Unfortunately I wasn't able to go to the rally but I support that Oxford University should stop experimenting on other species, this on both moral and scientific grounds.

To all those who went to the rally and support the SPEAK campaign - good for you, keep up the good work, I know you have so much support from the public.

To Oxford University - both your 'science' and your ethics are out of the dark ages, SHAME ON YOU.

I know you have so much support from the public.

You obviously haven't ever tried speaking to anyone in Oxford. We're all sick to the back teeth of the lot of you.

Well done for Oxford Uni sticking to building the lab and not being intimidated by these nutters - the thousands saved by the crucial research slated to be carried out is a thousand times more important than the demented shouting from crazed vegans. We the citizens of Oxford are behind you 100%.

"the thousands saved by the crucial research slated to be carried out"

I wouldn't be too sure of this if I were you. Cures and treatments that work in animals rarely work in humans because they are so biologically different.
Modern vivisection has been going full force since the 1800's, with literally billions of animals "sacrified" upon the alter of science. How many cures have come from all this?

Smallpox has been eradicated and polio is being eradicated thanks to animal testing. Insulin, antibiotics, analgesics, anti-depressants and anesthetics all exist thanks to animal testing. Organ transplants, heart catheterization and joint replacement all exist thanks to practising the procedure on animals.

All of these have saved or significantly improved the lives of almost every human alive today. Even saving one human life would be worth all the animal testing, but with such clear and massive benefits, believing that animal testing is wrong is delusional to say the least.

The last hundred years have seen massive improvements in medicine, mostly because of animal testing.

A hundred years ago people with cystic fibrosis died just after birth. Now, thanks to animal testing they live into their thirties or even longer. We can expect further improvements in the future, but only if animal research continues.

Anti-vivisection campaigners say modern medicine doesn't work, but most of them still use it when they get sick.

i was at oxford on saturday along with my husband and our two younger daughters.this was our first demo.the welcome we recieved was fantastic.we will be attending many more.oxford university will not win on this.we all unite together for the sake of the animals.they are our priority.and if oxford cannot deal with this, then they should complain to the goverment.enough complaints will ensure that this lab will not go ahead.if not then you will have to put up and shut up.we will never ever back down.

Mike Ock wrote:

I know you have so much support from the public.

You obviously haven't ever tried speaking to anyone in Oxford. We're all sick to the back teeth of the lot of you. Well done for Oxford Uni sticking to building the lab and not being intimidated by these nutters - the thousands saved by the crucial research slated to be carried out is a thousand times more important than the demented shouting from crazed vegans. We the citizens of Oxford are behind you 100%.

well then spare a thought for the tax payer,s who do not wish for their money to fund animal testing.you seem to be very opinionated on a web page,how aboutspeaking your opinions out loud.we would be more than happy to oblige you the time face to face.or would you meet us wearing a balaclava?

helen hart wrote:
i was at oxford on saturday along with my husband and our two younger daughters.this was our first demo.the welcome we recieved was fantastic.we will be attending many more.oxford university will not win on this.we all unite together for the sake of the animals.they are our priority.and if oxford cannot deal with this, then they should complain to the goverment.enough complaints will ensure that this lab will not go ahead.if not then you will have to put up and shut up.we will never ever back down.

Must have been a real treat for your daughters. Sort of rent a mob using kids. It's amazing that to get 700 people at a demo in our city you have to come from all over England and bring your children. Should tell you something. Why don't you take them to Alton towers for their annual day out next time.

enough complaints will ensure that this lab will not go ahead

There aren't enough complaints, and never will be because the majority in Oxford and the country are pro testing.

we will never ever back down

So much for democracy. You have minimal support, and yet you will do this forever. Get a life. Or maybe a hamster.

"So much for democracy. You have minimal support, and yet you will do this forever. Get a life. Or maybe a hamster" :

I cant help but smile at Helens and the other 'pro-vivisectionists

' having to try and insult and annoy us anti-vivisectionists

. Just about sums up what you believe and what you are about! I am proud to be a campaigner for SPEAK and I am proud that I attended the march on Saturday. If you do not think that it is wrong to hurt, torture and abuse animals in the name of so-called science then I think you all need to take a good look at yourselves.

I have some very close friends with CF and have also lost friends to cancer. If any of their lives could be prolonged for just a day, it would be worth countless animals being tested on.

By the way, Oxford University WILL win on this despite the threats and terrorizing that Speak involve themselves in. In fact they have won when you look at the great new lab building. Long may it last and long may they progress in their research. Keep your little marches going Speak, if it gives you purpose and makes you happy.

Also, pathetic propaganda soundbites like 'literally billions of animals "sacrified" upon the alter of science.' do your cause no good whatsoever.

To Realistic: I lost my auntie to cancer, but i still dont agree with experiments on animals. I lost my auntie because there WAS no cure, why is there no cure to cancer? Because animal experiments have not found a cure.
I support SPEAK and went to the march, I also work in the media and have a first class honours degree. No-one should stereotype anti-vivisectionists
. Take a look at the undercover videos and see what they do to animals inside labs. Then see if you can present a good argument.

In fact they have won when you look at the great new lab building.

They certainly have.I wonder whether they'll be able to use it though, given that they'll need ordinary people to staff it (cleaners, electricians, receptionists) and presumably won't be paying them enough for living with the terrorist threats they'll receive. I expect they'll end up making do with the many smaller labs that they've always had and using the flash new build for something else. Won't save a single rodent though.

Helen are you actually reading any of the comments, how can you say they'll be living with terrorist threats! STOP being so judgemental, i am against animal experiments but am not a terrorist, you CANNOT make such statements. Take a look at the footage inside the labs, I assure you THEN you will see real terror.

Mike Ock, you say 'We the citizens of Oxford are behind you 100%.' Do not presume to speak for the people of Oxford. You are one lone voice, and judging from your comments not a very intelligent one.

I agree with Mick Ock. So he speaks for at least two of us.

I also agree with Mick Ogg. I have 2 degrees and am a scientist in the Environment Industry. Vivisection is not something to love, but it is something that's needed. I intend to demonstrate for the lab at the next Pro-Test event! ##Helen, THreats and actions that you propose do not help your cause. It will simply make your movenment even more fringe than it already is.

Helen .. i personally want to thank you for being there on saturday and bringing your family with you.
I too was there .. loud and proud ..
Did we come across as terrorists to you? that is how we are tainted in the press! ..
Did we come across as mindless idiots to you? .. that is how we get tainted on here by individuals who really haven't a clue what they are talking about! ..

Once again .. thankyou for being there for the animals on saturday ..

Mick Ock and Citizen of Oxford .. you two sound like you are the only ones who live in Oxford who actually do have intelligence!!
To the residents of Oxford who are pro-vivisection .. i will say .. SHAME ON YOU!!
If you were in Oxford on saturday .. doing your shopping ect .. you will have heard us chant that whilst we marched through the town center.
It was aimed at you for one very important reason ..
Thousands of lifes die each year .. both human and non-human .. thanks to your ignorance as to what is going on .. on your own doorstep ..
We chanted "SHAME ON YOU" .. because that is exactly how you should feel .. "ASHAMED"!!!!

You might not be a terrorist Liz, but at least some of your friends and compatriots are. You'll no doubt recall the arson attack at Deans Foods that destroyed 6 trucks? The firebombs at Field Farm that destroyed tractors and - ironically - suffocated several animals? The sports pavilion at Queens College being set alight? The destruction of the Hertford College boathouse? The attempted murder of Paul Blackburn and his family in Beaconsfield? And that's just the local ones - there's the desecration of Gladys Hammond's grave by animal rights scum...I could go on and on.

It is an absolute FACT that the terrorist scum you associate yourself with WILL threaten the ordinary people who work at the new lab.

As Helen Hunt says, your priority is animals. Those who carry out this necessary research don't do so for fun - their priority, unlike yours, is to save human lives and mitigate human suffering. You would obviously rather see people die in agony than do whatever you can to help them. So much for your so-called "morals" and "ethics".

Steve, I stated that there will be threats, not that I in any way supported these nutters. Personally I don't think anything will help their cause, except for scientists working on research methods that may one day negate the need for animals. Probably the same scientists that do use animals at the moment. In the meantime, I am very much on your side.

Oh, sorry, there are two Helens. You meant the one who thinks giving her children placards is a good day out.

