NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/talk/politics/animals/11526

Text File | 1993-01-24 | 13.4 KB | 303 lines

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!emory!rigel.econ.uga.edu!fatrat.fcs.uga.edu!user
From: [e-mail] (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 21:03:04 GMT
Lines: 291

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (Robert Black (x37236)) wrote:

>[...]
>>After Taub's monkeys were removed from IBR, they were "dosed" with "TLC"
>>from two dozen unfamiliar handlers, then hauled thousands of mile in the
>>back of a truck.  This did not improve their condition.  Clinical
>>measurements document this.
>
>Clinical measurements done by whom?

One week after the monkeys were first taken from Taub, blood samples
(presumably taken by the veterinarians in charge) indicated white blood
cell counts in the neighborhood of 7000 per milliliter.  Two animals at
this point had slightly elevated counts, but normal rectal temperatures.
The animals had been out of Taub's lab for a week at that time, and
subjected to new location with strange caretakers.

After the monkeys were "stolen," hauled ~2000 miles by truck, and returned
to Taub, their leukocyte count (as determined by Taub's vets) had increased
to 15000/cc.  This latter figure is elevated, and provides direct evidence
of chronic stress.  These measurements document the only bona fide instance
of animal cruelty that was perpetrated in this case.

Taub filed a complaint regarding this instance of cruelty to authorities,
but the DA's office used its prosecutorial discretion to ignore these
charges.

>[...]
>In Feb 1977, an agent of the Washington Humane Society, visiting IBR,
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>learned that the Institute was not even registered with the Dept of Ag
>as required by law and found unsanitary conditions.

Do you mean Ingrid?  Precisely what were these "unsanitary conditions, "
and how were they documented?

>rb>>And a monkey - one that was returned to Taub's care by a
>>> judges's order following the initial seizure - died within a few days
>>> after a fight with another monkey in a neighboring cage.  This does not
>>> lend great credence to the claim that Taub's areas of expertise
>>> necessarily extended into the area of proper care for these monkeys, no
>>> matter how many years experience he had.
>>
>>This incident occurred while the monkeys were in Taub's lab, but not while
>>they were under Taub's care.  At this time, the monkeys were under the care
>>of a court-appointed vet who was not following Taub's recommendations.

Did the cat get your tongue here Bob?  Your feeble attempt above to
discredit Taub's expertise won't wash.

>>>[...]
>>> Then why assume that Gerone is an apologist for PETA?
>>
>>Because, in this instance, he was supporting PETA's position (that Taub
>>mistreated his monkeys) despite the fact that Taub was fully exhonorated of
>>all charges.
>
>After rereading the decision, I still don't see where it says this.

Go talk to a lawyer.

>[...]
>
>>> But as far as I know he arrived at his conclusion completely independently
>>> of PETA, a group whom his past statements would suggest he held in low
>>> esteem.
>>
>>Yes, but the conclusion was in conflict with the court record, and in
>>concert with PETA's misinformation.
>
>I may be losing track of exactly what we're discussing here.

Or maybe you are trying to waste my time.

>Can you
>quote the court record and Gerone to show exactly where the conflict is?

The only point of court record that is required to refute Gerones
implication that Taub mistreated his monkeys is as follows:

[page 6, paragraph two]

"We shall, therefore, reverse Dr. Taub's conviction and remand this matter
to the Circuit Court for Montgomery County with instructions to dismiss the
criminal information."

>[...]
>>Why should you (and PETA?) presume that Pacheco's testimony regarding the
>>caretakers work habits would be more credible than the testimony of the
>>caretakers themselves?
>
>I haven't presumed this.  I weighed not just Pacheco's testimony against
>that of the caretakers, but also these additional pieces of evidence:
>
>        statements made in the five affidavits signed by veterinarians
>          and primatologists.

Yes, the animal activists.  Remember, they saw the lab after the caretakers
stopped coming into work.  What possible bearing could these affidavits
have on their performance beforehand?

>        pictures sent to me by a PETA representative.

Yes, the ones taken by Pacheco during the period when he failed to notify
Taub of the adverse conditions.

