From: ruman@meroot.eng.uci.edu (ruman)
Subject: Re: Debate over 60 minutes segment.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Master Time Killers INc.
Distribution: na
Date: 28 Jan 93 17:42:37 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals

In article with message-id<1993Jan28.141309.24145@samba.oit.unc.edu>,  itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken) posts:
=>In article <2B6701F9.9616@news.service.uci.edu> ruman@meroot.eng.uci.edu (ruman) writes:
=>>
[..]
=>
=> >
=>>I am attaching a rebuttal  from Neal Barnard which  I  picked  up
=>>from  a  vegetarian  list  (Granola). One shot that remains in my
=>>mind is one of the doctors mentioning with a  rather  bland  face
=>>that   animal   veterinarians  don't  know  anything  abt  animal
=>>anaesthesia and hence the report presented by them was worthless.
=>>I  was  expecting mike wallace to ask for an explanation for this
=>>very surprising (to say the least) statement but  mr  "seeker  of
=>>truth"  wallace  proceeded to ask the next leading question. 
=>
=>Yhey said that the animal anesthesiologist have no experience with
^^^^^^^^
I am referring to the statements by a single person. 

=>neurological research.  Please get your facts straight before you post.

perhaps i am wrong, but i remember quite clearly, him mentioning animal
anaesthesia and expecting him to be challenged about it. I am referring
to the statements by the fat doctor who was on the panel and was
the first of the supporters to be interviewed.  would someone 
who has recorded the segment verify it.

=>
=>>Also
=>>the retraction by the female nurse has very little relevance (and
=>>mike wallace knew about it) as the attached letter shows.
=>
=>Dr. Bernard said that the cat screaming incident was a FACT.  Then it
=>turns out to be false. "Someone who worked there saw it" I belelieve was
=>the quote.  Then the woman admits she got here information from Cats
=>Magazine.  I suggest the Dr. Bernard get his facts straight before
=>publishing something as fact.

The woman said she got her information as  to  whether  the  cats
were anaesthesized or not from the mag. That is all the mike wal-
lace asked her about.  She didn't state that she had got her info
on cat screaming from the mag. It still doesn't prove anything Dr
Barnard said to be false. mike wallace never bothered  to  expli-
citly ask her (i suppose deliberately) whether she had heard cats
screaming. It was left to the viewer to  assume  that  the  whole
letter had been debunked.

-----relevant portion of rebuttal by Dr Barnard-----------------

   To make his case, Wallace used a secretary at LSU, named Dee
Bonvillian, who had written a letter complaining that the cats
cried out so much that patients could not be treated near the
laboratory.  It appears that Ms. Bonvillian did not understand
the difference between operative anesthesia (which was provided)
and post-wounding analgesia (which was not), and Wallace very
cheaply exploited her.

   Wallace then interviewed me, and when the subject of Ms.
Bonvillian's letter came up, Wallace told me that she had re-
tracted her letter, and used my surprised reaction on the air.
In fact, she had not retracted her statements about hearing the
animals crying.  She had never alleged that the cats cried out as
they were being shot. Rather, their distress was either before
or after the anesthesia was used, and would have been audible
while they were being transported.  In addition, Wallace knew
that the LSU veterinarian had reported that the animals suffered
significant pain, but chose to create a false impression that was
favorable to Carey.

-----------------------------------------------------------------


ruman
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals