One of Spurlock's favorite sources in his book is the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. After the Center for Science in the Public Interest, PCRM ranks second on his "Acknowledgements" page, and he uses them in both the text and the end notes. He runs an exerpt from a book written by Neal Barnard, the group's founder (p. 93). Barnard also gets a brief appearance in Super Size Me. It's probably safe to say that the group helped out with a good deal of the book's content. See Spurlock's blog here, where he mentions his attendance at PCRM's swanky black-tie fundraising gala.
So what exactly is the Physicians' Committee for Responsible Medicine? They aren't physicans. Less than 5% of the group's membership are actual physicians.
In fact, PCRM is a rather militant animal rights group. Its aim? To end medical research on animals, and to foster public fear of eating cheese and meat with scare campaigns. Through lawsuits, intimidation, and stealth media placement, they're trying to push the vegan lifestyle.
PETA has directed more than $1 million to PCRM over the years. The group has been repeatedly and publicly reprimanded by the American Medical Association for spreading misinformation on the use of animals to test new AIDS treatments. The AMA's president said of PCRM in 1991, "They are neither responsible, nor are they physicians." PCRM has also called for an end to donations to groups like the American Cancer Society and the American Heart Association because those groups support testing on animals.
Barnard is a psychiatrist. He has no training in nutrition, diet, or internal medicine. Yet for some reason, Spurlock and others take him seriously when he talks about the health effects of meat and cheese consumption. Barnard has lobbied government agencies to put a "biohazzard" warning label on meat and dairy, and once called cheese "morphine on a cracker." He has said, "there is no room for chicken in a healthy diet." And he's an inductee in the "Animal Rights Hall of Fame."
More disturbing, however, are PCRM's ties to animal rights terrorism. Barnard has engaged in several letter-writing campaigns with a guy named Kevin Kjonaas, who has ties to two animal rights terrorist groups, including the Animal Liberation Front. Kjonaas is now on trial on domestic terrorism charges.
Then there's Jerry Vlasak. Vlasak is a former spokesman for PCRM, and author of several of the group's publications.
Vlasak advocates murdering scientists who use animals for healthcare research. That's not an exaggeration of his position. From the Guardian:
A top adviser to Britain's two most powerful animal rights protest groups caused outrage last night by claiming that the assassination of scientists working in biomedical research would save millions of animals' lives.Blogger Brian O'Connor has assembled a few other choice Vlasak quotes:To the fury of groups working with animals, Jerry Vlasak, a trauma surgeon and prominent figure in the anti-vivisection movement, told The Observer: 'I think violence is part of the struggle against oppression. If something bad happens to these people [animal researchers], it will discourage others. It is inevitable that violence will be used in the struggle and that it will be effective.'
Vlasak, who likens animal experimentation to the Nazis' treatment of the Jews, said he stood by his claim that: 'I don't think you'd have to kill too many [researchers]. I think for five lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives, we could save a million, 2 million, 10 million non-human lives. . .
You can listen to audio of Vlasak here. He rather causually (and chillingly) notes that extremist pro-lifers who assassinate abortion doctors "have a good thing going."You can justify, from a political standpoint, any type of violence you want to use." — "Penn & Teller: Bullshit!" (Showtime cable network) 4/1/04 "I think that violence and nonviolence are not moral principles, they’re tactics." — "Penn & Teller: Bullshit!" (Showtime cable network) 4/1/04 "If someone is killing, on a regular basis, thousands of animals, and if that person can only be stopped in one way by the use of violence, then it is certainly a morally justifiable solution." — "Penn & Teller: Bullshit!" (Showtime cable network) 4/1/04 "I think we do need to embrace direct action and violent tactics as part of our movement … I don’t think we ought to be criticizing someone, whether we’re criticizing [them] because they’re writing letters, or whether we criticize them because they’re burning down fur stores or vivisection labs. I think we need to include everybody in that circle." — Animal Rights 2002 convention 6/27/02 "[The police] are protecting the circus, they are protecting the meat and dairy industry, they are protecting the vivisection industry and I equate them in my own mind on a moral and ethical level with the -- no different than say guards in a Nazi concentration camp." — at a panel called "Coping with Law Enforcement" at the Animal Rights 2003 LA convention 8/2/03 "I don’t have any doubt in my mind that there will come a time when we will see violence against animal rights abusers." — "Penn & Teller: Bullshit!" (Showtime cable network) 4/1/04.
I think this bears repeating: this group is second on the list of acknowledgements in Spurlock's book, people without whom, he writes, "this book would not have been possible."
(PCRM info collected from National Council Against Health Fraud, Activist Cash, and Brian O'Connor.)
This is in line with what I have been saying for awhile, and has come back up since the whole soda can warning label thing: how in the hell can anyone take these groups the least bit seriously, much less quote them as some kinda of "experts" and have them on television? CSPI's Jacobson is a fucking crackpot, yet, he was on a morning show a few days back. It's like consulting Al Qaeda as an "expert" on Middle Eastern politics. They are extremists with a clear agenda.
Posted by: Evan Williams | July 19, 2005 at 09:58 AM
Wow...saw Vlassak on Bullshit! and was--to put it mildly--not impressed. I had no idea he was a trauma surgeon.
He has a very odd take on the Hippocratic oath, don't you think?
