.

4. No - you haven't changed my mind. I'm one who understand the concept that all things suffer for the benefit of others. Even your vegetarian diet, bugs and other insects die for your benefit. This is why I think protests like this don't make sense - you don't really look at the big picture.

Posted by: Mel | November 13, 2009 12:06 PM

Simara: "Mel"
it is not right, moral or ethical to torture and murder a life to "save" another.

1. Sweetheart - this is the reason I can't take PETA seriously. Can you tell me you had no vaccinations for things such as Measles, Polio, and other at one time fatal diseases? If you can't, you've already benefited from the torture and murder of animals to "save" yourself.

Also, anyone who uses insulin to treat genetic diabetes (or insulin-dependent diabetes) benefits from animals. Other medicines also have gelatin capsules - which is created from beef.

Seriously, can you tell me that if it were you, that you'd say that you'd not take insulin because it's animals even though you'd die within a short time?

Simara: Do some more research -on this site as many many many others on the net there are a plethora of NON ANIMAL testing that is not only ethical and moral but actually has far better results.

2. Simara - you MUST give me proof here, otherwise this is a bunch of nonsense to try and dissuade someone who SERIOUSLY DOES her own research.

Simara: WE as a species have made an abundance of repeated horrific mistakes and violations to our own species and all others-past wrongs do not excuse present ones.It's 2009 not 1910 join the proper year and learn about non animal testing.

3. Simara - I'm sorry again sweetheart, but everyone here is not really looking at the truth - that they themselves still benefit from animal testing. From an aspirin to anesthesia to other medical care, ALL was tested on animals, and still will be.

Now, unless you PETA members can say that YOU'D voluntarily take these poisons and other testing on yourselves, I find your comments nonsense and laughable.

BTW - I've noticed that you say that the SCIENTISTS or those that understand (read - don't necessarily agree, but understand). I NEVER see a PETA member say they'd be willing to do it.

Posted by: mel | November 13, 2009 12:14 PM

haha, i got fired from the U animal lab because i am vegan. im going to file a lawsuit hopefully, discrimination ;)

Posted by: justin johnston | November 13, 2009 01:19 PM

Mel,

Most insulin used today is not animal-sourced but synthetic.

Also, animal research played no direct role in the discovery of insulin.

"In the early 1920s two scientists, J. J. R. Macleod and Frederick Banting were given credit for isolating insulin by extracting it from a dog. For this they received a Nobel Prize. Macleod admitted that their contribution lay not in discovering insulin (for which they are often credited), but in providing evidence from the animal lab. (BMJ Aug 2, 1923 pp165-172).

Macleod and Banting were not obligated to extract insulin from a dog, because certainly there was ample tissue from humans. J. B. Collip, a biochemist in Macleod's team said the administration of the dog insulin (to a 14-year old diabetic) was "absolutely useless."

It was concluded that Banting and Best's dog experiments had not been vital. It was the chemistry of Collip and Macleod that had isolated and purified insulin using in vitro (non-animal) techniques."

(Above contains excerpts from Sacred Cows and Golden Geese by the Drs. Greek.)

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | November 13, 2009 03:24 PM

Mel. Why don't you offer up yourself to be tortured. Or your family and friends. Testing on animals is sick and barbaric. You have a lot of nerve to think that what these morons do to these innocent beings is ok. Sicko!!!!!!!

Posted by: carla | November 13, 2009 03:27 PM

Mel,

You said, "ALL was tested on animals, and still will be."

The problem is that animal drug testing is not predictive of a drug's effects or efficacy in humans.

"The U.S. Government Accountability Office found that among all new drugs marketed during a 10-year period, 52 percent had seriously toxic or fatal effects that were not predicted by animal experiments."

"More than half of the 198 new, animal-tested, medications released between 1976 and 1985 were either withdrawn or relabeled secondary to severe unpredicted side effects. These side effects included complications like lethal dysrhythmias, heart attacks, kidney failure, seizures, respiratory arrest, liver failure, and stroke, among others. All the withdrawn drugs had the successfully-animal-tested stamp of approval. (GAO/PEMD-90-15 FDA Drug Review: Postapproval Risks 1976-1985)"

Cancer Research UK asserts: “We do trials in people because animal models do not predict what will happen in humans.”

"Although some adverse drug reactions (ADRs) 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 were all drugs that had passed animal testing with flying colors.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | November 13, 2009 03:59 PM

Mel, you sound like someone with little education and too many opinions.

