On March 13, 2020, the public school district where I teach announced that all classrooms and buildings would be closed for two weeks. Then two weeks turned into two months, and two months turned into over a full year without in-person instruction. My school serves a diverse population of low-income students in the San Francisco Bay Area. It is impossible to overstate the severity of this disruption caused by school closures for these students, many of whom did not have a computer or internet at home when virtual learning began. Online, my students got only a fraction of the regular curriculum. Kids who had once loved the social aspects of school were left with only the parts of school they hated, and students with disabilities who depended on school for daily living needs were cut off from a vital service.

“Public health” and “the safety of our children” came to mean students Zooming from homeless encampments, experiencing severe abuse, regressing academically, falling into depression, going hungry, struggling through catastrophic learning loss, and, in the saddest cases, not making it through the year alive. Despite consistent evidence that schools were not sites of high transmission for COVID-19, many teachers failed to put aside baseless fears about classroom superspreading and rampant infection. As a result, many of the most vulnerable children in our society suffered outrageous hardships, while their affluent peers attended private schools in person. We’ve all been told that school closures and lockdowns were mandated by science, but what if these mandates were immoral? What if they were based on a series of lies? In fact, what if the entire rationale for most restrictions was actually rotten to the core?

We’re watching the mainstream pandemic narrative starting to unravel. While the Senate and House intelligence committees investigate the origins of SARS-CoV-2, many reporters are openly wondering why they initially dismissed the lab leak hypothesis as “misinformation.” Few in media consider the possibility that their approach to the theory was not an anomaly, but rather a long-established pattern of journalistic dereliction of duty. For the public, these renewed questions about the virus (and their hard-to-face answers) speak to a deep sense that something is amiss in the story we’ve been told by major media outlets. But gain-of-function research is just the tip of the iceberg.

A trove of media darling Dr. Anthony Fauci’s emails was recently released to the public. The emails reveal early assertions that asymptomatic transmission is rare, that post-infection immunity is highly likely, and that masks are “not really effective.” However, you wouldn’t know that from the public messaging since the start of the pandemic, in which bureaucrats and journalists upheld lasting misconceptions that asymptomatic cases are dangerous, natural immunity is not a factor in protecting the population, and individuals are responsible for viral spread. These misconceptions fueled countless months of lockdowns, business closures, and job losses, pushing millions of people into poverty and despair through the destructive lie that stringent “sick until proven healthy” interventions save lives.

In reality, the rushed doomsday forecasts and commitment to politically correct pseudoscience prompted leaders to abandon decades of pandemic planning. This not only had disastrous economic consequences, but it also exacerbated the effects of COVID-19 itself. And rather than swiftly correct their errors, public health officials and politicians doubled down, manipulated data, and blamed ordinary people for the failure of nonsensical policies. The uncomfortable truth is that “The Science” did not protect vulnerable populations. Instead, “expert” advice served only to make the pandemic more deadly and replace the scientific process with destructive anti-science.

Saving Lives by Killing People

In December 2020, 35% of Americans believed that half of the people with COVID-19 required hospitalization. The correct figure was 1%-5%. Americans also estimated that the share of COVID-19 deaths for people between 18 and 24 was 8%. It was actually 0.1%. These incorrect assumptions were influenced by anecdotes, shocking media coverage, and early projections like the influential Imperial College model, which threatened that without lockdowns there would be 40 million COVID-19 deaths worldwide. The model assumed an infection fatality rate (IFR) of 0.9%, but the actual IFR of COVID-19 is 0.15% and the median IFR for people under 70 is 0.05%.

As a result of mistaken prognostications like this, the media compared COVID-19 to the 1918 influenza pandemic, for which the average age of death was 28. For COVID-19 the average age of death is 73, and about half of all deaths are in people 80 or older. While the CDC projected a one-year decrease in life expectancy for the U.S. population, the overall decrease in life expectancy was only five days, and the U.S.’s excess mortality in 2017 was greater than its excess mortality in 2020.

There is no better example of the harm created by flawed simulations, and the subsequent misguided interventions, than New York’s disastrous nursing home policy. While Gov. Andrew Cuomo landed a $5 million book deal and won an Emmy for his televised briefings, conditions on the ground for COVID-19 patients in his state were catastrophic. Over 9,000 elderly COVID-19 patients were sent from hospitals back to nursing homes. Additionally, Cuomo required group homes for people with intellectual disabilities to take COVID-19 patients and attempted to issue a blanket DNR guideline for all cardiac patients in New York City. He also denied nursing homes’ requests for testing kits, ignored the concerns of families, and gave immunity to nursing home executives. This resulted in the deaths of nearly 15,000 long-term-care patients.