>        extracts from the Report of the NIH Investigating Committee.

Precisely what "excerpt" from the conclusions of the NIH appeals board
indicate that Taub was cruel in any manner to his monkeys?

>[...]
>Next time I'll ask differently.  I wrote about a half a dozen letters to
>various groups who may have had relevant information.  Since I wrote
>essentially the same type of letter to CFAAR, I should, by your
>reasoning, get data slanted to their viewpoint.

By my reasoning, you got slanted information because you specifically asked
for it.  My reasoning had nothing to do with the agency.

>An interesting followup experiment would be to ask both PETA and CFAAR
>for any data that opposes their respective positions.  I believe that I
>would get it (in the form of court testimony) from PETA.  Would you
>surmise that CFAAR will be equally fair-minded?

Who knows?  I've never contacted CFAAR, and CFAAR doesn't have the
transcripts.  Taub and PETA do.

>[...]
>It's important to clean my kennel runs daily.  When I'm not there,
>others take over.  But it's ALWAYS clear to me approximately how much
>time has elapsed since the last cleaning.  I honestly don't see why the
>same would not be true of the monkeys' cages.

Since you never ordinarily see more than a day's accumulation at any given
time, where would you obtain your basis for determining that the runs had
not been cleaned for months?

Further, do you suppose that you could make an immediate assessment, the
first time you ever saw the inside of a kennel run, that it had not been
cleaned for months?

Pacheco seems to think that he could make such estimations in Taub's
facility the first time that he entered.  You defended this account.  Would
you care to reconsider?

>>Taub
>>employed two animal caretakers to ensure that the animals would be cared
>>for in case one could not fulfill his duties.
>>
>>Given the previously impeccable work habits of the caretakers, Taub did not
>>expect that both of them would forsake their duties during his vacation.
>>The odds that this would have happened is astronomical.
>
>Whether these two gentlemen really had impeccable work habits is part of
>the issue.  You're assuming it's true.  There is evidence to indicate
>otherwise.

By work habits, I'm referring to work attendance.  Pacheco indicates that
the caretakers did not come into work, but the employment records indicate
otherwise.

>>Anything can happen when one comes in late at night, while the PI is on
>>vacation, and an associate is outside with a walkie-talkie to warn you if
>>somebody is approaching.
>
>What kind of innuendo is this?  To state that anything CAN happen is not
>to state anything DID happen.  Exactly what is the accusation here? What
>is this "anything" that could have happened? ...but maybe didn't?

I question the validity of Pacheco's photographs.  Under the circumstances
described above, it would be easy to make white appear black, then
photograph it.  Didn't the Berosini case reveal that activists purposefully
agitated the animals?  My suggestion, not an accusation, is that it would
have been easy for Pacheco to doctor the "evidence."

PETA prepared and sells a 17 minute video regarding the Taub case.
According to Taub, there are a substantial number of innacuracies (fifty or
so, IMS) in this "evidence."  I hope to document these inaccuracies in the
future when Taub and I have more time.

>>>And if it
>>> were all contrived by Pacheco, I don't believe it would have fooled
>>> these five primatologists and veterinarians.
>>
>>Sure it could.  All that they said was that the lab was dirty.  You fail to
>>mention that all five are animal "rights" activists who knew of forthcoming
>>congressional hearings regarding revision of the AWA.
>
>Your second sentence is (kindly speaking) very misleading.  Much more
>was said than "the lab was dirty." I'm sure that you'll accuse me of
>selective quoting (I don't have time or patience to type in more), but
>here are excerpts from the signed affidavits:
>

>[heart-wrenching excerpts from "expert" animal activists deleted]

>
>The conditions did not suddenly deteriorate so drastically during the
>brief period while Taub was on vacation.

Taub was on vacation for three weeks.  This is not such a brief period.

>Are you accusing Dr Geza Teleki, Dr Michael Fox, Dr Ronnie Hawkins, Dr
>John McArdle, and Donald Barnes of lying in an effort to unfairly
>influence the forthcoming congressional hearings?

No.

>If so, what evidence do you have besides conjecture?

Before and after the police raid, PETA hired an independent veterinarian,
Dr. Richard Weitzman, to inspect the monkeys.  They did not incorporate
*his* opinions into their media circus for obvious reasons.  You might be
interested in the following memorandum that Taub wrote to himself following
a phone conversation with PETA's mystery vet.

++++++++++ [begin memorandum}

MEMORANDUM                                                         12/19/82

FROM:     Edward Taub, Ph. D.

To:       For the Files

Subject:
_Telephone_conversation_with_Richard_Weitzman,_D.V.M,_on_12/8/82
_concerning_his_observations_of_Dr._Taub's_monkeys_on_the_day_before_and_the_day_after_the_police_raid_.

     On 12/8/82, a telephone conversation was held by Edward Taub, Ph. D.,
and Richard Weitman, D.V.M.  Dr. Weitzman is a veterenarian [sic] in local
private practice.  He was surreptitiously brought in to see Dr. Taub's
monkeys by animal rights activists on the evening of the day before the
police raid (9/10/81).  The purpose of this visit was to assess the
condition of the animals and determine whether they needed immediate
treatment.  (If the animals did need immediate treatment which they were
not receiving, this could be used as a reason for confiscating the
monkeys.)  Dr. Weitzman also saw the animals on the day after the police
raid in the basement of the home in Rockville to which they were
transferred.
     In his telephone conversation with Dr. Taub, Dr. Weitzman directed
most of his remarks to the condition of the monkeys on the day before the
police raid.  However, he stated late in the conversation that all of these
comments applied equally to the condition of the monkeys on the day after
the police raid.
     Dr. Weitzman began his description by saying, "The monks were fine.
They had satisfactory to good flesh and were obviously not starved.  They
had normal pressure areas and abrasions for caged animals" with the kind of
experimental lesions they had received.  When the animal rights activist
who brought him to the laboratory decried the fact that some of the animals
with open lesions were unbandaged, Dr. Weitzman did not agree.  He stated
that he told them that it is extremely hard to keep bandages on monkeys,
even those that have normal arms, and that it is frequently better to leave
a bandage off even a normal animal if this is possible.  Dr. Weitzman also
said he told the animal rights activist that the question of whether to
bandage a chronic superficial open lesion in any animal is an open one.
     Dr. Weitzman told Dr. Taub that, "I have no objections to your
research."  He also stated that, "My knowledge of your research is not
sufficient to render an opinion as to what the correct treatment for your
monkeys should be."
     Dr. Weitzman also noted that he observed that there was a problem with
the husbandry in the laboratory.  It needed to be changed.  (It should be
noted that Dr. Weitzman visited Dr. Taub's laboratory  at the end of Dr.
Taub's vacation, during which his two animal caretakers had a large number
of suspicious, unexplained absences after an excellent previous work
attendance record.  Husbandry had never been a problem in Dr. Taub's
laboratory before.) When the animal rights activist told Dr. Weitzman that
he wanted the county police to raid Dr. Taub's laboratory so that the
monkeys could be taken from there, Dr. Weitzman recommended against this
course of action.  He asked, "Why don't you just explain the situation to
the laboratory chief and have him clean up the husbandry?"  Dr. Weitzman
stated that he told the animal rights activist that other than that, there
was nothing wrong with the situation.
     On the day of the police raid Dr. Weitzman visited the monkeys in
Rockville.  He did not find it necessary to treat any of the monkeys, nor
did he recommend that any of the monkeys be treated.  Dr. Taub did not ask
Dr. Weitzman to make an explicit statement on whether he thought the
monkeys needed immediate treatment.  However, in a previous phone
conversation in November, 1981, with James Dempsey, Esq., Dr. Weitzman
stated that in his opinion they did not.

++++++++++ [end memorandum]

Contrast this position, by a vet that PETA brought into the lab at night,
with the position of the other "experts" who also happen to be animal
activists.

--
[e-mail] (Martin G. Hulsey)
Neuroscience, NRA-ILA, SSIB, NAASO, IASO