There isnt really anything I feel I need to say about it.
Marino thinks so too. After the article was published, she wanted it pulled:
Marino was fully aware during the interview that she was talking with a blogger from the Southern Poverty Law Center, even volunteering that she is familiar with the SPLC's history of denouncing radical animal rights activists like the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). She approved a transcript of her interview, writing in an E-mail, "I think you captured everything I said perfectly." Hours later, Marino contacted the blogger and said she wanted to withdraw her consent to be quoted, saying that she did not want to be quoted on "a blog filled with the most contemptible groups of racists, bigots, madmen, and hatemongers ... groups that I despise." Following widely accepted journalistic practice that once an on-the-record interview is conducted, permission cannot be withdrawn, Hatewatch decided to publish quotes from the interview.
I love animals. Dogs, snakes, birds, love them. Theyre the beautiful end result of almost 4 billion years of evolution. I sobbed over the death of a dog who attacked me. I spent 5 hours in below freezing temperatures to coax a stray dog into my apartment. *I* love animals.
But Camille Marino and her clan? Theyre not animal lovers, 'human animal' or 'non-human animal' or otherwise. Theyre just freaks. Sick fucking freaks.
Get more background on this, and what this interview means at 'Speaking of Research':
Hopefully, and given the available evidence, SPLC will take the logical step of declaring animal rights extremist groups like NIO hate groups. This is, after all, what these groups are and, hopefully, they will formally be recognized as such in the SPLC hate map where they belong.
Marino sure does know how to bring on the crazy, I'm not surprised that she couldn't even stop hersefl when talking to the SPLC.
Well, she's where she deserves to be now, right alongside all the other hate filled, violent, dysfunctional wackos.
I'm still unclear, after looking at Marino's site a couple times, how she's not been charged with any crimes. IANAL, but it sure seems like her conduct rises to the level of harassment and credible threats in more than one case.
"I sobbed over the death of a dog who attacked me. I spent 5 hours in below freezing temperatures to coax a stray dog into my apartment."
If I knew you in person, I may have to tease you about the former. I'd have no problem with the death of an animal that attacks me (depending on the situation of course), but I definitely respect the latter. I've done similar (trailer kittens), though not for 5 hours =P
I often agree with those who say that the SPLC can be reasonably said to be unreasonably loose with their definition of a "hate group". That being said, I can't think of any reasonable criterion that would exclude animal "rights" extremists from that category. They explicitly promote hate and violence toward a particular group of people, i.e., those they see as "harming animals".
Camel Morono squeaked : "I spent 5 hours in below freezing temperatures to coax a stray dog into my apartment." Sensible hound. It fairly obviously didn't want to fall into the creep's clutches. Animals aren't fucking stupid.
I've had to put up with self-regarding animal-lover-type pinheads like this occasionally.
And don't start shouting, now. Because I'm a bit that way meself, I suspect. So I notice it. But I am fairly satisfied, from protracted (as in, enforced by unwelcome proximity) observation, that they are without exception somewhere Far Out On The Spectrum, yet insufficiently hampered to require sectioning, or residential "care".
Miles further out than the excellent Temple Grandin, for instance, who's a veritable Mark Twain or Zola in comparison.
Point being, you're not going to get anywhere trying to negotiate or reason with them.
They're always right, therefore you are always wrong.
They lack the capacity for any other intellectual position. Like particularly nasty, spoiled, four-year-olds.
"Waah! Boo-hoo!! Only cuddlywuddly animals understand me and lurve me!!" You're all just horrid!
And the correct response is the one that one might deal such a brat.
Read the post again, dustbubble. I believe it's ERV saying that she's the one who spent 5
hours coaxing the stray dog into her apartment.
Ooops. Sorrry Abbie.
If that article was actually an interview with marino (which I think was what was agreed to), you'd maybe have a point. What it was was a few quote mines in a hate rant of the kind that could make even erv out to be a creationist.
I exaggerate slightly, but better that than the unthinking nuttery coming from many of the commenters on the article.
I'm not sure how you arrive at that conclusion - the entire theme of Marino's "work" is that violence against researchers is not only acceptable, but to be encouraged.
While I can certainly understand someone having the position that certain experimentation on animals is too cruel no matter how valuable the data derived from it, these crusaders do far more harm. There are very few animal rights organizations I actually consider decent. In fact, the only one I can name is the humane society. The "animal liberation" group and PETA are just too filled with nuts to be worth supporting.
By the way, I read this article today:
This article set off a few alarm bells, from the seemingly hyperbolic title to talking about FDA safety requirements being some evil thing in the way between us and good health. However, I'm interested in your take on it. I'd like to know if the science is solid. The mechanism doesn't sound like a vaccine to me, but I'm surely misunderstanding something there.
I take it that eddie has never actually read Marino's blog. You'd have to be comically ignorant not to think those quotes in the article are representative of her regular output.
The woman is mentally ill.
M, that article you are referring to is what is known as shit journalism.
For a start Beatrice Fontoura and her colleagues have not developed a vaccine, they have identified a protein called REDD1 that plays an important role in fighting virus infection and shown that activating it in vitro can reduce the amount of virus present.
There's a reasonable account of the work at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110926083349.htm and the original paper is at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21909097
It's probably a decade away from clinical trials, let alone FDA approval. My guess is that the editor and/or journalist responsible for the article you refer to is using it as an opportunity to have a go at the FDA, the old "FDA is blocking the CURES!" rot that anyone familiar with health cranks will have seen half a million times.
Ugh, I have a friend that I'm afraid will one day hop on this particular crazy train. And they so rarely sell return tickets. I certainly respect the position that it's wrong to hurt animals. But then I'm also one of those bastards who insists on seeing things from more than one point of view, and consider the medical knowledge gained to outweigh the harm caused. Hopefully we'll have Star Trek level technology sooner rather than later, but until thenâ¦ we'll have to live with the lesser evil and hope our descendants don't get too precious about it.