SpeakingOfResearch.com (SOR), a lay website that supports and defends vivisection, wrote in 2015 an article about the Animal Justice Project (AJP) in reference to their criticism of this 2013 paper, where mice had their eyes burned with lasers. Their article hasn’t been forgotten, and since a few years have passed there is now an opportunity to see if that research has contributed to human medicine (hint: it hasn’t).

‘AJP (Animal Justice Project’s) original statements look like this.’



SOR (SpeakingOfResearch’s) highlighted quotes about those statements are immediately beneath, like this.



My responses to SpeakingOfResearch – including supporting evidence – are here.

AJP: ’55 mice were subjected to laser burns to their eyes to simulate battlefield injuries and, as if this wasn’t bad enough, then had liquid injected into their eyes. The mice then had their necks broken up to six weeks after the experiment.’



SOR: ‘The first sentence [above] is true, if hyperbolic… the first sentence is true.’

Hyperbole (emphasis added) means ‘exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally’. What we said was literally true and accurate to the point it was admitted twice. What hyperbole?

AJP: ‘Breaking of animals necks, especially without anaesthetic, is brutal and often animals suffer.’



SOR: ‘Cervical dislocation, which is considered the most humane ways to euthanise small rodents since it is quick and painless… resulting in an instant, painless death… No pain relief was mentioned, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t there.’

There is no humane way to kill a sentient being that does not want to die. Humane murder is like humane torture. Speaking of research, it is a good idea to actually do some. Breaking necks – ‘cervical dislocation’ – to kill is neither ‘quick’ nor ‘painless’, as evidenced by this easily-available 2012 paper (emphasis added):

‘…some mice continued breathing for as long as 15 min before we euthanized them [with drugs]… these mice likely could have continued breathing even longer… with multiple spinal injuries, their suffering could have been severe.‘



This is still an issue as evidenced by this 2018 paper (emphasis added):

‘Brain activity also persists following cervical dislocation… [it] can result in lower spinal dislocation and fracture without immediate respiratory arrest, such that animals continue to breathe and may still be conscious… the “anterograde” technique… proved most effective—but almost 10% of the (anaesthetised) mice continued to breathe for over 3 min, suggesting the technique was not effective.‘



Research is important, especially for a website supposedly about research. Since pain relief wasn’t mentioned, that doesn’t mean it was there, either. In real scientific research the onus is on the researchers to provide evidence. No mention of anaesthetic means no evidence it was used when breaking necks.



AJP: ‘The researchers admit that making a link between these experiments in rodents and humans is “difficult”. Added to which, at best mice’s normal eyesight is the human equivalent of being registered blind.’



SOR: ‘Researchers mentioned that it can be difficult to extrapolate some results of animal experiments to humans, but not their experiment… There can be no honest reason for leaving out the second part of the last sentence (my emphasis) [‘…our study combines the use of these established facts and thus allows the extrapolation of results specific to cone injury.‘]

Extrapolation (emphasis added) means ‘the action of estimating or concluding something by assuming that existing trends will continue or a current method will remain applicable’.

The second part of the last sentence is quite literally an assumption. That’s why the word ‘extrapolation’ was used there by people that knew what the word meant. Dictionaries for big words are easier to find than research papers.

AJP: ‘we have relevant treatments for laser eye injuries.’



SOR: ‘The simple answer is no we don’t. Not ones which could be stowed in a medic’s triage kit or easily deployed in a crisis.’



Yes, we do: nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, for example. Did SpeakingOfResearch not do any research?

AJP: ‘There is no conclusion as to whether the injections into the eyes of mice can help or harm either humans or mice.’



SOR: ‘Really? The paper states “[…] we were able to confirm the protective effect of CNTF in our model of laser injury” and “although our research has a military focus with regard to developing a potential treatment for offensive laser weapons on the battlefield, the model we have developed might be relevant to assessing any treatment relevant to cone neuroprotection and diseases of the human fovea”. Right. So, not only did it present a potential treatment, but it indicated it might be useful in treating other eye conditions to the one being studied.’

Yes, really. That ‘might be’ seized upon as justification has not become a reality since the 2013 paper on CNTF. A 2015 paper (also ignored by SpeakingOfResearch) mentioned that CNTF did not affect human eye tissue and a 2018 paper evidences nothing has changed: CNTF is still being tested on mice and is still being touted as ‘promising’ five years later! Always tomorrow with vivisectors, isn’t it?

Conclusion

SpeakingOfResearch’s claims of hyperbole, ignorance, deception, bias, etc., brings the phrase “physician, heal thyself” to mind. Shame that physician has to rely on the quack science of vivisection for new medical treatments given its 99.9% failure rate to even get to human clinical trials for testing.

What an even greater shame if that physician believes a quack website written by mostly anonymous quacks that cannot understand long words and ignore available research to blindly support such quackery. At least that physician can’t prescribe Thalidomide any more. That’s positive in a glass half-full kind of way, isn’t it?