From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: 60 min. Cat Shooting
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 18:00:58 GMT

In article <mhulsey-260193075509@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu> mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey) writes:
>In article <1993Jan26.104007.2736@netcom.com>, loca@netcom.com (John Hoag)
>wrote:
>> 
>>[...]
>> 
>> You know, I love all this horseshit about "fully anesthetized cats."  The
>> point being made is that the cats did not suffer, and therefore the
>> research was ok.
>
>No, the "point being made "is that animal activists lied about the
>anesthesia that the cats received to falsely imply that they suffered pain
>during the procedures.
>
>The "point being made" is also that animal activists cannot convince the
>public that animal experimentation is "bad" without distorting the facts. 
>...


Yesterday I posted a copy of Dr Barnard's letter to Mike Wallace. 
Here's a copy of his letter to the Executive Producer of 60 Minutes.  It
may answer additional questions.  Those expecting followups from me will
have to be patient, as I'm extremely busy.  Also I can't read Dr
Barnard's mind.  For more detail, those interested parties might try
calling the number indicated. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   January 26, 1993

Mr. Don Hewitt
Executive Producer
60 Minutes
555 W. 57th Street
New York, N.Y. 10019

Dear Mr. Hewitt:

   Let me ask you to review the 60 Minutes segment concerning
Army cat-shooting experiments at the Louisiana State University
which aired on January 24, 1993.  I believe that the program was
not only biased, but dishonest, as is described below:

   1. Mr. Wallace devoted considerable time to making a false
case that, because the animals were anesthetized when shot, there
was no possibility of pain. The facts are as follows: Each of
700 cats was anesthetized long enough to be shot through the
head.  The anesthesia was then turned off, and no pain-killers of
any kind were given to survivors in virtually all cases.  (Ap-
proximately 33 percent of the cats survived for periods ranging
from 24 hours to several years after wounding.)  The General
Accounting Office reported that LSU's veterinarian "told us the
animals from the brain-wound project experienced pain." Pene-
trating head injuries can be excruciatingly painful.  Although
the brain tissue does not have nerve endings, its covering tissue
membranes, the skull, and the scalp are all sensitive to pain,
and brain swelling can also cause severe pain.

   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.

   2. The program was grossly unbalanced.  Below is the actual
air time given to interviewed doctors:

  Supportive of Experiments        Critical of Experiments
Dr. Carey:               1:38      Dr. Barnard:  0:49
Dr. Carey and his Wife:  0:56
Dr. Jane:                1:16
Dr. Traystman:           0:19
Dr. Schwarz:             1:07

   Of the 49 seconds during which I was on camera, only 24
seconds were devoted to my opinions about the experiments.  The
remaining 25 seconds were used by Wallace in confronting me about
Ms. Bonvillian's letter. All of my comments about the scientific
problems with Carey's research were cut out.

   All of PCRM's neurologists, neurosurgeons, and trauma experts were  
excluded.  All five veterinary anesthesiologists, who
criticized the experiments, were excluded. Also excluded was the
medical panel member who criticized the experiments and who
reported that the panel members had been telephoned in advance by
a spokesperson for a prominent neurological surgery association
urging them to render positive findings about the experiments.
Wallace chose instead to include two medical panel members who
supported Carey.

    3. Carey was not confronted for claiming that other re-
searcher's findings were his own.  In his annual report filed
February 10, 1987, Carey reported his finding that brain wounding
causes breathing to stop and that respiratory support could
therefore save lives.  He again described his "discovery" in a
televised interview on May 24, 1989.  In the interview, Dr. Carey
stated:

    "We found that, most surprisingly, when the animal is in-
jured by the little pellet, that the animals often stop breath-
ing.  AND THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT THIS HAS BEEN ASCERTAINED
FOLLOWING A MISSILE WOUND.  We find now that if the respirations
are supported, that animal starts breathing again, maybe an hour
later.  We feel that if this can be transposed to the human
situation, it may be that the people who sustain missile wounds
to the brain may not necessarily die. They may be able to be
saved and to go on and live productive lives.... WE'VE JUST MADE
THESE DISCOVERIES, AND WE'VE JUST RECENTLY PUBLISHED ON THIS, SO
I THINK IN THE FUTURE THIS CAN BE PUT INTO EFFECT."  [emphasis
added]

   This discovery was not Dr. Carey's. Rather, researcher
Victor Horsley published the same findings in Nature on May 31,
1894, nearly a century ago.  Carey knew of Horsley's work, but
took the credit for himself.

   Wallace not only did not confront Carey about his false
claims of the past, but allowed him to make the new and grandiose
claim that he was on the brink of "showing that this drug would
really work when our research funding was shut off." This is
nonsense.  In fact, Carey vas criticized for failing to test
drugs he was supposed to have used during the first contract
period. Although he did finally use some drugs during the second
contract, the idea of an "imminent breakthrough" is a fiction.

   Also omitted from the broadcast was the fact that the GAO
found some of Carey's reported data to be physically impossible
and that much of his data was left out when he published his
findings, in violation of standards of research integrity.
Carey's procedures were careless in many respects and deviated
from the protocol which the Army had approved.

   The 6O Minutes staff knew of these problems, but instead
portrayed Carey as a leading-edge researcher.

    Viewers might wonder why experiments which were stopped in
1989 were covered on 60 Minutes in 1993.  The answer seems to be
that new initiatives by the AMA and other organizations promoting
animal experimentation, including encouraging member doctors to
lobby their patients on this issue, coincided in time with the
beginning of 6O Minutes' interest in this story.  Dr. Schwarz,
the AMA's spokesperson on this issue was given substantial air
time during the segment, and the AMA's skewed version of the LSU
episode was used by 60 Minutes virtually point-for-point.

    4. Wallace insulted researchers and head injury victims by
suggesting that their only hope is in experiments like Carey's.
The world of neurosurgical research does not genuflect to Carey's
sloppy work. Modern imaging techniques, such as magnetic reso-
nance imaging, positron emission tomography and other methods
have kept clinical study of head injury patients preeminent over
any other method.

    It is unfortunate to find blatant dishonesty in journalists
who command such a large measure of public trust.  I ask that you
take appropriate steps to rectify these problems and thank you
for your attention to this matter.

                   Sincerely,

                   Neal D. Barnard, M.D.
                   202-686-2210
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: the claim that it's unreasonable to presume that Dr Carey could have
known about the 1894 work of Horsley: (1) Apparently he did know, and
(2) even if he didn't, the fact is that Dr Barnard, who has been
denigrated in this forum as not being knowledgeable enough to evaluate
the work of others, knew.  Perhaps he should have been consulted?
Perhaps he does know more than his opponents give him credit for?

--- 
Robert Black | Replies may be slow. 
black@serum.kodak.com - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.  
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers. 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals