This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.
Dr. Keen's letter, published in our last issue, ought to give a quietus—but it probably will not—to the blatant individuals who, with all their self-righteousness, have, as he shows, descended to the meanest arts of misrepresentation. The antivivisectionists have had their say uncontradicted so long that they apparently felt that their license to misrepresent was unlimited, and that they did not need to respect the ordinary rules of morality,more especially the ninth commandment. The welfare of the brute creation is their holy cause, judging from their average literature, but their diversion into philanthropy by raising the bogey of human vivisection has resulted disastrously. Dr. Keen certainly dissects their statements unsparingly, supporting by the most positive facts his charges of indefiniteness and garbling in their evidence before the Senate committee. Whatever may have been the personal responsibility of the president of the humane society for the facts as shown up by
ANTIVISECTIONISTS AND MISREPRESENTATION.. JAMA. 1901;XXXVI(9):577. doi:10.1001/jama.1901.02470090041007