agriculture, animal, animal rights, animal welfare, animals, argument, ethics, golden rule, human, human rights, humanity, intersectional, intersectionality, morality, philosophy, propaganda, research, slave trade, slavery, supremacy, vegan, veganism, vegetarianiasm, vivisection, welfare
George Bernard Shaw
The usual assumption is to suggest that Mengele was a freakish anomaly, and that the Germans (and their allies the Japanese) were the only ones to engage in such wicked exploitation of vulnerable humans. Now it is known that Mengele, who built a kindergarten for concentration camp children and played them the violin (when he wasn’t experimenting on them) had the support of elite doctors at the prestigious, Nobel Prize-winning, Kaiser-Wilhelm Institute.
The relationship between respected medical men and torture was not isolated to Germany. Dr. James Marion Sims, a president of the American Medical Association in the 19th century, conducted groundbreaking experiments into women’s health upon slaves, and one of his studies included removing a man’s jaw (without anesthetic). Despite this history, his statue remains in New York’s Central Park.
Contrast that with the statue at the center of the Brown Dog Affair of 1907, when a thousand medical students stormed the streets of London attacking police and women in an effort to destroy a statue(!) erected in memory of a dog who had been tortured for two months by vivisectors. Such a furor was raised by these priests of what George Bernard Shaw called “medical voodoo,” that it was removed and not re-instated (in a less conspicuous location) until the 1980s.
Vivisection has its origins in augury and soothsaying—where temple priests would torture living animals with the claim that society would be better off. Vivisectors repeat the same promise when criticized for atrocities. But the nature of the vivisector, a type of “emotional retardation,” is such that they will exploit anyone they can (while claiming they are the real victims of violence and terrorists).
Despite the exceptional status given to Mengele and Sims, medical experimentation upon humans without their approval (but with the support of power) has been carried out to the present day. In the 1940s, the Salk brothers infected mental patients with influenza, and Pfizer did harmful experiments on villagers in Africa in the 1990s. But there are other vivisectors who are not so well known (despite their claims about “furthering human knowledge”) which reveal that as nonhuman experimentation was allowed, it opened the door for experimentation upon unwilling humans- especially the most vulnerable.
A footnote in an article on the history of animal advocacy in the early part of the 20th century referred to a rejected 1923 bill in the New York legislature that would have banned medical experimentation on dogs and orphans.
Further details in a pamphlet titled “Human Vivisection” from the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection by A.E. Parker documents sadistic experiments that would likely be lost to history, if not for the efforts of those who campaigned on the behalf of nonhuman animal (and human) victims of vivisectors. The pamphlet credits Dr. Herbert Snow (surgeon for 29 years), Dr. Walter Hadwen, Dr. Geo. Searle and others for their investigations into the atrocities of vivisectors. It begins with endorsements of human vivisection by several doctors: such as this:
Professor Slosson in the New York Independent, December l2th, 1895.
Dr. Snow follows with these remarks:
THE STORY OF NEISSER. “The Medical Press, March 29th, 1899, records the inoculation with syphilis of 8 healthy children without the consent of their parents, by Professor Neisser. Symptoms of the disease were developed in 3. A fourth was seen 3 years after the inoculation with a cerebral tumour, its direct result. The Times, January 15th, 1901, reports that the Disciplinary Court of Breslau had fined Neisser 300 marks for publishing his account of the experiments, not for the experiments themselves. In March, 1906, Neisser attempted to lecture at Stettin, but was hooted off the stage. On June 27th, 1911, the West London Medico-Surgical Society held its annual Conversazione at Kensington Town Hall. Before them Professor Neisser delivered the Cavendish lecture and was presented with the Cavendish Gold Medal for his researches and experiments. Not a syllable of protest against these proceedings appears to have been uttered by any association, or by the current medical journals.
(2) Mr. LANDIUS, speaking in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, April 29th, 1913, refers to 146 children recently inoculated with syphilitic virus, (*by Dr. Hideyo Noguchi)“through the courtesy of the various hospitals in that city.” He also mentions 8 children experimented on by spinal puncture – all died – and 15 children in St. Vincent’s House, Philadelphia, whose eyes were tested with Tuberculin, and states that some had been totally blinded.
(3) Dr. EMMET HOLT, Professor of Children’s Diseases Columbia University, New York, read a paper at the Twentieth Annual meeting of the American Pediatric Society’ (May 26th, 1908) giving details of 1,000 Tuberculin tests he had made on young children in hospital; 615 tests were on the eyes of babies, whose hands were tied during the first 12 hours, to prevent any rubbing of the eye. Dying children, were similarly tested.
(4) Dr. RODERMUND OF MILWAUKEE, in the Medical Brief, April, 1906, reports experiments on 17 youthful persons. ” I sprayed the poison of diphtheria, smallpox, etc., into the nose and throat.” ” Of course I could not let the patients know what I was doing. I was supposed to be treating them for cataracts of the nose and throat,”
Experiments upon Children and Lunatics.
Dr. Walter HADWEN, J.P., of Gloucester, in the Abolitionist for January. 1914, draws attention to the ” fact that experimentation upon” the lower animals must of necessity lead to experiments upon the human species,” and gives examples upon children ; and in the same journal for March, 1916, writes of the (‘atrocious work carried on in the United States,” quoting from the Journal of Experimental Medicine, February, 1916. which is published by the notorious Rockefeller Institute. It contains a gruesome article by Dr. Udo J. Wile, from the University of Michigan, Dr. Hadwen describes that he “bored holes in the skulls of no less than 6 helpless lunatics, who were confined in the Pontiac State Hospital, using apparently only a local anaesthetic for the incisions into the scalp ” (many of us know how useless local anaesthetics are for deadening pain in most cases.)” Then a long nozzled syringe was inserted through the trephine hole into the brain of each, and a syringe full of brain contents was severally extracted.” This was used for injecting into “the two most sensitive organs” of several rabbits, and “the poor tortured ” creatures died in the course of several weeks. Dr. Hadwen adds : “‘The author of these outrages publicly ‘expresses his appreciation’ of ‘many laboratory courtesies extended- to him’ by fellow ‘vivisectors, and specially thanks Dr. Edmund Christian, under whose hospital care the poor lunatics were placed,’for the facilities he placed at his disposal ! ‘ ”
In connection with this it is well for us to remember that the
American Vivisectors are welcomed over here by our own medical men,
and that the Rockefeller Foundation, in 1920, gave the ” enormous sum
of (US) $1,205,000 to University College Medical School and the College ”
-and Vivisection is carried on there ! Abolitionist, July,1920.
H. SELTER, of Leipzig, also injected ” small amounts of tubercle
bacilli ” into healthy children (Deut. Med. Woch., July I7th,1925.) “Nine children developed larger or smaller nodules………one child died of influenza pneumonia .”Starry Cross Oct. . 1925,
The Lancet, June 27th,1925, refers to an “experiment in prophylaxis
against tuberculosis in infants “–in 1921 and 1924 by Dr. Calmette, of
the Pasteur Institute, who experimented on over 1,000 young children,
and it throws serious doubts upon the supposed proof and results. Coming from the headquarters of orthodox medicine this is very welcome to anti -vivisectionists.
The Obserzter November 2nd, 1924, relates that the Arbeiter-Zeitung
states that ” an experiment with a new kind of serum was attempted on
36 children at a babies’ home near Vienna, with this fatal result: Six of them died of diphtheria toxin poisoning-and demands a strict examination into the case.”
” A Vienna cable to the Christian Science Monitor, June 30th, 1925,
contains the announcement that the Minister of Social Welfare has issued a decree forbidding the use of toxin antitoxin as an inoculation against diphtheria. ‘The decree is an inner departmental one, based on a report of Professor Pirquet, and was sent to the Serotherapeutic Institute of Vienna. It is a strange anomaly that while one Government forbids a treatment of this kind on account of its danger, other Governments do all they can to encourage its use. (See also British Medical Journal September 26th, 1925).
Our own Ministry of Health is much to be feared in this direction, but we are glad to note that the L.C.C. has decided against the use of the test for London School children. Abolitionist, August, 1925. Work house Schools are not exempt, unfortunately; 329 pauper children under the charge of the Holborn Guardians and several hundreds at Manchester, Edinburgh and Bristol, were thus exploited. (Abolitionist, April, 1922)
Dr. Hadwen describes the Schick test as “a blood poisoning process” and as “human vivisectional experiments ” on pauper children.
(2) ‘Dr. A. T. BRAND, in a review of his recent book on Cancer (1922) is quoted as follows :
Francis Payton Rous, based at the Rockefeller Institute and editor of the Journal of Experimental Medicine, speaking in defense of Salk’s experiments, wrote to co-vivisector Thomas Francis:
Thanks to John Edmundson of the Humanitarian League’s – Ernest Bell Library – in Hong Kong for providing the historical anti-vivisection pamphlet used in this article.
For more on this, see Susan E. Lederer’s book