The fact is people like you justify actions that in no way can be justified by humans or any living thing.

You speak about saving human lives as if they are worth more.

The simple fact is; animals do not hate, show racism, steal or cheat. They are innocent and deserve respect for being pure of heart.

In my opinion look to murder row if you want to do your nazi'esk research.

As far as your comments on medication and animal testing. At what point Mel is it too much? Do they need to violently rape, murder and mutilate animals for a person like you to care?

What is too much Mel? What would they need do in order to cross your line of ethical treatment.

BTW MEL, being a human being is more than a birth right. The way you speak your missing a huge part of the "human experience"

Truly

Posted by: Jon | November 13, 2009 05:01 PM

Carla,

I would only say that if you can say that to yourself.

And - BTW - I have had experimental drugs tested on me with some bad side effects.

So - now, it's your turn.

Posted by: Mel | November 13, 2009 05:36 PM

You speak about saving human lives as if they are worth more.

*********************

I don't know about Mel, Jon but, I would have to say that they are worth just as much if not more to your loved ones.

And - if you or anyone here were dying of a disease, I would want testing, any kind, to be done to save your lives.

This is where your compassion fails: You forget that we're animals too.

Posted by: Jade | November 13, 2009 05:39 PM

'' Bravo Jon,'' well thought out comments; brilliantly written.

Posted by: keith | November 13, 2009 05:41 PM

OMG Peta!!! save the animals!!!!! I email those so called scientist. some scientists they are!!! save those kitties!!!

"For all of us must appear before Christ, to be judged by Him. Each one will receive what he deserves, according to everything he has done, good or bad, in his bodily life." 2 Corinthians 5:10

i think people who f*ck with animals go to hell, for real.

Posted by: A_Fabey | November 14, 2009 12:58 AM

Jon, wonderfully written and a joy to read such eloquent (and intelligent) sentiments.....

Jade. Look into animal testing a little bit more. The majority of experiments (especially in the US) are not life-saving and most certainly not disease-curing. I don't want your compassion if you are not willing to extend it to ALL living things.

Posted by: Tamra | November 15, 2009 09:46 PM

Tamra,

I respect you and your opinions, as others here. However, I have to strongly disagree with your argument.

Why you may ask? Unless you and others here can tell me you've never had a vaccination and are scientologists/those who believe in NOT using any medicines, you really don't have a ground to stand upon as far as being anti-animal research.

We've all benefitted from animal testing - past and present. That's a fact, easily found in books: true ones, not online stuff that can be manipulated.

Posted by: Jade | November 16, 2009 09:49 AM

I don't know about Jade or the others who look at testing as a pro (or agree), but I would have to say I do see where they're coming from.

History clearly shows us that we do use animals in some way in just about every medicine that we consume. It's sad, but it's the truth (ex. gelatin from cow/pig marrow). The exception I know of off the top of my head would be anesthetics such as ether and chloroform, both which were tested on humans first and which everyone found out were lethal if not properly administered, ether also being explosive.

Sadly, I think the only way we're ever going to not be able to use animals in any way shape or form as far as medicines is to either go totally herbal or have no medicines or health care whatsoever - because right now, even the aspirin that people take has had it's history in animal testing. But, we can work on ways to reduce/eliminate the testing as much as possible. I guess the only thing I wonder is the ethics of people - willingly or not - wanting these drugs tested on them without any experimental testing on any living thing prior to it.

Posted by: mac | November 16, 2009 01:22 PM

"J. B. Collip, a biochemist in Macleod's team said the administration of the dog insulin (to a 14-year old diabetic) was "absolutely useless."

If you're familiar with the history of insulin, you'd know that this was due to an allergic reaction to the very impure pancreas extract that was used. Twelve days later the boy was cured using an improved extraction process from ox pancreas.

Posted by: Kalama Halamezad | November 16, 2009 02:08 PM

Kalama,

That doesn't change the fact that animal research played no direct role in the discovery of insulin.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | November 16, 2009 10:31 PM

What makes humans think they are so much more important than any other living thing? We all were created by something so much bigger than us and we do not own anything that breathes or feels. We did not create shit,which means we have no right to make other living beings do what we want or treat them like we want. Get over yourself. We may have a higher form of intelligence, but that doesn't allow us to do whatever we want to anything that can't speak out for themselves. Humans egos are so out of control. Makes me sick. We all should be kind to all things alive. And show the respect to all animals that humans so think they deserve. Geesh!