Steven wrote:
Helen .. i personally want to thank you for being there on saturday and bringing your family with you. I too was there .. loud and proud .. Did we come across as terrorists to you? that is how we are tainted in the press! .. Did we come across as mindless idiots to you? .. that is how we get tainted on here by individuals who really haven't a clue what they are talking about! .. Once again .. thankyou for being there for the animals on saturday .. Mick Ock and Citizen of Oxford .. you two sound like you are the only ones who live in Oxford who actually do have intelligence!! To the residents of Oxford who are pro-vivisection .. i will say .. SHAME ON YOU!! If you were in Oxford on saturday .. doing your shopping ect .. you will have heard us chant that whilst we marched through the town center. It was aimed at you for one very important reason .. Thousands of lifes die each year .. both human and non-human .. thanks to your ignorance as to what is going on .. on your own doorstep .. We chanted "SHAME ON YOU" .. because that is exactly how you should feel .. "ASHAMED"!!!!

hi steve.
thank you for your statement.
really amusing that we get branded as terrorists.these idiots really need to get out from beyond oxford a bit more and live a little.my children are the next generation.and for everyones information,my daughters asked me if they could attend.as their mother i find that i do have that right to take my children where i please to.my children do not walk around with blinkers on.they know from t.v. and radio what happens in the u.k.even though so many choose to blame other countries.so oxford be proud stand firm.oh yes all of your 150 demonstators,trouble with you lot is that you can say what you want behind closed doors.face us and tell us what you think.instead of looking down on people who really do care.move with the times and stop walking around with a poker stuck up your backside.we are no longer in the era where we have lost all of our freedom of speech.tell you what why do you not donate your pets if you have any to the lab in oxford.let them feel the pain.to deny what is going on is so much easier than to admit the pain these animals feel day in day out.and if you do have pets then you are a bunch of bloody hypocrits.

It is to be regretted that in their loathing of animal rightists, some people here are neglecting the real issue: is vivisection useful for medical progress or not? The answer is a most definite no; by definition vivisection is not science and can only give fallacious answers. If it was useful the major diseases afflicting mankind would have vanished decades ago; the fact that they haven’t, and have instead escalated, demonstrates that vivisection is futile. Furthermore, that some 100,000 Americans, and 30,000 plus UK citizens die each year because of animal “safety-tested” drugs proves that animal testing is irrelevant; it is used merely as a legal scapegoat when drugs go on to kill and injure. Meanwhile ‘modern medicine’ is costing the UK some £100 billion annually, and rising. Read 1000 Doctors Against Vivisection, and Slaughter of the Innocent, both by Hans Ruesch, and Vivisection or Science by Prof Pietro Croce. To those who believe in vivisection: you are all intelligent people with a brain. Use it! Forget your dislike of animal rights people (who are often their own worse enemy) and READ up on the issue – and not the propaganda continually recycled from the drug company-funded mass media, which lies to you in order to sustain the obscene profits of the multi-billion drugs/ chemical/ vivisection industry. See www.bava.org.uk for more information.

Helen wrote:
Oh, sorry, there are two Helens. You meant the one who thinks giving her children placards is a good day out.

for your info,my daughters made their own placards to take.so if you have a problem with that tell me.they are my children not yours.my and their freedom o.k.next demo at oxford come along to one of the stands.then tell me to my face.so much easier for you to pass pathetic snide comments about children on a web site.abother spineless person who cannot go face to face with another.i really look forward to seeing you.have a nice day.

Mike wrote:

helen hart wrote: i was at oxford on saturday along with my husband and our two younger daughters.this was our first demo.the welcome we recieved was fantastic.we will be attending many more.oxford university will not win on this.we all unite together for the sake of the animals.they are our priority.and if oxford cannot deal with this, then they should complain to the goverment.enough complaints will ensure that this lab will not go ahead.if not then you will have to put up and shut up.we will never ever back down.

Must have been a real treat for your daughters. Sort of rent a mob using kids. It's amazing that to get 700 people at a demo in our city you have to come from all over England and bring your children. Should tell you something. Why don't you take them to Alton towers for their annual day out next time.

to mike.
let me put you straight on this one.we do not rent a kid as you so patheticly put it.the old folk at the university have to rely on a little 16yr old to front their feelings.and the only reason that was done was because the police were there.my children have been to alton towers and had a fab day.but thank you for the suggestion.even though you are a bit slow on rhat one as well.think you may find that the public came from every region you can think of.i would not class a theme park as an annual day out.we take our family abroad as we can afford to.for you to suggest that, i take it you are either retired,or you scrounge of the system

Dear Ms. Hart,

Thanks for letting us know that yourself and your brainwashed kids are able to travel abroad. Did you know that pollution from air travel destroys the habitats of many times more animals than are used in animal testing each year - and that many more again are wiped out by the introduction of alien species to countries by aircraft.

You can read some of the research we did into it at tinyurl.com/36a32m . Who's the "hypocrit " now?

Your friends at Oxford Uni

If it was useful the major diseases afflicting mankind would have vanished decades ago; the fact that they haven’t, and have instead escalated, demonstrates that vivisection is futile

What a load of absolute nonsense. I suppose that if vehicle crash tests were useful, deaths from vehicle crashes would have vanished decades ago as well? Clearly they haven't, so we shouldn't bother doing any more vehicle crash testing as it can't possibly be of any benefit whatsoever, right?

It is a documented fact that vivisection does NOT give only "fallacious answers". The polio vaccine, to give one of many examples, was developed using vivisection. The "futile" exercise of developing the vaccine - first through the use of monkey kidney tissue and then through the use of other non-human cells - has resulted the complete elimination of the wild polio virus in the United States, and the reduction in new cases from 350,000 cases worldwide in 1988 to under 2000 in 1996.

Futile? I don't think so. How about doing some of that "reading" yourself, Chris?

Helen .. you will always find snide comments on here .. they seem to crawl out of the woodwork whenever we do a major demo and write/comment about it on here .. they never show their face though ..

Incidentally .. i think i passed you on the march ..( i was the one with a black top with the insignia "Animal Liberation" :) ..
I was chanting as loud as i could .. and one of your daughters looked up at me ..
That smile she gave me .. i will always remember :) ...

Steven ...

Oxford Uni wrote:
Dear Ms. Hart, Thanks for letting us know that yourself and your brainwashed kids are able to travel abroad. Did you know that pollution from air travel destroys the habitats of many times more animals than are used in animal testing each year - and that many more again are wiped out by the introduction of alien species to countries by aircraft. You can read some of the research we did into it at tinyurl.com/36a32m . Who\'s the \"hypocrit \" now? Your friends at Oxford Uni

Who's the hypocrit now??
The answer is very plain and very simple .. YOU ARE!!!

Oxford Uni wrote:
Dear Ms. Hart, Thanks for letting us know that yourself and your brainwashed kids are able to travel abroad. Did you know that pollution from air travel destroys the habitats of many times more animals than are used in animal testing each year - and that many more again are wiped out by the introduction of alien species to countries by aircraft. You can read some of the research we did into it at tinyurl.com/36a32m . Who's the "hypocrit " now? Your friends at Oxford Uni

i have no friends in any university.do you not think that by testing on animals you to are wiping out the species.next demo at oxford come to the stand,s and tell me to my face.that is if you have the guts to.the offer has been made.try not to wear a balaclava it really is not the fashion at the moment.nice to see you can have the time to e-mail.the animals must be so grateful that you are not hurting them for the time being.and for your info my children are not brainwashed they do have the right to have their own opinion,by the sounds of it they are better educated than you and they are younger.you seem to forget to mention that it is people like myself who pay their taxes,to fund the shithole where the torture goes on.look back at what happened to other universities and the same will happen to oxford. so the offer is there.i am more than happy to listen to you face to face .

Roger wrote:
You might not be a terrorist Liz, but at least some of your friends and compatriots are. You\'ll no doubt recall the arson attack at Deans Foods that destroyed 6 trucks? The firebombs at Field Farm that destroyed tractors and - ironically - suffocated several animals? The sports pavilion at Queens College being set alight? The destruction of the Hertford College boathouse? The attempted murder of Paul Blackburn and his family in Beaconsfield? And that\'s just the local ones - there\'s the desecration of Gladys Hammond\'s grave by animal rights scum...I could go on and on. It is an absolute FACT that the terrorist scum you associate yourself with WILL threaten the ordinary people who work at the new lab. As Helen Hunt says, your priority is animals. Those who carry out this necessary research don\'t do so for fun - their priority, unlike yours, is to save human lives and mitigate human suffering. You would obviously rather see people die in agony than do whatever you can to help them. So much for your so-called \"morals\" and \"ethics\".

Roger, Ive heard it all before. How DARE you say that i would rather see people die in agony. This just proves that you as a pro-vivisectionist have a sick mind, as do so many of the technicians in animal labs. You make me laugh, all you can EVER come up with is that animal rights people are extremists, there are extremists in every group in the world. I am not associated with them and would not call them friends. Will you ever be able to come up with a good argument? Two years ago i made an unbiased documentary about animals used in medical research. Getting both points of view it only confirmed by original thoughts. that animal experiments are both useless and barbaric. I ask you all AGAIN, watch the undercover videos.

Citizen of Oxford wrote:
I agree with Mick Ock. So he speaks for at least two of us.

As do I. I'm sick and tired of the protesters and their intimidating ways. I for one will not be giving a warm welcome to the mob being bussed in from all over the country.

Helen,

Please do email me at "om at xpsk dot com" (not my personal address for obvious reasons) letting me know next time you're in Oxford and I'll be delighted to talk to you. I'll probably leave my balaclava at home, I'm afraid. If you wish to wear one I'm sure your friends at the ALF might be able to help.

Liz, I've heard it all before. How DARE you say that I and many of the technicians in animal labs have sick minds? You make me laugh, all you can EVER come up with is CAPITAL LETTERS and personal insults.