These deaths did not occur because Cuomo ignored scientists and researchers. They occurred precisely because Cuomo was adhering to predictions from his team of experts who projected the need for 140,000 hospital beds and 40,000 ICUs. Ultimately, New York’s actual bed and ICU use peaked in mid-April at 18,825 and 5,225, respectively. The deadly decisions the governor’s office made were motivated by a perceived need to save resources and space—a manufactured imperative based on fictitious IFR figures and a baseless belief in universal risk.

Moreover, although some New York hospitals were overwhelmed, many were not. While Elmhurst hospital in Queens was at full capacity in April, the hospital had 26 new ambulances to take patients to 3,500 empty beds in New York City, many within a 20-minute drive. Because of panic induced by horrific forecasts, New York City doctors cited the need for “wartime ethics” when advising patients and families about DNRs. At some hospitals, doctors were informally allowed to override patients’ desires for medical intervention. These ethical violations were urged on by crazed media coverage and an environment of psychological terror, but they were not justified by the true level of danger involved in treating patients.

Despite concerns about hospital beds and ICUs, field hospitals across the country remained largely empty, costing taxpayers $660 million despite the fact that most of them did not serve any patients. Cuomo’s nursing home order was replicated by four other Democratic governors, and one-third of all American deaths from the virus are now linked to nursing homes. As a consequence of these practices, New York State has the second-highest COVID-19 mortality rate in the country.

Following the Science

Three of the top four states in overall COVID-19 mortality have Democratic governors who “followed the science” long after the initial promises that it would only take “two weeks to flatten the curve.” Although these states have high population density, density is often associated with lower COVID-19 death rates. After Texas Gov. Greg Abbott lifted all his state’s restrictions in April, Texas saw no resulting surge in cases, hospitalizations, or deaths. In fact, many states that continued restrictions saw higher cases and deaths than states that lifted restrictions early.

FOLLOWING THE ANTI-SCIENCE

Becoming worshippers at the altar of ‘Science.’ Bad for our health, bad for science, bad for society.

BYNORMAN DOIDGE

Purity and danger: Why some are strangely comforted by lockdowns, fearful of herd immunity, and quick to punish anyone who questions the stark choice between them

BYNORMAN DOIDGE

These trends are consistent with dozens of peer-reviewed studies and retrospective analyses indicating that stay-at-home orders did not have an impact on rates of fatal infection and that comparisons between many countries do not show superior outcomes from lockdowns. Besides hospitals, nursing homes, and other health care settings, households show some of the highest rates of transmission, while the share of transmission that has happened outdoors is less than 0.1%. Furthermore, vitamin D and exercise have both been linked to better outcomes for COVID-19 patients. In the U.S. 78% of people hospitalized for COVID-19 were overweight or obese. Lockdowns caused Americans to gain an average of two pounds per month and reduce their daily steps by 27%, thereby increasing the likelihood of adverse COVID-19 outcomes.

Not only were government orders confining people to their homes highly detrimental, but the early recommended treatment procedures for the virus were often fatal. Although experts and the media claimed that ventilators were lifesaving, death rates in most states actually dropped dramatically once the use of ventilators was abandoned in favor of other treatments. In order to meet what was supposed to be an astronomical medical demand, the U.S. spent $3 billion manufacturing ventilators, but by August 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services had distributed only 15,057 ventilators, leaving 95,713 of them untouched in a federal stockpile.

Usually, 40%-50% of patients in severe respiratory distress die on ventilators, but in New York City the death rate for COVID-19 patients on ventilators was 88%. Hospital staff often intubated patients prematurely or left them on ventilators for 10-15 days. Patients were given unusually heavy sedatives so that staff would be able to check on them less frequently. U.S. hospitals received $13,000 for each Medicare COVID-19 patient and $39,000 for each Medicare patient they intubated. These patients were separated from their families and had no one to advocate for them. Many people died after terrified doctors, misinformed about the scale of the risks, used intubation as a way to avoid virus exposure.

