The Science and Drugs of “Progress for Science” – Talking of Analysis

March 12, 2021

We detailed the irresponsible behavior of those who spoke out against animal testing during the pandemic and the hypocrisy of their rhetoric after vaccines were approved for emergency use – thanks to over a decade of animal research, safety and efficacy testing. Yesterday we wrote about how recent media coverage of the endorsement of COVID vaccines by Catholic leaders provides an interesting model for thinking about public information and decisions about the use of non-human animals in research and testing of medical devices and treatments . So it’s time to highlight one of our #Green posts from 7 years ago How dissociated the beliefs of anti-#AnimalResearch groups really are from facts and science.

The science and medicine of “progress for science”

The animal rights group “Progress for Science” (P4S) appeared again last night harass a UCLA professor in his home. Don’t leave her name deceive you. The consequences of advocating P4S are backwardness and regression. To stand up for science, you must be familiar with it. To advocate advancement, you need to understand medical history. But it doesn’t take much digging to find out how distant their beliefs are from facts and science. Take, for example, their views on vaccinations:

There is absolutely nothing advanced or scientific about being against vaccination. Those who despite the evidenceto continue to oppose vaccination in children are nothing less than a public health threat that directly contributed to it to an increase in preventable diseases and deaths in our state and elsewhere. Such groups are not pro-scientific. Instead, they have the functions of a cult.

Another common view among animal rights activists is that diet is the cause of all illness, and that a vegan diet is an effective remedy for many of them. There is no doubt that science supports the view that a good, balanced diet and daily dose of exercise are essential parts of a healthy life. However, it turns out that at any point in time, disease can arise in ways that you cannot foresee or prevent.

So what happens when a healthy, young vegan falls ill with … say gallbladder stones? Do you reach for the oregano oil or yerba santa immediately? Maybe ginger or cayenne pepper is enough? Or maybe you are following the recommendation to use dandelion and milk thistle?

There’s no need to ask the hypothetical question as it’s easy to find out what P4S member Sarah Jane Hardt did. Despite her vegan diet, she developed gallbladder stones and the pain seemed unbearable. What did she do? She decided to give up all of her personal beliefs about biomedical research and went to the hospital for surgery –


I bet she doesn’t have much knowledge of how cholecystectomies (the surgery she received) were originally developed. Coincidentally, it was a marine surgeon named Herlin who first performed the procedure on cats and dogs, which led him to the following conclusion:

“It is safe to remove the gallbladder, and this discovery opens the way to safe access to stones collected in the gallbladder or struck in the biliary tract, where they often cause fatal complications.”

In other words, this adamant opposition to the use of animals in research has been treated with surgical techniques developed as a direct result of her work. Experimental studies of gallbladder surgery are carried out on animals to date to improve the prognosis of those who will receive the surgery.

So Sarah Jane Hardt can have a good night tonight. Thanks to animal research.


It is doubtful that any other member of P4S would act differently. They do not object when they are the direct beneficiaries of animal research, but they outrageously claim it is compassionate for them to deny others, including our children and grandchildren, the benefits of research today. No, it’s not compassionate. Your point of view is downright cruel.

Additional insights into Sarah Jane Hardt’s beliefs come from the medical community’s perspective she released a few days after her surgery regarding doctors’ ability to provide advice on diet and nutrition:


At the same time, however, she had no problems swallowing the other pills prescribed by the doctor:


Funny … To top it off, Ms. Hardt and her friends also had the ethical chutzpah to point out that UCLA professor David Jentsch, against whom they are demonstrating, set his own car on fire instead of accepting it the right to responsibility made open by the Animal Liberation Brigade.


Advances in science have made it clear that it cannot find it in themselves to condemn the violence of the animal rights movement. Carol Glasser, the group’s founder, said:

Whatever we do as a movement, it doesn’t work, it doesn’t save animal life. I think it’s a waste of time demonizing people who are endangering their own lives, safety, health and freedom because they can’t think of any other way to help the animals. It is total bullshit on our part to point our fingers and demonize them.

Not only do they refuse to convict those who set cars or houses on fire, but they also publicly offer support for convicted arsonists for animal rights. Here is Tyler Lang, another member of the group who supports two of them:


Progress for Science members disguise themselves as peaceful, compassionate, pacifist and pro-scientific.

Nothing is further from the truth.

They are scientifically illiterate, cheerleaders of violence, cruel, anti-scientific, and obviously dishonest.


To update: More discussion by David Jentsch here.

To find out more about the role of animal research in advancing human and veterinary medicine, and how the animal rights lobby is threatened for that advancement, follow us on Facebook at:

Like this:

To like Loading…

Ad Blocker Detected

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.