Des scientifiques autrichiens en collaboration avec des scientifiques italiens et américains ont prévu de faire une cruelle expérience. Pour ce faire, 29 cochons ont été sélectionnés pour être enterrés vivants sous la neige pour étudier les effets de la mort par asphyxie sous une avalanche.
10 de ces pauvres cochons ont déjà été tués, mais sous la pression des activistes des droits des animaux, cette cruelle expérience a été stoppée momentanément.
L'association "Vier Pfoten" (Quatre Pattes) propose de recueillir et d'envoyer dans leur sanctuaire les 19 cochons encore vivants.
Ne lâchons pas la pression, SVP, signez ces 2 pétitions et envoyez cette lettre de protestation pour leur faire savoir que nous savons et que nous les surveillons.
Click on the yellow "PETITION" for signing
Lettre de protestation:
Merci d'envoyer aux adresses mails ci-dessous:
Voici la lettre type à envoyer: (Merci Stacey)
To Whom It May Concern,
I have just learned of a animal testing experiment as planned and promoted by the Institute of Mountain Emergency Medicine in Austria; during this study pigs were buried in snow to theorize human safety variables during avalanche conditions and the level of subsequent brain damage. In what has been outrageously underestimated and euphemistically described as a situation whereby "pigs did not suffer because they were sedated beforehand" by Hermann Brugger, co-director of the project (news.scotsman.com), pigs were deliberated buried in snow and exposed to lethal conditions; indeed, all pigs died of asphyxia, hardly a "humane" approach to death. And although the study has been temporarily halted, I am writing to express my disturbance regarding this experiment and my demand of immediate termination.
Words cannot adequately express the rage felt by myself and others who share the ethical belief that non-human animals have inherent rights, including lives free from human-manufactured exploitation and suffering. The Institute of Mountain Emergency Medicine's attempt at justification using conciliatory rhetoric meant to solicit approval and support is not only repulsive, it is also blatantly false, lies perpetrated by an industry accustomed to spin and dependent upon the, at times intentional, misinterpretation by consumers to foster acceptance. To excuse this deliberate and sadistic cruelty as a means for potential human benefit is nothing but an employ of disingenuous industry lingo, an example of the distortion advocated as care and concern. However, we who recognize the deceptive nature of such promotion understand the reality: those who actually care for animals do not imprison them and expose them to disease and experimentation; those who actually concern themselves with animals would never subject them to pain, suffering, and agony and the denial of companionship and comfort.
From a pragmatic standpoint, if we could adequately determine the effects of environmental factors, situations, or even drugs using animals in general, then human trials would be unnecessary, a costly redundancy of testing protocols. As such, if animals cannot be used to predict a human outcome in general, then how can they be used to predict safety under particular environmental circumstances? Each situation is unique, each person's and animal's response an individual one deeming any exclamation of fact completely invalid. Attempting to establish an absolute truth and consequence scenario is a ridiculous premise, one on which you place the lives of humans and the death of animals utilizing a publicity machine employing deceptive statements and misleading assertions fabricated by unscrupulous “scientists” to garner social approval. Indeed, to establish your legitimacy, you constantly promote the idea that those opposed to animal experimentation are supportive of human suffering. What an insidious remark, effective in its subtlety to gain public endorsement while at the same time fostering a hatred towards anti-vivisectionists, labeling us as misanthropists. I can assure you, I am neither ethically challenged nor stupid: your false assertions are nothing but pathetic attempts to rationalize a morally deficient industry where you capitalize on the fear of people and exploitation of animals.
Animal experimentation is unnecessary, unjustified, and unprincipled, its only function to financially benefit those who exploit animals; you are not invisible and your actions are indefensible. Animals have rights to live free from pain and suffering regardless of your objections to acknowledge such, and as long as you profit from the torture of animals, complicit in their abuse and death, I will continue campaigning on their behalf. Please adopt a compassionate and sensible position: rather than exploiting sentient animals to such immoral conditions, perhaps you should champion proactive solutions instead including prediction efficacy.
Merci pour ces pauvres cochons