As predicted: UW cleared, PeTA caught lying again

We can’t exactly say we’re surprised.

Today, the Capitol Times and the Wisconsin State Journal both reported on the results of a USDA investigation following claims by PeTA that the University of Wisconsin broke animal welfare laws. The investigators’  conclusion: No wrongdoing, no violations.

An excerpt from the Wisconsin State Journal who spoke with David Sacks, a spokesman for the USDA.

The [USDA] inspected UW-Madison labs on three days in late September and early October and found no violations, Sacks said. It officially closes the investigation, he said. 

We really hope that the news media will cover this inspection result as thoroughly as PeTA’s claims were covered when the first surfaced a few weeks ago. It would be interested to know how PeTA representatives react to the news. However, PeTA is well aware that bad news travels much faster and further than good news, so in their minds: mission accomplished.

You may wonder, why were we able to predict the outcome?

Because making trumped up claims is standard operating procedure within the PeTA press office.

Want proof?
See these related news stories:

USDA clears University of Michigan Medical School’s use of animals in training

Feds clear Oregon Health & Science University  after monkey mistreatment claims

USDA report clears ZooAmerica in bison deaths

As we mentioned in a previous post PeTA’s allegations put reputations and people at risk, but this is part of the day-to-day work at PeTA.

We certainly don’t expect today’s investigation results will make PeTA rethink their tactics. However, we hope that it will help educate the public about the how much they can trust our country’s most outspoken animal rights group.

Speaking of Research

8 thoughts on “As predicted: UW cleared, PeTA caught lying again”

  1. you cannot give us examples as cures in a mouse, where is the cures printed for humans you keep promising that research using animals is valid for, its you dave or tom, “Some may look at these types of experiments and say they’re cruel to animals, but are you prepared to look at a child suffering from cancer and tell them to suck it up until they die?”
    HOW DARE YOU USE EMOTIONAL BLACKMAIL COMMENTS LIKE THIS, cancer in a child WILL NEVER BE FOUND WHILST USING A DIFFERENT SPECIES, thats taken millions of years to evolve different to a human, how dare you get payed FOR WHAT, you are not scientists so how and who is paying you to do WHAT, you are brainwashed, show me your scientific qualifications, you have no right pushing a subject you are not qualified to understand, YOU KNOW YOUR EGO IS BEEN WATCHED,

    1. Dave,

      Breast cancer may not be cured – but survival rates have gone up by over 30% in the last few decades because of new drugs created using mice. Herceptin – one of the main tools in fighting breast cancer, was developed from a mouse protein. We could not have discovered this without mice as (I repeat) it is a mouse protein (now humanized).

      HIV was once a death sentence, now sufferers can led relatively normal lives thanks to Highly active antiretroviral therapies, developed using mice.

      The fact is that you CAN develop new treatments and cures using mouse models – in fact mouse models are crucial. Moreover, as we move into the new areas of trying to treat genetic defects (e.g. Cystic Fibrosis) our understanding can barely move forward without the use of knockout mice (GM mice).

    2. Emotional blackmail, as you call it, is what animal rights groups have been using for years. And survival rates for children with cancer have increased dramatically with development of new therapeutics developed through animal research. The rest of your comment is a bunch or rambling nonsense so I can’t answer it.

  2. And does the USDA approve the horrific daily abuse that is taken as normal procedure in Factory Farms? Most Americans are not blind to the fact that PETA can be extreme, but most also DO NOT SUPPORT the severe cruelty that has become the Norm in producing meat, and for Lab Tests that are not humane.
    I am not an Extremist, but there are many out there who are. Cruelty is cruelty, Abuse is Abuse. And Taxpayers Do Not Want to be a part of this cruelty, that pays for your research and salaries.
    It is not good science and you are as brainwashed as the extremists.
    You are at risk because you go to far in these experiments — you have no empathy. And you open the door for seriously disturbed individuals to react. And of course you will laugh at this, but were the experiments on Human Beings in the Nazi Regime OK too because they were ok’s by the Government? No. It is because you are in America that your cruelty is open to the public discussion and change.

    1. For PeTA there is no amount of regulation that would make animal research, or the use of animals as food, ethically permissible. Thus, what they need to do is convince the rest of the public and our representatives of of their position and change existing laws that would ban such practices. This is what it would mean for taxpayers to reject the work. And if the public rejects the work then, of course, it will not be done.

    2. You make some pretty general accusations in your comments. What is not good science? The recent experiments that discovered the mechanisms for Childhood Neuromuscular Disease (http://www.alnmag.com/news/mechanisms-underlying-childhood-neuromuscular-disease-found)? Or how about the study that found a way to improve the treatment of Pompe Disease which is a rare, and usually fatal, genetic disorder found in infants (http://www.alnmag.com/news/anti-cancer-drug-fights-immune-reaction-pompe-disease-mouse-models)?

      One claim made by those opposed to animal research is that there are alternatives available. However, when pressed they are hard pressed to actually name a viable alternative. There are the usual PeTA talking points like computer modeling or cell cultures. Computers are only as good as the information put into them and if we don’t keep investigating no new information can be programmed in. Cells don’t mimic the whole body so are only effective for some experiments. That said, these are used in research when applicable. But who is looking for the alternatives? It’s not PeTA or the HSUS. They don’t provide any money to researchers looking for replacements to animal testing. In fact, it’s those in the field doing the research. For instance, using amoebas to screen potential drugs for certain side affects (http://www.alnmag.com/news/research-looks-reduce-animal-testing-drug-development).

      Some may look at these types of experiments and say they’re cruel to animals, but are you prepared to look at a child suffering from cancer and tell them to suck it up until they die? I’m not and that’s why I’m in this field.

Comments are closed.