Meanwhile, as you'll see in my post above, the development of the polio vaccine is just one of MANY good arguments for vivisection. Can you come up with any alternative to animal testing, rather than just demanding that it stop with nothing to replace it? Can you explain how the polio virus could have been virtually eradicated without the use of animal testing?

No-one should stereotype anti-vivisectionists

And yet you're obviously quite happy to stereotype those who support vivisection as a viable and valid method of research.

I would rather my tax money was spent on saving peoples lives and finding cures (whether it be by testing on animals or humans - whatever) than it being spent on policing theses "demos" - all the police that are brought in to police the demos could (and should) instead be responding to emergency calls such as burglaries, assaults, criminal damage etc, which in my opinion is far more important! But they cant because they have to make sure the protestors dont cause trouble/harrassment/
alarm/distress!
If you dont want animals to be tested on then why dont you volunteer yourselves? Do you own cars - they pollute the environment!
Protestors ARE intimidating, shoving leaflets at you and shouting in your ear! Not exactly friendly and peaceful? I dont really have an opinion on animal testing either way, but from the people I see protesting, I am glad I am not like that!

Steven wrote:
Helen .. you will always find snide comments on here .. they seem to crawl out of the woodwork whenever we do a major demo and write/comment about it on here .. they never show their face though .. Incidentally .. i think i passed you on the march ..( i was the one with a black top with the insignia "Animal Liberation" :) .. I was chanting as loud as i could .. and one of your daughters looked up at me .. That smile she gave me .. i will always remember :) ... Steven ...

and one of your daughters looked up at me ..
That smile she gave me .. i will always remember :) ...

Steven ...

You sound like a pervert

Pervert???
Piglet you anonymous little coward .. i was refering to the fact that that little child was happy and proud to be on that march .. and when that child heard and looked up at me .. i was given a knowing smile .. one that i will always be proud to remember!!!

I won't refer to you as a pervert .. even though .. you may be .. i will refer to you as pathetic ..

Need i say more???

Steven .. (and that is my name ... you pathetic little coward!! )

Roger wrote:
Liz, I\'ve heard it all before. How DARE you say that I and many of the technicians in animal labs have sick minds? You make me laugh, all you can EVER come up with is CAPITAL LETTERS and personal insults. Meanwhile, as you\'ll see in my post above, the development of the polio vaccine is just one of MANY good arguments for vivisection. Can you come up with any alternative to animal testing, rather than just demanding that it stop with nothing to replace it? Can you explain how the polio virus could have been virtually eradicated without the use of animal testing?

No-one should stereotype anti-vivisectionists

And yet you\'re obviously quite happy to stereotype those who support vivisection as a viable and valid method of research.

Roger, as i said in my earlier post, i researched and made a documentary about animal experiments, i researched into the polio vaccine and many other medicines. Penicillin i found was delayed coming onto the market because of animal experiments.
you're just showing yourself up for what you are again, getting aggressive. I said you had a sick mind in retaliation to what you claimed about my views to human beings! Why are you getting so aggressive? is it because you know deep down you are wrong. If animals could speak would be a different story.

Steven wrote:
Pervert??? Piglet you anonymous little coward .. i was refering to the fact that that little child was happy and proud to be on that march .. and when that child heard and looked up at me .. i was given a knowing smile .. one that i will always be proud to remember!!! I won't refer to you as a pervert .. even though .. you may be .. i will refer to you as pathetic .. Need i say more??? Steven .. (and that is my name ... you pathetic little coward!! )

this person who remains unknown is obviously the pervert as what do perverts do they remain unknown.put your real name up.you could have chosen a more fitting name like runt.they are the weaker ones.

Oxford Uni wrote:
Helen, Please do email me at "om at xpsk dot com" (not my personal address for obvious reasons) letting me know next time you're in Oxford and I'll be delighted to talk to you. I'll probably leave my balaclava at home, I'm afraid. If you wish to wear one I'm sure your friends at the ALF might be able to help.

what makes you think that i am with alf.
i think you may find there are a lot of animal organisations out there.also there are people who are not even conected to any group.well if you really are an oxford student then timing is perfect as you are all back in october.also the university are not very happy as when i reported you this morning,they seem to think and i qoute.this is probably some disturbed individual who is intent on giving the university a bad name. so they are investigating.if you have just used oxford uni as a cover how pathetic is that.to afraid to show your identity.i have nothing to hide.funny thing i never heard any protests from oxford uni on saturday along the march.where were you then with your opinions.having your nappy changed by mummy or being told to keep quiet by daddy.i am sure oxford uni are so proud to have so-called students like you there.(not)

Helen - you really are a bitter, horrible, lying idiot aren't you? It's people like you that give animal rights a bad name - resorting to childish insults instead of engaging in a real debate.

Fantastic to see you and your nasty friends have failed and the lab is nearly completed - certainly a celebration of wit over the witless.

you have so much wit,how long did it take you to look up those words that you have chosen to call me.did you need help in thinking of something to say.i have no reason to feel bitter.i do not tell lies there is no need to.if i am wrong i will admit it.and i do not think that i am horrible.the only person here that is childish is you.you sound as though you are in a playground.it ispeople like you i tend to find that give animal organisations a bad name for stating that we are the wrong ones.that we are terrorists.a lot of my friends are very nice thank you.i would not celebrate yet.maybe you should have signed yourself in as billy(no mates)did you have such a deprived childhood that you have ended up a very sad and insecure little person.you should have had your say on saturday.or did you need a full 48 hrs to think of a comeback.

H Hart, you seem to have an awful lot of time to spare on this site. Time that may be better spent learning how to construct a sentence.

Awaiting your poorly worded retort.
Bill

Before anyone shouts at me i would just like to say that i don't like the idea of animal testing but believe it is essential to help people survive terrible illnesses.

To Helen Hart and Steve,
I hate the idea of animal testing and would love it if your opinions on this forum could persuade me to decide one way or the other, all they do is make me realise that all animal rights protesters are rather bitter and extremley rude.

It's scary the kind of terrible things you say just because someone doesn't agree with your way of thinking. Helen you come accross as a very bitter nasty woman and i pity your children did they really want to go?? or did they want to go because it's what mummy likes??

I would also like both of your opinions on the threatening letters that most construction companies located in oxfordshire recieved just before the work was starting to threaten action against any company thinking about working with the university on the lab.

Billy (no mates) wrote:
H Hart, you seem to have an awful lot of time to spare on this site. Time that may be better spent learning how to construct a sentence. Awaiting your poorly worded retort. Bill

Thanks Billy i forgot to mention the bizzare sentences.

Helen Hart - It is generally a good idea to put a space after a full stop and please think carefully about where to put full stops.

thank you for your advice.
think i must get out the dictionary (is that how you spell it )for your information i have a day of from work today.what is your excuse.did you just decide to jump onto the bandwagon.

Bella wrote:

Billy (no mates) wrote: H Hart, you seem to have an awful lot of time to spare on this site. Time that may be better spent learning how to construct a sentence. Awaiting your poorly worded retort. Bill

Thanks Billy i forgot to mention the bizzare sentences. Helen Hart - It is generally a good idea to put a space after a full stop and please think carefully about where to put full stops.

thank you for your advice.

Gosh I am shocked at all of the comments against Helen. I am an anti-vivisectionist and we do not have to resort to violence or name calling. It seems to me that its the pro-vivisectionists who have to get nasty and irate. Hm seems to go with their personalities that they dont mind poor defenceless animals living in hell!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Franco

Pro-vivisectionists are loonier than can ever be described. Vivisection never has culminated in curing any human cancers and nor ever will it! One should not go to the butchers for a loaf of bread, for that is the crazy mentality of the pro-vivisectionists; they futilely expect to derive cures for human cancers via desperately hoping to become successful from doing billions of vivisection tests on billions of different animal species, this being to no avail now and in the future. Such futility also applies to all other human ailments. Pro-vivisectionists do not even have the slightest amount of intelligence to allow themselves to concede that modern non-vivisection scientific research has every possibility (probability's a better word) of discovering cures for lots of human ailments. The pro-vivisectionists are stupidly incapable of climbing out of their cesspit of long-established hit-and-miss cruelty modus operandi.

How can people justify this discusting act of cruelty on these animals?Everyone has to die of something, why should other beings that HAVE feelings also go though this immense amount of pain? I have lost people to cancer; very close relitives WHO DIDDN'T take any medication.. why prolong something which in enevitable. ITS SELFISH.

I think that it is good that Helens children have been allowed to KNOW the truths about animal experimentation..

AND Chris.. Whos the "nasty" one, the person willing to torture animals or the one willing to stand up for LIBERATION.

When it came to it and you were stood over this terrified animal could you do what these vivisectors do? Because that is truly NASTY.

The people of SPEAK show compassion to animals and eachother and they truly are the nicest people i have EVER met.Not this TERRORIST steriotype that the media and Oxford university would have you think. "Lets wage a dirty war", a quote from the POLICE, now if that isn't terrorism in itself then what is!?

WE WILL NEVER STAND DOWN.

