Resize Font Increase Font Size Decrease Font Size Reset Font Size

Home / Animal Rights / Headlines

January 29, 2008
printable version email to a friend join our e-mail list


What Mainstream Doctors (Still) Think Of PCRM

What Mainstream Doctors (Still) Think Of PCRM

We’ve told you over the years that the American Medical Association (which speaks for the vast majority of American physicians) doesn’t have a very high opinion of PCRM -- the misnamed Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (which speaks for the animal rights world). The latest shoe to drop is a new resolution condemning PCRM, which was debated during last summer’s annual AMA meeting in Chicago. It represents the opinion of the American Academy of Neurology, the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, and the Congress of Neurological Surgeons.

In the coming weeks, we’ll be sending copies to reporters, members of Congress, Hollywood publicists, and the people in TV and radio who decide which “Public Service Announcements” get on the air.

It reads, in part:

Whereas, PCRM has engaged in a multi-year crusade against the March of Dimes including protests directed at March walkers, volunteers, and donors; and

Whereas, PCRM discourages donations to health charities that support research with animals, like the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, the American Foundation for AIDS Research, the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation and the American Red Cross; and

Whereas, PCRM represents itself as a physician’s group with fewer than five percent physician members; and

Whereas, The AMA reiterated its strong support for advocacy of animal research at the 2006 Annual Meeting; therefore be it

RESOLVED, That our AMA strongly object to the positions of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) that denounce animal research; and be it further

RESOLVED, That our AMA condemn these ongoing activities of the PCRM that impede humane and responsible animal research.

The neurologists' groups hit the nail on the head, especially by noting how few actual physicians make up this phony “physicians committee” (the latest numbers indicate that it’s now less than four percent).

We can’t wait to hear PCRM’s feeble explanation for how the mainstream medical profession is misinterpreting its work to save lab rats and guinea pigs at the expense of people. But the bottom line is this: Why should a group of animal activists who don’t care about your survival have any say in what you eat (or what you feed your children)?

You guessed it. They shouldn’t.

Bonus reading material: “7 Things You Didn’t Know” about PCRM, and a whole website devoted to exposing its brand of PETA-approved quackery.

NOTE: This article was edited to correct an error.

email us comments



printable version email to a friend join our e-mail list
Headlines


‘Humane Wayne’ Gets His
Posted On: Wednesday 7/1/2009

‘Humane Wayne’ Muddies the Airwaves
Posted On: Tuesday 6/30/2009

HSUS Shows Its True Colors
Posted On: Monday 6/22/2009

Quote of the Week
Posted On: Wednesday 6/17/2009

Save the Lab Rats! (Kill the Humans?)
Posted On: Thursday 6/4/2009

Good Newz for Michael Vick is Bad Newz for HSUS
Posted On: Wednesday 5/20/2009

Atlanta Investigation Uncovers Deceptive 'Humane Society' Agenda
Posted On: Friday 5/15/2009

Food Dogma, With a 'Nudge'
Posted On: Wednesday 5/13/2009

More Scrambled Claims From Animal Activists
Posted On: Tuesday 5/5/2009


ActivistCash.com

Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
Background | Quotes | Financials
While PCRM presents itself as a doctor-supported, unbiased source of health guidance, the group’s own literature admits that 95 percent of its members have no medical degrees. read more here »

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
Background | Quotes | Financials
According to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, human beings are just another animal species, no more special or important than a snail darter or dairy cow. read more here »

Op-Eds

Put Helmsley's billions to use in animal shelters
PETA and HSUS have announced their intentions to claim big slices of the $8 billion bounty. But neither one has the track record to handle such a responsibility. read more here »

California Focus: The new animal-rights battleground
The animal-rights movement is far from harmless. And since California seems to be the current animal-rights Ground Zero, it's worth considering what the movement stands for. read more here »


About Us | Contact Us | Please Help Us | Site Map
Ad Campaigns | Press Center | Daily News Archive | Email Subscription | Op-Eds | Cartoons | Games | Link To Us
Copyright © 1997-2009 Center for Consumer Freedom. Tel: 202-463-7112.