Also, I wonder if he has any sense of how many of the technologies, procedures, and (especially) drugs he uses in his practice were first tested extensively on animals. Seems a touch hypocritical to make a living (and a pretty good one at that) dependent on something you find so morally reprehensible as to advocate murdering its practicioners.
Unless, of course, the good Dr. Vlassak advocates testing everything in humans...
...which, I might point out, comes a hell of a lot closer to some things the Nazis did than anything animal researchers do...
Posted by: Brian Hawkins | July 19, 2005 at 11:59 AM
I kill billions of bacteria on a daily basis.
More, when I got to work :)
Poor things, no one's thinking about the bacteria.
I'm a researcher in a group that studies cystic fibrosis. One of the labs studies a CF model in mice. Now, in this case, I actually don't like that they are using mice, because the mouse model - in this case - simply doesn't work very well. They keep trying, but I maintain my skepticism.
That isn't to say I'm opposed to the use of such models in other areas of inquiry. If it's a good, representative model, and it helps in finding cures or treatments - go for it. On top of that, rabbits are used all the time in making antibodies for protein studies by average joe shmoe biochemists every day. It's the only way to obtain these antibodies, and if we didn't have access to antibodies for the studies, nearly all research would grind to a halt.
It's a necessary evil. As long as it is done with efficiency and at a minimum cost in pain and lives sacrified. . . it's really the best we can hope for if we want to continue our work.
If even that is unacceptable, then these people can just die of whatever strikes them first.
This sort of thing angers me because it is just as ludicrous as the anti-SUV people who blame US driving habits for all our oil-related ills. Uh huh. How many of those people wear shoes or use a plastic comb/hairbrush/packaging/toothbrush. . . EVERYTHING we use on a daily basis is somehow derived from petroleum products. Until they rid themselves of all that stuff, they should just stfu.
Posted by: Bronwyn | July 19, 2005 at 01:27 PM
Congratulations for your blog, I just discovered it through Liberalismo.org (http://www.liberalismo.org/bitacoras/3/2717/>Liberalismo.org). Good work.
Posted by: Klaus Meyer | July 19, 2005 at 02:02 PM
Bronwyn: you touch on the biggest philosophical gap in the animal rights crowd's platform: where on the biological chain of life does your declaration of "rights" end? I mean, if a mouse has "rights", does a big tarantula, bigger than a mouse, also have rights? And if he does, then how can you not extend those same rights to a garden variety wolf spider? How about a Black Widow? Then, of course, why not a housefly? Mosquito? Lice? Dust mites? Bacteria?
Ad infinitum...
At least buddhism has a somewhat consistent position on this, but the animal rights philosophy seems to go like this:
--If it's cute and/or cuddly, or if it LOOKS somewhat anthropic, then it has rights. But if it looks like an alien and has 8 eyes, then, it doesn't. Or, y'know, whatever we say--
Posted by: Evan Williams | July 20, 2005 at 12:10 PM
To be fair, it does say that Vlassak is a _former_ member. And there is no evidence that Spurlock actually believes in extreme animal rights. Along the lines of the Wal-Mart critisism of a few days ago, I think we're pushing too much guilt by association.
Posted by: Darth Sideous | July 22, 2005 at 03:41 AM
Spurlock is a f-ing IDIOT! Can't people take responsiblity for THEIR OWN ACTIONS!?!?!?! Nope, blame the mega-corporations; who's gonna oppose you?
Posted by: Chris S. | July 23, 2005 at 08:10 AM
Sideous,
The criticism was not that Spurlock was a lab-bombing terrorist, simply that he cites them very often as if they were some sort of purely scientific research group without a clear animal rights agenda. You are guilty by association if you disingenously use politically loaded evidence to prove your point, all the while acting as if your sources are disinterested and objective. It's exceedingly sloppy, and makes for bad scholarship. Mind you, as polemicists on both sides of the US political spectrum demonstrate, such tactics are very effective in demogoguery.
Posted by: Sextonius | July 23, 2005 at 09:38 AM
You have some deceptive information in your little blog on the PCRM (of whom I am not a fan, by the way). You remark that Neil Barnard is a psychiatrist, and thus, does not have training in nutrition and diet. Well, guess what? This is true of most physicians (psychiatrists are, in fact, trained as physicians first and then specialize in psychiatry). Most physicians have very little training in nutrition and diet (but act as though they do...and everyone trusts that they do). So, Dr. Barnard's formal training in this area is pretty equivalent to your average doctor, unfortunately. But you can bet he knows a lot more than your average doctor (even if some of his claims are a bit dubious) since he devotes his life to this stuff.
Posted by: Andrew | December 07, 2005 at 04:15 PM
http://www.pcrm.org/gala/event_photos/barnard_speaking_hires.jpg
Is this man is a sign of health? He is Neal Barnard, the head of PCRM. He is vegan.. and very thin!!! Looks anorexic, i think. Is this healthy?
Posted by: Nora | November 11, 2006 at 03:13 PM
Great site about the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine ,this information really helped me , I really appreciate it,I will visit when ever i have found the stuff That i have been searching for in all the web for, keep up the great work!
Posted by: generic viagra | January 19, 2010 at 08:42 AM
I'm doing an experiment like you did on the mcdonalds food. i wanted to know how you did the experiment when you put them in the glass gars for several week please and thank you.
Posted by: cheronda smith | October 20, 2011 at 12:49 PM