Helen Hart it would be nice if you would respond to my above post....

Hmmmmm anyone else think the sudden increase of people on Helen's side is a bit suspicious..........

As a Pro-vivisectionist I am very comfortble with by intelegence, understanding of the benefit that the world see's for perorming vivisection, and also the lawless element within the anti vivisection groups.
I feel very sorry for those in the anti camp who don't realise when they are being lied to as part of a movement that wants to win at all costs: lies, terrorism and intimidation.

I cant wait for the next Pro-test demo. After seeing the one this saturday, I am all the more eager to stand up and be counted in the name of medical science.

Bella wrote:
Hmmmmm anyone else think the sudden increase of people on Helen's side is a bit suspicious..........

Yeah, and not just that but the way they all use the same tactics, e.g. accusing everyone else of being a "pro-vivisectionist" (I guess the term "false dichotomy" would be wasted on anyone who gets their retorts from a SPEAK pamphlet), ad hominem attacks and so forth. Anyway, suspicious, but not very surprising.

Bella wrote:
Hmmmmm anyone else think the sudden increase of people on Helen's side is a bit suspicious..........

Not really, i dont have a clue who Helen is! all i know is that im on her side!

Helen, ignore snidey remarks concerning your grammar from any pro-vivisectionists. Simply put, we all can't be masters of the English language. I can barely wait for all the magnificent works of literature to sprout forth from such scholarly idiots.

C wrote:

Bella wrote: Hmmmmm anyone else think the sudden increase of people on Helen's side is a bit suspicious..........

Yeah, and not just that but the way they all use the same tactics, e.g. accusing everyone else of being a "pro-vivisectionist" (I guess the term "false dichotomy" would be wasted on anyone who gets their retorts from a SPEAK pamphlet), ad hominem attacks and so forth. Anyway, suspicious, but not very surprising.

How old are you all? you sound like children squabbling. why are you so angry with people who dont agree with testing on animals? oohh so saying 'pro vivisectionist' is a 'tactic' is it, ok maybe ill start using the 'ones who like animals to be tested on and hurt and maimed and degraded' instead??

Steve wrote:
As a Pro-vivisectionist I am very comfortble with by intelegence, understanding of the benefit that the world see\'s for perorming vivisection, and also the lawless element within the anti vivisection groups. I feel very sorry for those in the anti camp who don\'t realise when they are being lied to as part of a movement that wants to win at all costs: lies, terrorism and intimidation. I cant wait for the next Pro-test demo. After seeing the one this saturday, I am all the more eager to stand up and be counted in the name of medical science.

WE'RE being lied to??????????????????

???how naive are you? can you please tell me why there is no cure for cancer then?

Bella wrote:
Helen Hart it would be nice if you would respond to my above post....

Hello BELLA.
I cannot comment on these letter,s that you have mentioned.
I do not know anything about them.
Maybe you could state what was said in them.

For Roger VACCINES:

Why is it so hard for some people to accept that vivisection is not merely useless, but counterproductive? Is it fear of the realisation that they have been lied to all their lives? Or that the anti-vivisectionists could indeed be correct?

History shows that cases of polio were rapidly decreasing by the time the dead polio vaccine was introduced in the mid fifties, thanks to improved sanitation and nutrition. The number of cases of polio in the USA after mass vaccination, however, was much greater – as much as twice the number. Such was the concern over the negative health implications of the vaccine that Dr Jonas Salk himself was quoted as saying that “When you inoculate children with a polio vaccine you don’t sleep well for two or three weeks.” Nevertheless, pharmaceutical companies with much at stake still managed to persuade the US health services that it was safe.

Following the introduction of the live vaccine the standards for defining polio were changed, and this went some way towards making the vaccine look more effective than it actually was.

In 1976, Dr Salk, creator of the dead virus polio vaccine, testified that the live virus vaccine used almost exclusively in the USA during the 1960s, was the “principle if not sole cause” of all polio cases since 1961. In fact the Federal Centers for Disease Control admitted in the early 90s that the live virus vaccine is the dominant cause of polio in the USA today.

Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that there are other health implications from this vaccine, such as the much higher rates of brain tumours in offspring of vaccinated women, or the fact that during the 50s and 60s millions of people were injected with polio vaccines contaminated with the SV-40 virus 9from monkey organs), and considered a powerful a powerful immuno-suppressor and trigger for HIV.

As to your comments about car crash tests; your logic is so skewed as to not warrant a reply.

"Giving cancer to laboratory animals has not and will not help us to understand the disease or to treat those persons suffering from it." - DR. A. SABIN, 1986, developer of the oral polio vaccine.

Bella wrote:
Hmmmmm anyone else think the sudden increase of people on Helen's side is a bit suspicious..........

I would not say suspicious.
Call it freedom of speech.
For you to say that you do not like the idea of animal testing,you seem to be very capable of voicing your concern,s.
Can you not say if you are for or against.
Or are you just stirring thing,s up .
Run and Hunt spring,s to mind.

Naive, I don't think so. I like how you throw Cancer at me as it is the one that keeps being exampled to you? It is a general name to a range of illness that are extremely hard to combat.
1. Successes rates have improved considerably
2. Work is ongoing to find a cure for specific cancers.
3. Glad you admit that Cancer for example is a serious enough illness to warrant animal testing for cures.

Yes there are many cases where animal testing has failed. You can say that for anything. But go into any pharmacy and look at all the drugs lined up on the shelves behind the counter. Go into a hospital and look at all the life-saving techniques being used. None of that would have been possible without animal testing.

This claim is very misleading, scientists working on polio in monkeys up to the late 1940's had found out a lot about the Polio virus but they're were seriously hampered by the fact that it was thought that Polio could not be grown outside a living organism, which made it extremely difficult to obtain the quantities of virus necessary for vaccine research. John Ender's breakthrough discovery that polio could be grown in tissue culture enabled scientists to grow large amounts of many different strains of Polio in tissue culture which could then be assessed for their potential as vaccines. Note that Enders relied on testing in monkeys to verify that the virus was indeed growing as other methods of verifying its presence had not yet been developed.

Steve wrote:
Naive, I don't think so. I like how you throw Cancer at me as it is the one that keeps being exampled to you? It is a general name to a range of illness that are extremely hard to combat. 1. Successes rates have improved considerably 2. Work is ongoing to find a cure for specific cancers. 3. Glad you admit that Cancer for example is a serious enough illness to warrant animal testing for cures. Yes there are many cases where animal testing has failed. You can say that for anything. But go into any pharmacy and look at all the drugs lined up on the shelves behind the counter. Go into a hospital and look at all the life-saving techniques being used. None of that would have been possible without animal testing.

Can you prove to me that they wouldnt have been possible without animal testing? No you cannot. I have had discussions with scientists who agree with vivisection and they have told me that testing on animals can never be 100percent. The Europeans for Medical Progress are a group of scientists campaigning against animal experiments because they believe that they are harming humans, they are not animal rights people.
Let me add i did not admit that anything warrants animal testing. I abhor animal testing firstly for moral reasons. Secondly for scientific.

Well since there is no clear alternative to animal testing then I don't need to "prove” anything. Is that how you expect to win an argument, push all issues to the absurd? Animal research is a necessity.

Don't get me wrong, I do not revel in the actions of vivisection, But if the result is for the betterment of mankind, I am willing to accept that it happens. And further, will support it continuing until a VIABLE alternative is available. I do agree that some procedures are probably not needed to be conducted and that more investment need to be made to alternatives. BUT the necessity is still there for many uses at the moment.

I used to be a Marine Biologist at one time and performed simple experiments and dissections on mostly invertebrates, The benefit of these experiments were vital. I could for example use computer models to generate my results. But I needed to collate the data to begin with to set the model going in the first place. Minimise the impact by all means, but don't stop it.

The trouble is this view is the middle road and the more extreme the anti vivisection side becomes the more the average viewpoint will shift towards pro vivisection.

I should apologies but today is the start of the case of an animal rights activist who sent letter bombs to several honest hard working people that do NOT deserve to be bombed. This was a totally inappropriate time, place and reason to demonstrate. The people of Oxford have had enough of the rhetoric and intimidation. Not necessarily from you or your friends.. But someone there is doing it!

I don't see any need for this discussion. I admit I am anti-vivisection. Yes I was there on Saturday. But Pro's and Anti's will never get on. This is simply just another way of winding eachother up. Anti's are going to change Pro's minds on here. Same as Pro's won't stop me or any other Anti from carrying on. I really don't think there is a need for these comments at all.

Only some things can be done with animal testing, and only some things can be done without it. In fact, only some things (and I'm talking about finding cures for human ailments) can be done at all. However, it is almost certainly true that more can be done when using both approaches rather than excluding the possibility of animal testing. Therefore I think the lab should be built, though I acknowledge people's right to protest and to hold a different opinion than my own.

Sam wrote:
I don't see any need for this discussion. I admit I am anti-vivisection. Yes I was there on Saturday. But Pro's and Anti's will never get on. This is simply just another way of winding eachother up. Anti's are going to change Pro's minds on here. Same as Pro's won't stop me or any other Anti from carrying on. I really don't think there is a need for these comments at all.