When lockdowns began, commentators referred to herd immunity as a “genocidal” concept that meant exposing vulnerable people to disease. That is actually what happens when natural immunity is prevented. Lockdowns limit and delay the acquired immunity of the younger population, making older people more vulnerable to exposure, especially in the absence of focused protection measures. Long-lasting immunity from COVID-19 is acquired after mild or asymptomatic cases, and sensational stories about “long COVID” and “COVID heart” have been debunked. In-person learning was not correlated with higher rates of student illness and school closures may have actually worsened death rates.

Clearly, quarantining the healthy did exactly the opposite of what was sold to the public: It increased non-COVID-19 excess deaths while leaving elderly and immunocompromised people completely unprotected. While some may excuse the destructiveness of lockdowns as a simple error, the sheer volume of reversals public health officials have made during the pandemic paints a picture of bureaucrats intentionally misleading the public in order to cover up their failures or pursue agendas unrelated to public health.

Moving the Goal Posts

Experts have consistently taken an imprecise approach to statistics, changed their minds, and withheld information while claiming the mantle of “scientific consensus.” Over the summer of 2020, the WHO quietly changed its definition of herd immunity from protection acquired through both natural immunity and vaccination to one acquired only through vaccination. Similarly, in December 2020, Fauci declared that he was changing his estimate for vaccination rates needed to achieve herd immunity from 60% to 90%. When asked for a scientific rationale, Fauci said he changed the percentage based purely on polling that indicated more Americans were willing to take the COVID-19 vaccine.

When lockdowns failed to yield meaningful mitigation results, public health agencies that had previously recommended against masking changed their position. Although simulations suggested that 80% mask compliance would do more to stop the spread of COVID-19 than lockdowns, regional analysis in the United States does not show that mandates had any effect on case rates, despite 93% compliance. Moreover, according to CDC data, 85% of people who contracted COVID-19 reported wearing a mask.

Research has shown that once unquestioned rules like 6 feet for social distancing are arbitrary and not actually associated with lower transmission. Reporting of death and hospitalization rates was also inexact, and mass asymptomatic testing distorted public understanding of the virus. Ninety-five percent of COVID-19 deaths had an average of four related underlying conditions and the CDC’s death count includes “deaths involving unintentional and intentional injury.” As a result of testing children hospitalized for unrelated conditions, the number of pediatric COVID-19 hospitalizations was exaggerated by at least 40%.

The PCR testing protocol for COVID-19 was based on a paper by Christian Drosten, which was peer-reviewed and published within just two days in a journal on whose editorial board Drosten sits. The method was created “without having virus material available,” using instead a genetic sequence published online. The PCR test amplifies genetic material of the virus in cycles but does not determine whether a case is infectious. A higher number of cycles indicates a lower viral load. The cycle threshold for PCR tests used in the U.S. was usually limited at 37 or 40, highly sensitive levels. In July 2020, Fauci remarked that at these levels, a positive result is “just dead nucleotides, period.”

For vaccinated Americans, the CDC has lowered the cycle threshold for “breakthrough infections” to only 28 cycles and announced that post-vaccine cases will only be counted if they result in hospitalization or death. CDC Director Rochelle Walensky stated that vaccinated Americans who died and tested positive for COVID-19 merely died “with” COVID-19, not “from” COVID-19. This method of tallying would eliminate many pre-vaccine cases. It is also likely that 85%-90% of tests that are positive at a cycle threshold of 40 would be negative at a cycle threshold of 30.

Despite this lack of accurate data, authorities have consistently scapegoated members of the public as “anti-maskers” or “anti-vaxxers” responsible for prolonging the pandemic. They have used divisive messaging and disorienting scare tactics in order to justify months of COVID-19 restrictions that were based on dogma, not on science.

Scientific Inversion

Our current state of scientific inversion has sown intense division in the U.S. and threatens to rip apart the social fabric. For the past 16 months, the public has been told that it is our duty to serve the needs of medical institutions and personnel, not the other way around. Effective low-cost therapeutics like ivermectin were dismissed in favor of a vaccine program that transferred billions of dollars from taxpayers to pharmaceutical executives and shareholders. Critics of measures like school closures were accused of far-right white supremacy, even though these measures were most damaging to working-class people and minorities. Deadly policies were portrayed as lifesaving, and public health protocols caused immense clinical damage.

A few people have benefited from this war on reality while many have paid a heavy price. In 2020, workers lost $3.7 trillion, while billionaires gained $3.9 trillion and 493 new individuals became billionaires. During this same period, decades of progress against diseases like malaria and tuberculosis were reversed. Disruptions to health and nutrition services killed 228,000 children in South Asia. Globally, the impact of lockdowns on health programs, food production, and supply chains plunged millions of people into severe hunger and malnutrition.

In the U.S., we are facing a crisis of cardiovascular disease and undiagnosed cancer. Unemployment shock will cause 890,000 additional deaths over the next 15 years. Overdoses from synthetic opioids increased by 38.4%, and 11% of U.S. adults considered suicide last June. Three million children disappeared from public school systems, and ERs saw a 31% increase in adolescent mental health visits.

Now, the stories that were used to justify these hardships are continuing to unravel. Many of the people responsible will insist that the second-order consequences are the horrible symptoms of a magic virus and that the mistakes made in handling such a crisis were inevitable. But preventing young children from reaching crucial developmental milestones in the face of mounting evidence is not just a “mistake.” Forcing hospital patients to die alone without saying goodbye to their families is not just a “mistake.” Pushing millions of people into poverty and starvation is not just a “mistake.” These are crimes.

Basic civil, human, and economic rights were violated under demonstrably fraudulent pretenses. The sacrifices we thought we were making for the common good were sacrifices made in vain. Unlawful lockdowns demoralized the population and ruined lives. The tragic reality is that this was all for nothing. The only way to prevent these events from recurring is to exhaustively investigate not just the origin of the virus, but every corrupt and misguided decision made by politicians, NGOs, public health organizations, and scientific institutions made since its fateful emergence.

Alex Gutentag is a public school teacher and writer in California. Follow her on Twitter at @galexybrane.

#COVID-19

#ANDREW CUOMO

BPRC

Full siz

Het Biomedical Primate Research Center (BPRC) is het grootste apentestcentrum van Europa. Aan de Lange Kleiweg in Rijswijk worden jaarlijks vele apen gebruikt in dierproeven. Het gaat om resusapen, java-apen en penseelapen. Volgens de laatste telling (op 14 december 2020) zitten er 1073 apen in het BPRC.

WAAR KOMEN DE APEN VANDAAN?

Aan de Lange Kleiweg in Rijswijk worden grote fokgroepen aangehouden. Van 2010 tot en met 2019 zijn er maar liefst 1907 apen in het apentestcentrum geboren. Toch heeft het BPRC nog steeds nieuwe apen nodig om inteelt te voorkomen. ¹ Deze apen worden aangekocht via apenhandelaar Hartelust uit Tilburg. De apen zijn afkomstig uit enorme Chinese apenfokkerijen en worden naar Nederland getransporteerd. Zelf verhandeld het BPRC ook apen aan andere laboratoria zoals de KU Leuven. Naar schatting zijn er sinds de oprichting van het apentestcentrum in de jaren 50, maar liefst 10.000 apen gebruikt in experimenten.

APEN WORDEN DOODZIEK GEMAAKT

Animal Rights bestudeert de onderzoeken van de betrokken dierproefnemers van het BPRC. Zo doet het BPRC onderzoek naar MS door penseelapen ziek te maken met stoffen die hun zenuwen aantasten. De dieren raken verlamd, blind en apathisch. Na een lange lijdensweg krijgen de apen een dodelijke injectie.

Maar liefst 137 penseelapen worden gebruikt in experimenten die tot 1 januari 2023 lopen. De proefapen worden meerdere malen per week in de buik geïnjecteerd met opiaten om de symptomen van Parkinson op te wekken. De dieren verliezen gewicht, worden apathisch en zitten trillend in hun kooi. De apen maken dagenlang ongecontroleerde bewegingen die ze niet kunnen stoppen. Hierdoor knallen ze in de hoeken van de metalen kooi waardoor ze zich kunnen verwonden. Als er een aap sterft tijdens het experiment komt het lotgenootje alleen in de kooi te zitten wat weer zorgt voor extra stress.

