"Extreme Muscle Tension Pulling The Spine Out Of Alignment,
Is The Cause Of Multiple Sclerosis, Not Myelin Degeneration"

 http://www.ms-cure.com/


Interesting stem cell research were 81 per cent of volunteers had significant improvements to MS
 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/4387326/Multiple-sclerosis-symptoms-can-be-reversed-by-stem-cell-treatment.html


Cue lackeys derision of scientific methods that do not line the pockets of gross corporations like Bayer

Can you translate this for me:

"Galanin is a neuropeptide present in humans and other mammals. It is a peptide consisting of a chain of 29 amino acids (or 30 amino acids in humans).

Galanin is formed by the cleavage of a prepropeptide encoded by a gene known as GAL. It is involved in a number of physiological processes such as regulation of food intake, metabolism and reproduction, regulation of neurotransmitter and hormone release, nociception, intestinal contraction and secretion, and more recently in nervous system development and response to injury. This wide diversity of action is mediated by several galanin receptor subtypes.

Galanin is predominantly an inhibitory, hyperpolarizing neuropeptide and as such inhibits neurotransmitter release. Galanin is often co-localized with classical neurotransmitters such as acetylcholine, serotonin and norepinephrine and also with other neuromodulators such as Neuropeptide Y, Substance P and Vasoactive intestinal peptide."

If not, how the hell can you condemn the research?

The big problem with many - not all - animal rights protestors is that they do not seem to understand what it is to be scientifically literate. The moral argument for the middle class construct of "rights" is well understood but the concept of "science" is about as advanced as "Doctor Frankenstein I presume".

This is not a defence of any aspect of the research. It might all be cobblers - but without the effective communication of science, how can you tell? Without an effective and clear communication of what animal rights are (without reiterating vast extracts of Singer) Science will always be "immoral".

Again and again, Indymedia writers condemns science with absolutely no analytical or critical support. Almost invariably it is on the grounds that it "infringes animal rights". It is perfectly fine to defend "animal rights" and attack "corporate rights" - but not to actually question the notion of "rights". And it has resulted in the most craven, anti-scientific attitudes of all animals are better than scientists.

For about A decade A University did Drug Research on dogs. It mainly involved Labradors. It was kept secret to avoid "animal rights" activities. The pathetic truth of the experiment was that the animals were photographed once as a puppy, once as an adult and once at death. The experiment was to compare hip shape to see any changes. Because, dogs do develop arthritis. Like it or not: animals get diseases the same as humans. How does this relate to drug research? Quite simply, the pictures were compared with human autopsy pictures to see if there was a mechanical component to arthritis. How is a photograph abuse? Come to think of it, without being able to translate the above passage, how can you tell it is abuse?

Animal Rights are important - but kneejerk condemnation of scientists has become almost as fascist as the BNP. The BNP "know" foreigners are "bad". They need no proof because, well, it is obvious.

There is no suggestion that abusing other living creatures is anything but abusing other living creatures. But, having left science because of "animal rights" harrassment I can see that animal rights campaigners are no better than any fascist group: they choose their victims and refuse to see any argument to counter that.

Before countering that I left science and am therefore bitter, consider this: most people who leave the attackable lab sciences end up in corporations that are actually doing far more to destroy the environment that the "poor abused" animals need to survive. Fine to engage the moral argument - but it is increasingly misguided as science ceases to be practiced by anybody but expensive teams in expensive projects.

I'm pretty confused why Sanger Sewing Machine has chosen this passage for a "translation". Beyond the fact that it is fairly self explanatory, it contains the following glaring confession:

"Galanin is a peptide consisting of a chain of 29 amino acids (or 30 amino acids in humans)."

So the protein in question is different in humans and non-humans at an atomic level. Therefore the obvious deduction is that animals are a poor research model in this instance on a scientific level.

In regards to the labrador experiment, were the dogs kept in laboratories for the duration of their lives? Did their death occur naturally or were they killed? Why were humans not photographed instead of dogs? Again dogs seem a strange choice on a physiological level, as they have four legs, two of which bend the opposite way to humans. You can hardly hope to defend animal research with such a vague example. i find it hard to believe that these dogs were kept as companion animals and lived a normal healthy life, otherwise there would be no need for secrecy; dog food companies often use "home-testing" of new brands as a positive selling point.

It is accepted that the vast majority of animal research caused suffering (indeed this is the basis on which research licenses are granted, depending on whether they are likely to cause mild moderate or severe suffering).

The fact is though, most animal rights campaigners believe that animals have the basic right to live and die without negative human interference, and that animals are not there for humans to use and exploit as we wish. Therefore the scientific arguments become null and void. In the same way that human models clearly being the most scientifically accurate does not excuse Josef Mengele.

> "Galanin is a peptide consisting of a chain of 29 amino acids (or 30 amino acids in humans)."

Its the same thing. Like different bloods groups in Humans. They are different but are essentially the same. I'd thought this would be pretty obvious to a layman?

It wouldn't concern you if your surgeon told you prior to a transfusion that they couldn't match your blood type, but it's Ok becasue they are all essentially the same thing..?