Were you the polite blonde girl by any chance? If so thank you for apologising for the traffic problems, I enjoyed talking to you. Hopefully some of your fellow campaigners will take note of your attitude - people seemed to be responding very positively compared to the nutters shouting "Shame on you" who only put people's backs up.

I am an animal rights advocate who is part of the new "abolitionist" animal rights movement. First let me say that abolitionist animal rightists are resolutely opposed to violence and intimidation. We are campaigning for justice and respect for all animal species and, as such, see ourselves as an extension of the peace movement.

Second, the moral issue of animal rights is logically independent of the scientific issue of whether vivisection is a valid methodology. The latter logically implies nothing about the former. It is as absurd for pro-vivisectionists to claim that vivisection's alleged methodological validity implies that animals don't have the right not to be vivisected as it is to claim that, because the infamous Tuskegee syphilis study may have yielded methodologically valid data, this implies that the human victims involved did not have rights.

However, animal rightists should also give up arguing about the methodological issues to do with vivisection, since they have nothing to do with animal rights. It is self-evidently and overwhelmingly in animals' interests to abolish vivisection. But if vivisection was abolished for purely scientific reasons, this would not necessarily advance the moral/political issue of animal rights.

On the contrary, as long as animal rightists retain the idea that the best way to realize animal rights is to talk about NONmoral arguments (such as scientific antivivisectionism and the health argument for veganism), moral/political animal rights will go nowhere. For moral/political animal rights atrophies in proportion to the extent that nonmoral scientific/health arguments are substituted for arguments about fundamental justice and fairness for animals. At the moment, however, a lot of campaigners seem to think that the animal rights movement is the "Movement for Correctness and Exactitude in Methodology."

I suggest that anyone who is interested in abolitionist animal rights should check out Gary Francione's website: http://www.abolition
istapproach.com/

What a shame Mike Ock and Kevin from Oxford have not done their homework on vivisection. If they did they would soon find out that it was not such outdated and fatally flawed "research" that brought about the improvements in medicine they talk about. By building their latest museum piece Oxford University are proving how very out of touch they are with the real scientific world. How sad.

With the new Lab Oxford university will be placing it self at the solif forefront of new research and development. It will mark a great day when the lab is opened. Further investment in scientific research is required in this country.

Although I do not believe that vivisection can be justified as a moral matter, it should be noted that there are serious problems with claims that animal use is necessary as an empirical matter (i.e., required to produce data needed for human health).

First, animals are almost always used to develop medical procedures or therapies; therefore, it is difficult to make any accurate factual representation about the actual causal role that animal use has played in any particular medical discoveries. Since animals are always used as models of disease or to test procedures or drugs, we cannot claim with any certainty to know that procedures or discoveries that are attributed to animal use would not have occurred in its absence.

Second, because of the biological differences between human and other animals, there is always a problem extrapolating the results of animal experiments to humans. Although the uncertainty of extrapolation affects all biomedical research involving animals, it is particularly problematic in the context of the use of animals for testing purposes, which usually involves predicting how humans will react to exposure over a lifetime to small quantities of a substance based on how nonhumans respond to large quantities over a short period. The problem of extrapolation is compounded by the fact that there is no species of animal that has reactions identical to those of humans.

Third, the data produced by animal use are often unreliable. For example, results from toxicity tests using animals can vary dramatically depending on the method that is used. It is not uncommon for an inhalation study of a chemical to result in the development of cancer when oral administration of the same substance does not. Moreover, variations in acute and chronic toxicity tests may also be quite dramatic. These variations occur from laboratory to laboratory, within the same species of animal, and between species of animals.

Fourth, any claim of necessity assumes there is no other way to solve human health problems. That is, even if animal experiments are causally related to the production of data relevant to human health matters, it does not follow that animal experiments are the only, or the most efficient, way to solve those health problems. Animal research is costly, and it may plausibly be argued that, if the money were spent in other ways, the end result might be better. For example, the considerable expenditure on AIDS research using animals has produced little of use to humans suffering from AIDS and most of what has resulted in longer and better lives for those suffering from HIV and AIDS has come from clinical trials with humans. It is certainly plausible to claim that if the money spent on in-vivo research were instead spent on public safe-sex education campaigns, needle exchanges, and condom distribution, the rate of new HIV cases would drop dramatically. The choice to use animal experiments to address the problem is, in many ways, as much a political and social decision as a scientific one. Animal experiments are considered an acceptable way of solving the AIDS problem whereas needle exchanges, condom distribution, and safe-sex education are politically controversial (at least in the U.S.).

Moreover, there are strong institutional incentives that militate against the use of alternatives to in-vivo research such as computer models. Animal use is familiar to experimenters who are often reluctant to embrace new and unfamiliar technologies. But the fact that vivisection may be more politically, socially, or institutionally acceptable than other ways of addressing health problems does not, of course, mean that it is more effective.

Fifth, there is empirical evidence that challenges the notion that animal experiments contribute positively to human health and indicates that, in many instances, they have actually been counterproductive. Numerous examples illustrate this point. For example, although studies concluded by the early 1960s that a correlation between lung cancer and cigarette smoking existed, the failure to develop an animal model of lung cancer led researchers to reject the validity of the theory that smoking caused lung cancer. Similarly, polio experiments involving monkeys resulted in misleading conceptions of the disease in humans and this delayed prevention. By the early 1940s, it was clear that asbestos caused cancer in humans, but since animal experiments did not confirm the dangers of asbestos, this substance remained unregulated in the United States for decades. Although it is admittedly difficult at the outset of an experiment to know whether animal use will produce useful or non-useful data, the existence of these counterproductive results should cause even the strongest defenders of animal use to be more skeptical about its necessity.

Gary L. Francione
Professor, Rutgers University
USA

Congratulations SPEAK on your demo. I'm a GP and I fully support you even though I was unable to attend the march.

James Crumpwrote:“(M)oral/

political animal rights atrophies in proportion to the extent that nonmoral scientific/health arguments are substituted for arguments about fundamental justice and fairness for animals.“ I couldn‘t agree more.
And in addition to Gary Francione’s fabulous website which has been mentioned above, I‘d like to recommend his books, one of which is his Introduction to Animal Rights. Your Child or the Dog?2000): “The emphasis by animal advocates on vivisection may have to do with the fact that this use of animals involves a relatively small and specialized portion of the population, and therefore the criticizm of vivisection is less threatening to the general public than is advocay of vegetarianism.“(p.32

)

I am an anti-vivisectionist and we do not have to resort to violence or name calling.

Hilarious, Liz. Let's see - apart from the well-documented history of violent acts carried out by "anti-vivisectionist
s" (and the complete and utter lack of violent acts against animal rights scum carried out by pro-vivisectionists)
, you also said yourself:

"you as a pro-vivisectionist have a sick mind"

How, precisely, is that not name-calling?

I said you had a sick mind in retaliation to what you claimed about my views to human beings! Why are you getting so aggressive?

Oh, I'm sorry - I forgot that it's ok for you to post comments "in retaliation" but if I do so, then I'm being "so aggresive". How dare I respond in the same manner as you!?!

Chris - you almost...almost...co
me across as intelligent. Pity that HIV was completely unknown until the early 80s and therefore could not have even remotely been "a powerful immuno-suppressor and trigger for HIV". And as for your comment that "As to your comments about car crash tests; your logic is so skewed as to not warrant a reply." guess what genuis? That is precisely - precisely - your own so-called logic, from your own words, as to why animal testing is "futile". Bravo. Thanks for proving my point.

Evolution and biology PROVE that vivisection is not only useless but also dangerous for humans, there is simply no scientific case to experiment on other species...

of course, if any pro-vivisectionists dispute that and think they know of any scientific case for vivisection then they are free to post it...

and if they don't....well, that will surely give those who are 'undecided' cause for concern....

I'm happy to explain the basis of the scientific case against to anyone who is genuinely interested in safe/effective treatments/cures (rather than being more concerned about hating ARAs).

James Crump

You say animal rightists should also give up arguing about the methodological issues to do with vivisection "since they have nothing to do with animal rights."

They do though, humans are animals, both suffer and both should have rights according to their needs - humans need the right to know the evidence/facts regarding the risks to their health/lives from 'animal tested' drugs, and to have informed opinions re whether their money should fund vivisection.

Steve wrote:
Well since there is no clear alternative to animal testing then I don't need to "prove” anything. Is that how you expect to win an argument, push all issues to the absurd? Animal research is a necessity. Don't get me wrong, I do not revel in the actions of vivisection, But if the result is for the betterment of mankind, I am willing to accept that it happens. And further, will support it continuing until a VIABLE alternative is available. I do agree that some procedures are probably not needed to be conducted and that more investment need to be made to alternatives. BUT the necessity is still there for many uses at the moment. I used to be a Marine Biologist at one time and performed simple experiments and dissections on mostly invertebrates, The benefit of these experiments were vital. I could for example use computer models to generate my results. But I needed to collate the data to begin with to set the model going in the first place. Minimise the impact by all means, but don't stop it. The trouble is this view is the middle road and the more extreme the anti vivisection side becomes the more the average viewpoint will shift towards pro vivisection. I should apologies but today is the start of the case of an animal rights activist who sent letter bombs to several honest hard working people that do NOT deserve to be bombed. This was a totally inappropriate time, place and reason to demonstrate. The people of Oxford have had enough of the rhetoric and intimidation. Not necessarily from you or your friends.. But someone there is doing it!