Posted by: tommy | November 17, 2009 08:39 AM

Mike,
The entire reason that it was discovered that there was something important about the pancreas in relation to diabetes was because a researcher noticed flies eating the urine of a dog that had had its pancreas removed. They found sugar in it (a symptom seen in diabetics).

For the next many decades researchers attempted to produce an extract that could be used to treat diabetes (or save dogs with no pancreas), but they failed until a method was found that removed enzymes that were degrading the insulin in the extract.

Could you tell me what the non-animal research was that led to the discovery of insulin and cured diabetes?

Posted by: Kalama Halamezad | November 17, 2009 01:46 PM

Kalama,

In the 17th century Thomas Willis observed that the urine of people suffering from diabetes contained sugar. He coined the term mellitus in diabetes mellitus. He observed what had been known for many centuries elsewhere, that the urine is sweet in diabetic patients.

As early as 1788, Thomas Cawley discovered through autopsies on disceased human diabetic patients the connection between diabetes and the pancreas. This is one hundred years before Dr. Minkowski's animal keeper (not researcher) noticed a swarm of flies feeding on the dog's urine in 1889.

"It was the chemistry of Collip and Macleod that had isolated and purified insulin using in vitro (non-animal) techniques."

The administration of insulin does not "cure" diabetes. Doctors, like John McDougall, have, on the other hand, cured Type II with a plant-based diet.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | November 18, 2009 10:10 PM

Mike,
Type two is preventable.
Eating less fat, and exercising will rid yourself of type II. Eating a plant based diet isn't the only way to cure type II.

Posted by: Kurt K | November 19, 2009 11:18 AM

Mike,

The 17th century experiment simply identified a symptom, such as when you have stomach flu you vomit. This did little to contribute directly to a cure.

From the 1788 discovery, one could not determine that the pancreas contained a chemical required for sugar metabolism. The only conclusion which could be drawn from that experiment is that the pancreas either affects or is affected by diabetes mellitus. It was not until removal of the pancreas was found to induce the symptoms of diabetes that one could conclude that some component of the pancreas was required for sugar metabolism.

Collip himself help Banting improve the extraction of insulin from the pancreas. This would not have been possible had not Banting proven that destruction of the trypsin-producing portion of the pancreas prevented destruction of the collected insulin.

Collip's in vitro method of extraction still required slaughtered animal tissues. It just bypassed the inefficient procedure Banting had used to produce semi-pure insulin. (It took six weeks and was only pure enough to treat same species).

Also, the purity of collected insulin could only be measured using a rabbit assay--even at least 20 years later, this method was still used despite significant incentives and attempts to develop more cost-efficient methods. Testing was extremely important as it's easy to OD people with insulin.

Posted by: Kalama Halamzad | November 19, 2009 12:24 PM

"The administration of insulin does not "cure" diabetes. Doctors, like John McDougall, have, on the other hand, cured Type II with a plant-based diet."

The Mayo Clinic says:

"There's no cure for type 2 diabetes, but you can manage — or even prevent — the condition. Start by eating healthy foods, exercising and maintaining a healthy weight. If diet and exercise aren't enough, you may need diabetes medications or insulin therapy to manage your blood sugar."

Is it really a cure if he just advocates a diet with similar qualities to one that has already been shown to prevent or reverse Type II diabetes in some people? For most, this strategy merely prevents disease progression.

Did you know that gastric bypass also "cures" Type II in some people?

If Type II was cured, then why do both the Mayo Clinic and the ADA still claim there is no cure, but that dietary changes can reverse it for some?

Type II is irrelevant to this discussion anyway.

Posted by: Kalama Halamzed | November 19, 2009 01:26 PM

I have ethical reasons for disagreeing with animal testing, but quit with the desperate attempt to discredit the role of previous animal research in insulin. Animal science, like meat-eating, was once necessary.

Most of the incidents you say led to the discovery of insulin have no direct link to the isolation, identification, or production of the then unknown factor that could treat diabetes. The remainder were dependent on previous animal research.

The only way a treatment for diabetes could have been found without animals would have been with modern techniques. Problem is, modern techniques weren't around in the span of 1860s-1920s.

Posted by: Randy | November 19, 2009 02:47 PM