LANGE LIJDENSWEG

Het BPRC heeft apen-infectiemodellen opgezet waarbij gezonde resus-en java apen geïnfecteerd worden met virussen, bacteriën of parasieten zoals Zika, knokkelkoorts, vogelgriep, Corona, malaria of tuberculose. Daar bovenop worden experimentele medicijnen en vaccins op de dieren getest. De apen worden geselecteerd uit de sociale groepen en als duo in een kooi gestopt. De dieren krijgen 18 uur niets te eten voor aanvang van de operatie. Onder verdoving wordt een temperatuurmeter geïmplanteerd in de buikholte. Het infecteren kan op verschillende manieren plaatsvinden: via een operatie, ingebracht in de longen, injectie in de huid of via een inhalatiemasker. De symptomen van de infecties zijn koorts, huiduitslag, gewrichtspijn, lusteloosheid en oogontsteking. Het bestrijden van de ziekte in het lichaam kost de apen zoveel energie dat ze slecht eten. Met als gevolg gewichtsverlies en moeilijk ademhalen.

Een java-aap, die geïnfecteerd was met een griepvirus, werd dood aangetroffen in de kooi en bleek gestorven te zijn aan een ernstige longinfectie.

De apen worden regelmatig verdoofd voor bloedafname, het afnemen van monsters, het schoonspoelen van de longen, scans, huidbiopten en het wegen van het lichaamsgewicht. Tijdens deze handelingen worden de apen gedwangvoederd of krijgen ze sondevoeding om het lichaamsgewicht op peil te houden. Omdat de apen zo vaak verdoofd worden voor de vele handelingen verkeren zij vaak in een staat van desoriëntatie, sufheid en misselijkheid.

De duur van de experimenten variëren, afhankelijk van de testopzet, van een aantal weken tot wel 20 weken. Een deel van de dieren wordt na afloop gedood om de weefsels en organen te bestuderen. De overige dieren worden na een rustperiode ingezet in een nieuw experiment.

LOMP EN GEVOELLOOS

De undercoverbeelden die gemaakt zijn in het BPRC tonen aan hoe lomp en gevoelloos de medewerkers omspringen met de apen. Op de beelden is te zien hoe apen worden afgemaakt voor het oog van andere apen die doodsbang zitten opgesloten in hun krappe kooien.

AANTAL DIERPROEVEN IN HET BPRC

Volgens het laatste jaarverslag van het BPRC werden in 2019 maar liefst 154 apen gebruikt in 14 studies. Het BPRC laat in het eigen jaarverslag weten dat in het afgelopen jaar 2020 al weer meer apen zijn gebruikt dan in 2019. Deze cijfers zijn nog niet openbaar. Over de periode 2007 tot en met 2019 heeft het BPRC maar liefst 2890 dierproeven op apen uitgevoerd.

HOE ZIT HET NU MET DE REDUCTIE VAN 40%?

Het BPRC heeft in 2018 de opdracht van het ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap gekregen om het aantal dierproeven met 40% te verminderen. Daarnaast moest per direct begonnen worden met het verkleinen van de fokkolonie door geboortebeperking. In 2019 presenteerde het BPRC het plan dat meer weg heeft van een reclamefolder.

Tweede Kamerlid Frank Wassenberg van de Partij voor de Dieren is zeer kritisch: "Niet alleen een uitgewerkt plan ontbreekt, het BPRC sjoemelt met de cijfers door te stellen dat het aantal experimenten op apen wordt teruggebracht tot 150. Maar dat is NIET de opdracht. Het aantal proeven op apen moet tot 2025 met 40% worden verminderd. DAT is de opdracht. Het BPRC voert zo’n 200 tot 250 proeven op apen paar jaar uit, schrijft de minister. Het BPRC is preciezer, op pagina 13 van hun plan. In de laatste 5 jaar heeft het BPRC 1034 proeven op apen gedaan, gemiddeld dus 207 per jaar. En in de laatste 10 jaar waren het 2234 proeven, dus 223 per jaar. Dat zijn de gemiddelden. Daarmee betekent een reductie van 40% geen 150 dierproeven op apen vanaf 2025, maar 124 tot 134. Het voorstel van het BPRC komt neer op een reductie van zo’n 30%. Daar kan de minister toch niet mee akkoord gaan?"

Full siz

WIE FINANCIERT HET BPRC?

De inkomsten van het BPRC fluctueren tussen de 10 en 14 miljoen euro per jaar. Het apentestcentrum heeft drie belangrijke inkomstenbronnen: de exploitatiefinanciering vanuit het ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap (50%), de inkomsten uit externe projecten (circa 45%) en de overige inkomsten zoals subsidies van het Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation en Michael J. Fox Foundation (5%). ²

Externe projecten zijn geld en middelen voor ingediende en goedgekeurde onderzoeksvoorstellen van o.a. EU-fondsen.