Well, i am not associated with any activists that letter bomb or use violence etc so to be honest I am not interested in talking about them. My priority is to try to educate people about what happens in animal labs, the public are told 'we need animal experiments to cure human diseases' by the Government, but they dont say that there are new ways being developed that do not need animals but the Government will not pour enough money into this non-animal research. The simple fact is you could never ever change my mind, I do not and will never agree with animals being used to test upon. this is upon a moral basis. What I would try to do though, is to let people such as yourself know about the charities/companies working out there to find alternatives, such as the Dr Hadwen Trust. You want to find cures for humans just as I do so I ask you to please take a look at their website. If you are really interested in the matter you would take time to read about the other research methods.

Roger wrote:

I am an anti-vivisectionist and we do not have to resort to violence or name calling.

Hilarious, Liz. Let's see - apart from the well-documented history of violent acts carried out by "anti-vivisectionist s" (and the complete and utter lack of violent acts against animal rights scum carried out by pro-vivisectionists) , you also said yourself:

"you as a pro-vivisectionist have a sick mind"

How, precisely, is that not name-calling?

I said you had a sick mind in retaliation to what you claimed about my views to human beings! Why are you getting so aggressive?

Oh, I'm sorry - I forgot that it's ok for you to post comments "in retaliation" but if I do so, then I'm being "so aggresive". How dare I respond in the same manner as you!?! Chris - you almost...almost...co me across as intelligent. Pity that HIV was completely unknown until the early 80s and therefore could not have even remotely been "a powerful immuno-suppressor and trigger for HIV". And as for your comment that "As to your comments about car crash tests; your logic is so skewed as to not warrant a reply." guess what genuis? That is precisely - precisely - your own so-called logic, from your own words, as to why animal testing is "futile". Bravo. Thanks for proving my point.

Hm it seems to me that you are trying to rile me. I said you had a sick mind for saying that i would prefer to watch humans die in agony than find a cure. Which is totally untrue. To say that to me when you do not even know me or anything about me, i find that a bit sick. Stop trying to argue for arguments sake. do you not think it is violent to inflict pain upon another living being?

It’s nice how all you PRO-vivisectionists so bravely and utterly defend vivisection and preach how it saves human lives. You sound like you care so much about people. If you feel so strongly about saving others and finding cures for deceases, why don’t you stand up and volunteer yourself to be tested on?? Come on, it’s all well and good to say the testing is good and important and wishing the pain upon the animals, but the best way to help humans is to test on humans . You can really help if you volunteer to be tested on, and they can find a cure for cancer, Alzheimer’s (ONLY present in humans). Well, come on, be a ‘man’ and show how much it means to you for them to find cures to save people! Well, hello? Where are the volunteers? Steve, Botley - Bella, Abingdon - Roger, Oxford and others. Are you going to be cowards or you’re going to show us how important a proper, worthwhile vivisection/research really is to you? Well….? NO? Now, what about if you get paid, hmmm, good money. Are you going to stand up then and be tested on ‘like an animal’? NO? Not even for the money? Well, I thought you cared about finding cures so much or you’re just all mouth?

Mia wrote:
It’s nice how all you PRO-vivisectionists so bravely and utterly defend vivisection and preach how it saves human lives. You sound like you care so much about people. If you feel so strongly about saving others and finding cures for deceases, why don’t you stand up and volunteer yourself to be tested on?? Come on, it’s all well and good to say the testing is good and important and wishing the pain upon the animals, but the best way to help humans is to test on humans . You can really help if you volunteer to be tested on, and they can find a cure for cancer, Alzheimer’s (ONLY present in humans). Well, come on, be a ‘man’ and show how much it means to you for them to find cures to save people! Well, hello? Where are the volunteers? Steve, Botley - Bella, Abingdon - Roger, Oxford and others. Are you going to be cowards or you’re going to show us how important a proper, worthwhile vivisection/research really is to you? Well….? NO? Now, what about if you get paid, hmmm, good money. Are you going to stand up then and be tested on ‘like an animal’? NO? Not even for the money? Well, I thought you cared about finding cures so much or you’re just all mouth?

Brilliant!

Bella wrote:
Before anyone shouts at me i would just like to say that i don't like the idea of animal testing but believe it is essential to help people survive terrible illnesses. To Helen Hart and Steve, I hate the idea of animal testing and would love it if your opinions on this forum could persuade me to decide one way or the other, all they do is make me realise that all animal rights protesters are rather bitter and extremley rude. It's scary the kind of terrible things you say just because someone doesn't agree with your way of thinking. Helen you come accross as a very bitter nasty woman and i pity your children did they really want to go?? or did they want to go because it's what mummy likes?? I would also like both of your opinions on the threatening letters that most construction companies located in oxfordshire recieved just before the work was starting to threaten action against any company thinking about working with the university on the lab.

Helen Hart - please see message above.

Sam - Thank you for your comment which is the only one here that makes sense, i would like to come to the next demo to see what it's like, but not if i'm faced with 100's of Helen's.

Yes, after university, a group of us did. But obviously this type of human testing is only for the final stages of drug testing before release. not the HUGELY worthwhile testing that is done in general medical research and in drug testing. we all wanted to do the toe removal and reattachment op. but never got around to it.. Oh I can't at the moment due to having spent so much time in West Africa. can't even give blood any more. as you say if you feel so strongly, I assume you are you a medical researcher developing these new techniques? No thats what other peple do and you get told about so you can preach the cause.

Bella wrote:

Bella wrote: Before anyone shouts at me i would just like to say that i don't like the idea of animal testing but believe it is essential to help people survive terrible illnesses. To Helen Hart and Steve, I hate the idea of animal testing and would love it if your opinions on this forum could persuade me to decide one way or the other, all they do is make me realise that all animal rights protesters are rather bitter and extremley rude. It's scary the kind of terrible things you say just because someone doesn't agree with your way of thinking. Helen you come accross as a very bitter nasty woman and i pity your children did they really want to go?? or did they want to go because it's what mummy likes?? I would also like both of your opinions on the threatening letters that most construction companies located in oxfordshire recieved just before the work was starting to threaten action against any company thinking about working with the university on the lab.

Helen Hart - please see message above. Sam - Thank you for your comment which is the only one here that makes sense, i would like to come to the next demo to see what it's like, but not if i'm faced with 100's of Helen's.

Bella, that would be fab if you came on to the next demo! Here are a few websites to have a look at if you are genuinely interested in finding out more about the alternatives and animals in labs: http://www.buav.org/
index.php
http://www.curedisea
se.net/
http://www.drhadwent
rust.org.uk/

Where are the volunteers? Steve, Botley - Bella, Abingdon - Roger, Oxford and others. Are you going to be cowards or you’re going to show us how important a proper, worthwhile vivisection/research really is to you? Well….? NO?

I wouldn't be so presumptuous--some of us have already done so. Nice attempt to turn around that particular argument; shame it fell flat, though.

Mike Ock wrote:
Smallpox has been eradicated and polio is being eradicated thanks to animal testing. Insulin, antibiotics, analgesics, anti-depressants and anesthetics all exist thanks to animal testing. Organ transplants, heart catheterization and joint replacement all exist thanks to practising the procedure on animals.

All of these have saved or significantly improved the lives of almost every human alive today. Even saving one human life would be worth all the animal testing, but with such clear and massive benefits, believing that animal testing is wrong is delusional to say the least.

Just because animal experiments existed at the time of these diseases were irradicated, it does not mean they helped in the least. As I am sure we all know, the treatments for deseases are experimented on animals to check for safety, and are then taken to clinical trials in humans. The humans are the real guinea pigs. The stage at which drugs and treatments are really put to the test are when they are given to humans. This is the reason why many thousands of people die each year from adverse drug reactions ; because animal studies cannot predict these outcomes, if the drug fails it is taken of the market (unless the scummy drug companies can find a way out of this), if it works it is kept. This does not mean that we have successful treatments because of animal experiments. This also means that many treatments which could have gone on to save lives are eliminated at the animal stage. For example, penicillin was shown to kill rabbits so it wasn't studied any further, ten years later the man who discovered it gave it to a friend in a desperate attempt to save him, and it worked! What a surprise! Thanks to animal tests we almost lost one of our most valued treatments! This means that the animal study stage is a completely pointless part of drug development, okay sometimes they do predict the right result but this is only however (as said in the words of a researcher himself) 5-25% of the time, which would be fine if only we knew which ones of all the tests were included in this percentage! Researchers have also been known to falsify or make up documents or results- not that this matters because it is all luck anyway, but it just goes to show what even the researchers themselves think of the tests....

Liz wrote:

Roger wrote:

I am an anti-vivisectionist and we do not have to resort to violence or name calling.

