EnviroLink Forum

By creating herds of cloned animals that have the same genetic composition, either entirely or with respect to some particular traits, the diversity of those animals is significantly reduced. As a consequence, cloned animals and herds may be more susceptible to disease and less able to withstand an outbreak. This could have serious repercussions for the population as a whole and for the agriculture industry.
The range of potential environmental impacts associated with the proliferation of cloned animals has not been thoroughly investigated and is largely unknown and uncertain.[1]
http://www.aavs.org/site/c.bkLTKfOSLhK6 ... lib8ZRBtjo


In order to make these poisons acceptable to the public, the chemical, pharmaceutical, and petroleum empires take refuge in vivisection. Look around you, in your home and your workplace there are scores of chemical products that have been proclaimed "safe" and/or "acceptable" for our use. Have you ever wondered where these safety assurances come from? These "safety" assurances have all been fabricated in vivisectionist laboratories.3 Rats, mice, guinea pigs, hamsters, squirrels, gerbils, rabbits, fish, toads, frogs, lizards, insects, dogs, cats, monkeys, apes, wild birds, quails, pigeons, turkeys, ducks, chickens, cows, goats, and horses are among the animals used. Numerous types of toxicity tests (LD, LC, LDLo, TDLo, TCLo, MTD, etc.) are performed under the banner of toxicity testing. Other research includes skin and eye irritancy tests (the infamous Draize Test), carcinogenicity (cancer) and mutagenicity (genetic mutation) studies, teratogenicity (birth defects) and reproductive toxicity studies, hepatotoxicity (liver damage) and nephrotoxicity (kidney damage) studies, neurotoxicity studies, etc.

From these studies, staggering amounts of ambiguous, contradictory, and invalid data are compiled which allows the "scientists" to draw their "scientific" conclusions. For example, if they want to "prove" that a particular chemical is not a carcinogen, all they have to do is present the evidence from those animal tests that supports this view. On the other hand, if they wish to prove that the same chemical is a carcinogen, they produce other laboratory tests that show the product to be carcinogenic.

The fraud of animal research extends beyond the process of chemical production and marketing and applies to the entire field of "environmental protection." Risk assessment studies, aimed at proving or disproving the dangers associated with toxic emissions from an incinerator into the air, discharge of wastewater from a sewage treatment plant into the ocean, discharge of chemicals from an industrial plant into a creek, or application of pesticides on crops, are examples of environmental research where vivisection is routinely used to justify varying and contradictory conclusions--depending on the vested interests of those who foot the bill. Other cases of environmental laws and policies which involve vivisection, are the government established/enforced safe drinking water standards, safe air quality limits, safe worker exposure levels (TLV's, PEL's, TWA's, and STEL's), regulation of pesticides, and the requirements of Material Safety Data Sheets for tens of millions of industrial chemicals.

Unfortunately, far from safeguarding the public and the environment, these "safety" measures make it very safe and very legal for polluters to pollute -- so long as they do so within the boundaries of the law. The reason is as follows: In order for any regulation to protect the public and the environment, it must be founded on sound scientific grounds. The scientific community claims to accept this basic premise. In fact, it is often in conflict with the regulatory community because it claims that instead of establishing regulations based on scientific knowledge, regulators establish them based on economic considerations (i.e., cost to industry for compliance with the laws). However, what the scientific community fails to admit is that what it calls "science," is nothing but fiction. And, since today's environmental laws are based on unscientific data obtained from erroneous animal tests, the tragic result is that far from protecting the public and the environment, such laws and regulations protect the industry and allow the existence of carcinogens, teratogens, and toxicants of all sorts in our food, air, water, home, and workplace.
Vivisection is the hidden cause of our environmental pollution and public health problems. Let us destroy the myth and medieval ritual of vivisection for the sake of pursuing real science, true progress and civilization, and the assurance of a safe and poison-free environment for ourselves and the generations to come.http://www.notdoctors.com/epol.html

Wow, I did not think you could come up with a more clueless set of references, but you have. For example, the number of MSDS sheets is referenced as an indicator of the problems. A MSDS sheet is made for nearly everything which may encountered. The potential for harm, or lack thereof, the treatment for whatever problem may be encountered, and manufacturer contact for confirmation is required. In fact, you could require a bottled water company to provide a MSDS sheet for the water they supply since it can be a health concern if inhaled.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

I have to agree with Wayne; not only have you, Letizia, again copied whole sections that are not even referenced; but but clearly all it takes for you to post it here is that it confirms with your ideas, no thinking required. I just looked up that "notdoctors" website. Yikes, imagine asking someone who actually has had to study for many years about things like vaccination and drugs. What would they know? No, ask a naturopath who just happens to be able to point you to a site where you can buy water purifiers.... and who, in all likelihood, got a Ph D for "personal experience" from some degree mill... Is it really so hard to go to one of the sites that defends research and testing (not that you seem to know the difference) and see what they claim? Then, and only then, can you see whther you can mount a credible attack, based on refuting the facts at these sites with a coherent argument, not snippets of opinion. In the meantime, since you started the fight, I do not need to prove my case, easy as that would be. Come on Letizia, scared you might find things you don't like?

Some quotes from "notdoctors":

"We are here to make information and products available that promote health and well being. We want to help save lives and prevent unnecessary suffering. Our purpose is not to take advantage of people for abundant gain but to share life changing information and products. Every item is thoroughly researched and chosen from the best! These items are not cheap but top-of-the-line products that come well recommended by leading researchers and professionals". (that is, us - no names provided - Cobie)

"Our site is dedicated to all you courageous people that have the guts to stand up against "the medical establishment" and not accept the "diagnosis" or the rhetoric "professionals" in the medical field and the government spew out on a daily basis (grammar???). It is dedicated to those that understand that most of what we have been taught is a product of big business and finance and not for the general well being of each and every one of us." (And out water purifiers are handmade by the light of the moon....?)