ZIJN APENTESTEN MOREEL ACCEPTABEL?

In het proefdierkundig jaarverslag 2012 van het BPRC staat het volgende: “mensen zijn de slimste apen. Een van deze menselijke slimmigheden is het vermogen om te begrijpen dat ook andere individuen gedachten, wensen, bedoelingen en kennis hebben.” ³

Het BPRC geeft aan dat apen gebruikt worden omdat deze nauw verwant zijn aan de mens. Maar dat zou ook direct de belangrijkste afweging moeten zijn om juist geen dierproeven uit te voeren. Dieren die zoveel op ons lijken verdienen dezelfde wettelijke bescherming.

Film over de campagne van Een DIER Een VRIEND voor sluiting van het apentestcentrum BPRC

WAT HEBBEN DIERPROEVEN IN HET BPRC OPGELEVERD?

Het morele argument van het BPRC is dat dierproeven uitgevoerd worden om ernstige ziektes voor de mens te bestrijden met als doel het ontwikkelen van effectieve medicijnen of vaccins. Deze argumentatie wordt ook ingezet om fondsen bij de EU en goede doelen los te weken. Wanneer je echter de behaalde resultaten op de website van het BPRC bekijkt dan valt het morele argument weg. Volgens het BPRC heeft het onderzoek ‘tot belangrijke inzichten geleid in ziektes als aids, artritis en malaria. Recente doorbraken zijn de ontwikkelingen en verfijning van modellen voor multiple sclerose, Parkinson en tuberculose.’ ⁴

Deze belangrijke inzichten, ondanks tientallen jaren onderzoek, hebben niet geleid tot de oplossing van ziektes of het ontwikkelen van effectieve medicijnen of vaccins. Deze inzichten resulteren in vervolgvragen bij de onderzoekers: nog meer dierproeven.

De ontwikkeling en verfijning van modellen voor multiple sclerose, Parkinson en tuberculose is wetenschapsjargon. Hiermee wordt bedoeld dat er methoden zijn ontwikkeld om deze ziektes in apen na te bootsen. De apen zijn de modellen. De resusaap is, na de mensaap zoals de chimpansee, het proefdier dat het meeste op mensen lijkt. Toch zit er 25 miljoen jaar evolutie tussen een resusaap en een mens. De dierproefnemers lopen dan ook tegen tal van problemen aan.

Ziektes die in de apen worden opgewekt zijn vaak niet dezelfde ziektes als bij de mens: zo krijgen apen geen HIV maar SIV. Apen zijn ook niet ontvankelijk voor de malaria parasiet die juist zo gevaarlijk is voor mensen (p falciparum en p vivax). De 'oplossing' van de onderzoekers is om de apen te infecteren met de apenvariant p cynomolgi.

Bovendien worden de ziektes kunstmatig opgewekt waardoor het verloop van de ziekte weer verschilt met die van de mens. En dan moeten de 'resultaten' in dieren ook nog eens vertaald worden naar de mens.

Full siz

GEEN RESULTAAT

Uit een studie van biofarmaceut Peter van Meer van de Universiteit Utrecht blijkt dat het nut van dierproeven zeer beperkt is. Hij trok deze conclusie nadat hij 33 Europese registratiedossiers bestudeerde waarbij ruim 5.000 makaken en 68 chimpansees in ruim 6.000 experimenten zijn ingezet als proefdier voor biotechnologische medicijnen. ⁵

Het is dan ook niet vreemd dat het BPRC de ontwikkeling en verfijning van modellen voor multiple sclerose, Parkinson en tuberculose als een resultaat ziet. Echter de reden waarom dierproeven gefinancierd en goedgekeurd worden is voor de ontwikkeling van effectieve medicijnen of vaccins. Door het uitblijven van resultaten valt deze morele vergoelijking volledig weg.

WAT WIJ WILLEN

Animal Rights en dierenrechtenorganisatie Een DIER Een VRIEND voeren campagne voor stopzetting van de apenexperimenten. We willen dat de miljoenen euro’s subsidie besteed worden aan moderne dierproefvrije technieken en niet aan verouderde dierproeven. De apen die nu opgesloten zitten moeten met pensioen: zij verdienen de juiste zorg in een gespecialiseerd opvangcentrum.