Hilarious, Liz. Let's see - apart from the well-documented history of violent acts carried out by "anti-vivisectionist s" (and the complete and utter lack of violent acts against animal rights scum carried out by pro-vivisectionists) , you also said yourself:

"you as a pro-vivisectionist have a sick mind"

How, precisely, is that not name-calling?

I said you had a sick mind in retaliation to what you claimed about my views to human beings! Why are you getting so aggressive?

Oh, I'm sorry - I forgot that it's ok for you to post comments "in retaliation" but if I do so, then I'm being "so aggresive". How dare I respond in the same manner as you!?! Chris - you almost...almost...co me across as intelligent. Pity that HIV was completely unknown until the early 80s and therefore could not have even remotely been "a powerful immuno-suppressor and trigger for HIV". And as for your comment that "As to your comments about car crash tests; your logic is so skewed as to not warrant a reply." guess what genuis? That is precisely - precisely - your own so-called logic, from your own words, as to why animal testing is "futile". Bravo. Thanks for proving my point.

Hm it seems to me that you are trying to rile me. I said you had a sick mind for saying that i would prefer to watch humans die in agony than find a cure. Which is totally untrue. To say that to me when you do not even know me or anything about me, i find that a bit sick. Stop trying to argue for arguments sake. do you not think it is violent to inflict pain upon another living being?

Actually Roger, you say that there are "well documented violent acts" carried out by animal rights activists, the fact is, no-body has ever been killed or seriously hurt by any Animal Liberation Front action or that of any other activists, and it is in the ALF guidelines that all precautions are taken to protect ALL life, and that includes human life, and that if there is a risk of hurting any humans or other animals then the action does not take place. The only person that has ever been hurt in an animal rights confrontation was a woman named Jill Phipps, who was run over and killed by an animal transporter whilst protesting. So please don't call animal rights activists violent, they are the most peaceful, gentle, logical and accepting people I know.

Steve wrote:
Yes, after university, a group of us did. But obviously this type of human testing is only for the final stages of drug testing before release. not the HUGELY worthwhile testing that is done in general medical research and in drug testing. we all wanted to do the toe removal and reattachment op. but never got around to it.. Oh I can\'t at the moment due to having spent so much time in West Africa. can\'t even give blood any more. as you say if you feel so strongly, I assume you are you a medical researcher developing these new techniques? No thats what other peple do and you get told about so you can preach the cause.

Well, why didn't you volunteer for the HUGELY worthwhile testing that is done in general medical research, drug testing? Oh yes, excuses, oh, you're too busy, hmmm, but I thought this was really important to you, that's why you're here, no? Ehm, why would you assume that - I have no idea. You do have very wrong assumptions. Unlike you, I'm not preaching. But come on, be a man and volunteer yourself for what you say is HUGELY worthwhile... no excuses

For example, penicillin was shown to kill rabbits so it wasn't studied any further, ten years later the man who discovered it gave it to a friend in a desperate attempt to save him, and it worked! What a surprise! Thanks to animal tests we almost lost one of our most valued treatments!

Ah, another one of the stupid lies that you lot peddle. If you read outside of your SPEAK propoganda you'd realise that penicillin was discovered due to it's effects on other bacteria - it's development was delayed due to finding a reliable way to manufacture it, not due to animal testing.

The lies, half-truths and emotional blackmail you try to push only serves to weaken your already poor cause - it's so easy to catch you out as truthful, unbiased information can easily be found.

2007 Heart attacks and heart diseases the major killer (thanks in the main to diet and lifestyle)
Cancers next in line and then adverse drug reactions - 4th major cause of human death. Not surprisingly animals have safer medicines than humans. People are not living longer - they are existing longer whilst so many young people die before they've had a life. Toxicology tests on animals establish the safety of chemicals etc for humans which are misleading and the cause of much suffering and death in the first place. Its a viscious circle from which industry is making a great deal of money - out of the suffering of animals and humans and Vivisectors are resisting redundancy.

Liz wrote:

Bella wrote:

Bella wrote: Before anyone shouts at me i would just like to say that i don't like the idea of animal testing but believe it is essential to help people survive terrible illnesses. To Helen Hart and Steve, I hate the idea of animal testing and would love it if your opinions on this forum could persuade me to decide one way or the other, all they do is make me realise that all animal rights protesters are rather bitter and extremley rude. It's scary the kind of terrible things you say just because someone doesn't agree with your way of thinking. Helen you come accross as a very bitter nasty woman and i pity your children did they really want to go?? or did they want to go because it's what mummy likes?? I would also like both of your opinions on the threatening letters that most construction companies located in oxfordshire recieved just before the work was starting to threaten action against any company thinking about working with the university on the lab.

Helen Hart - please see message above. Sam - Thank you for your comment which is the only one here that makes sense, i would like to come to the next demo to see what it's like, but not if i'm faced with 100's of Helen's.

Bella, that would be fab if you came on to the next demo! Here are a few websites to have a look at if you are genuinely interested in finding out more about the alternatives and animals in labs: http://www.buav.org/ index.php http://www.curedisea se.net/ http://www.drhadwent rust.org.uk/

Liz

Thanks that's very useful, i really am interested in coming i can't make up my mind on it until i have seen both sides.

Thanks again

C: I wouldn't be so presumptuous--some of us have already done so. Nice attempt to turn around that particular argument; shame it fell flat, though.
====================
==
Are you saying you have replaced one of the animals to be tested on? Wow, how was it? You’re a brave woman, hands up to you. It appears research is very important to you, am I wrong? So, are you still being tested on? Because that’s what we’re talking about here, no? Animal testing, not the final stage trial. Hmmm, if that’s not the case - it seems your comment fell flat.

Bella,

Definitely read up on the issue - it's really interesting. However, just beware that the three websites you were given are all run by groups campaigning against animal research.

rds-online.org.uk are the consultants the government uses and provide very factual, down-to-earth advice - well worth a read if you get a chance.

The CMP are a group that campaign for animals - you can read their point of view on medicalprogress.org, or get a leaflet from pro-test.org.uk/MAAR
.pdf

Enjoy your research!

the fact is, no-body has ever been killed or seriously hurt by any Animal Liberation Front action or that of any other activists, and it is in the ALF guidelines that all precautions are taken to protect ALL life

Sounds nice - in theory. A moment's research proves otherwise:

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.

Jerry Vlasak...has also advised Speak: 'It won't ruin our movement if someone gets killed in an animal rights action. It's going to happen sooner or later. '

The managing director of Cambridgeshire-based Huntingdon Life Sciences, Brian Cass, was attacked by three masked thugs carrying baseball bats or pickaxe handles - how was that non-violent again?

Revlon manager Richard Simer's finger was blown off and his legs and chest were peppered with shrapnel when he opened a package bomb delivered to his home in Chandler, Arizona...yep, clearly the people who tried to murder him are "peaceful, gentle, logical and accepting".

ANTI-vivisectionists :

If you feel so strongly about stopping animal testing, why don’t you stand up and volunteer yourself to be tested on?? Come on, it’s all well and good to say that animal testing must be stopped, but the ONLY way that this will happen is if there is a viable alternative.

Remember, Mia:

the best way to help humans is to test on humans

If every member of Speak and the ALF volunteered as test subjects for medical trials, then thousands of animals would be saved. Pretty simple isn't it?

Are you going to be cowards or you’re going to show us how important proper, worthwhile research really is to you? Well….? NO? Now, what about if you get paid, hmmm, good money. Are you going to stand up then and be tested on ‘like an animal’? NO? Not even for the money? Well, I thought you cared about stopping animal testing so much or you’re just all mouth?

Kit wrote:
Bella, Definitely read up on the issue - it's really interesting. However, just beware that the three websites you were given are all run by groups campaigning against animal research. rds-online.org.uk are the consultants the government uses and provide very factual, down-to-earth advice - well worth a read if you get a chance. The CMP are a group that campaign for animals - you can read their point of view on medicalprogress.org, or get a leaflet from pro-test.org.uk/MAAR .pdf Enjoy your research!

Thanks Kit that's excellent!

Bella wrote:

Liz wrote:

Bella wrote:

Bella wrote: Before anyone shouts at me i would just like to say that i don't like the idea of animal testing but believe it is essential to help people survive terrible illnesses. To Helen Hart and Steve, I hate the idea of animal testing and would love it if your opinions on this forum could persuade me to decide one way or the other, all they do is make me realise that all animal rights protesters are rather bitter and extremley rude. It's scary the kind of terrible things you say just because someone doesn't agree with your way of thinking. Helen you come accross as a very bitter nasty woman and i pity your children did they really want to go?? or did they want to go because it's what mummy likes?? I would also like both of your opinions on the threatening letters that most construction companies located in oxfordshire recieved just before the work was starting to threaten action against any company thinking about working with the university on the lab.

Helen Hart - please see message above. Sam - Thank you for your comment which is the only one here that makes sense, i would like to come to the next demo to see what it's like, but not if i'm faced with 100's of Helen's.

Bella, that would be fab if you came on to the next demo! Here are a few websites to have a look at if you are genuinely interested in finding out more about the alternatives and animals in labs: http://www.buav.org/ index.php http://www.curedisea se.net/ http://www.drhadwent rust.org.uk/

Liz Thanks that's very useful, i really am interested in coming i can't make up my mind on it until i have seen both sides. Thanks again

you're very welcome, its really nice that you have come forward and said you're not sure what side you are on. Now you can read up and decide. Hope you find all the info useful.

Bella wrote:

Kit wrote: Bella, Definitely read up on the issue - it's really interesting. However, just beware that the three websites you were given are all run by groups campaigning against animal research. rds-online.org.uk are the consultants the government uses and provide very factual, down-to-earth advice - well worth a read if you get a chance. The CMP are a group that campaign for animals - you can read their point of view on medicalprogress.org, or get a leaflet from pro-test.org.uk/MAAR .pdf Enjoy your research!

Thanks Kit that's excellent!

I would like to stress again, that I am against animal research for moral reasons. The scientific reasons that are now coming about only make my view stronger.
The 3 websites i gave you were obviously all anti-animal research because I am against it. But they are all very well known organisations and extremely informative. I wish more of their info would come out into the main press.

LOL, Roger, you silly kid! You’ve copied what I wrote and only changed few words. You can’t come up with something original? Though, at this point, I assume you’re a small child that is not capable of that. Roger, to make it simple for you. Testing-on-animals-i
s-very-cruel-barbari
c-and-inaccurate. I mean, do you actually know anything? There are alternatives, but as usual some people are stuck in the old ages and not willing to accept new methods. It will take time.

The Truth wrote:

For example, penicillin was shown to kill rabbits so it wasn\'t studied any further, ten years later the man who discovered it gave it to a friend in a desperate attempt to save him, and it worked! What a surprise! Thanks to animal tests we almost lost one of our most valued treatments!

Ah, another one of the stupid lies that you lot peddle. If you read outside of your SPEAK propoganda you\'d realise that penicillin was discovered due to it\'s effects on other bacteria - it\'s development was delayed due to finding a reliable way to manufacture it, not due to animal testing. The lies, half-truths and emotional blackmail you try to push only serves to weaken your already poor cause - it\'s so easy to catch you out as truthful, unbiased information can easily be found.

We use emotional blackmail?? So it is not emotional blackmail to say 'if we dont use animals in experiments then humans will die?' when this is not necessarily the case??

Play the ball, not the man Mia. Instead of your usual tactic of attacking the person whose comment you disagree with, how about attacking the points they raise?

Have you volunteered as a test subject? Why not? Are you encouraging every member of Speak and the ALF to volunteer as a test subject? Why not?

What you and your ilk don't seem to understand is that this testing is not carried out for fun . If there was a viable alternative do you really think it wouldn't be used?

Roger wrote:
Play the ball, not the man Mia. Instead of your usual tactic of attacking the person whose comment you disagree with, how about attacking the points they raise? Have you volunteered as a test subject? Why not? Are you encouraging every member of Speak and the ALF to volunteer as a test subject? Why not? What you and your ilk don\'t seem to understand is that this testing is not carried out for fun . If there was a viable alternative do you really think it wouldn\'t be used?

But Roger, you are missing the point. Not enough money is being given to develop the non-animal methods, if it was scientists could be finding many more ways without using animals.

Stop repeating my words , Roger, rather answer my questions. Remember, I asked first. ;-) you got problem with that?
By the way, did I say testing is done for fun? Oh, sorry, I don’t remember me saying that. But you got a point there: PETA filmed staff inside a British laboratory owned by Huntingdon Life Sciences, Europe's largest animal-testing facility; they were punching Beagle puppies in the head, shouting at them, and simulating sex acts while taking blood samples. Footage also showed technicians dissecting a live monkey.
In 2004, German journalist was hired as a BUAV operative to shoot undercover footage of staff in Covance, Münster, Europe's largest primate-testing center, making monkeys dance in time to blaring pop music, handling them roughly, and screaming at them.
But no Roger, these people are so caring they did it to help humans, not for fun, right? I think they are nothing but bunch of sick hooligans. I’m sorry but at this point, I just don’t have anymore time for you.

Mia,
I understand you are feeling frustrated by Roger's comments but all he is asking for is for you to directly comment on what he is saying rather than isult him.

What you have posted above is deeply upsetting, have you seen the evidence yourself? I hope it is not true but understand there are sick people out there who can not be trusted in that sort of position. Was anything done about the footage?? The only thing that makes me feel 'better' about animal testing is that i am led to believe they are treated well and looked after (as much as they can be while being drugged etc)after you comment above i feel i need more info on how they are looked after and if it is regulated (inspections etc)

Dr Ralph Heywood, past scientific director of the Huntingdon Research Centre, a vivisection establishment, admitted in 1989: "...the best guess for the correlation of adverse reactions in man and animal toxicity data is somewhere between 5% and 25%", meaning of course, that you would be better off tossing a coin than testing on animals! And this is what some would pass off as 'cutting edge' medical research! It is pathetic, and would be laughable if it wasn't such a cruel hoax, paid for in millions of human and animal lives. Whilst pro-vivs love to shout about 'terrorists' and 'violence' lets remember the very real violence committed by the laboratory psychopaths resulting in the hundreds of thousands who die each year through animal-tested drugs and environmental pollutants, and the countless thousands who die from diseases that might well be treatable if medical research wasn't confined to grant-hungry charlatans. Remember: the vivisection-dependen
t drugs industry needs to ensure a state of 'no cure' for its own survival; a healthy population meaning a dead drugs industry. How long before the penny drops?

Bella wrote:
Mia, I understand you are feeling frustrated by Roger's comments but all he is asking for is for you to directly comment on what he is saying rather than isult him. What you have posted above is deeply upsetting, have you seen the evidence yourself? I hope it is not true but understand there are sick people out there who can not be trusted in that sort of position. Was anything done about the footage?? The only thing that makes me feel 'better' about animal testing is that i am led to believe they are treated well and looked after (as much as they can be while being drugged etc)after you comment above i feel i need more info on how they are looked after and if it is regulated (inspections etc)

Im afraid Bella that what Mia wrote is true, i have also seen the footage. If you look on the BUAV site they may still have the footage on there, but it may be too upsetting for you to watch. This is the problem, the scientists and technicians say that the animals are ok. But when undercover investigators have filmed secretly inside these labs there is often horror uncovered. If you did not know about this and have only found out it will be very upsetting. I have been upset many a time at what i have seen, but the way i channel the upset is to do stalls to educate people and go on demos/marches.

http://www.peta.org/
feat/covance/

here is the link to one undercover video

If that is indeed true then I agree this is terrible and a formal investigation should be conducted with disaplinary action too. But that is not the science that is a hand full of sick people that should not have been eployed. Therefore not a valid reason to dismiss the usefulness and need for animal testing. forexample earlier I pointed out the more militant element of animal right movement a dn was told that they didn't reprisent the rest of the group. So by that understanding, the same goes here. only individuals who should recieve a proper responce from the law and their employer.

Steve wrote:
If that is indeed true then I agree this is terrible and a formal investigation should be conducted with disaplinary action too. But that is not the science that is a hand full of sick people that should not have been eployed. Therefore not a valid reason to dismiss the usefulness and need for animal testing. forexample earlier I pointed out the more militant element of animal right movement a dn was told that they didn't reprisent the rest of the group. So by that understanding, the same goes here. only individuals who should recieve a proper responce from the law and their employer.

But do you not see?? This is happening to millions of animals, suffering on a daily basis, just because humans can speak, does not mean we have the right to use and abuse them. Monkeys like the ones in that video are going to be used at Oxford university. they are such intelligent creatures, how can you agree that they go through a lifetime of torture? Even if the technicians that look after them are nice to them, they will still be made ill and be locked away in cages.

liz wrote:

The Truth wrote:

For example, penicillin was shown to kill rabbits so it wasn\'t studied any further, ten years later the man who discovered it gave it to a friend in a desperate attempt to save him, and it worked! What a surprise! Thanks to animal tests we almost lost one of our most valued treatments!

Ah, another one of the stupid lies that you lot peddle. If you read outside of your SPEAK propoganda you\'d realise that penicillin was discovered due to it\'s effects on other bacteria - it\'s development was delayed due to finding a reliable way to manufacture it, not due to animal testing. The lies, half-truths and emotional blackmail you try to push only serves to weaken your already poor cause - it\'s so easy to catch you out as truthful, unbiased information can easily be found.

We use emotional blackmail?? So it is not emotional blackmail to say 'if we dont use animals in experiments then humans will die?' when this is not necessarily the case??

Our cause is not poor, and that fact about penicillin has nothing to do with SPEAK, I read it in an article part written a respected medical scientist called Ray Greek, even if it was held off because of production problems, it still killed rabbits, and not humans, and it also seems obvious that if it killed rabbits they wouldn't have given it to humans in the end so what I said must be true out of logic. Our argument is the winning argument, the lies belong to the money hungry, blood thirsty, heartless scum that benefit from animal experiments, and that is not you or me, but the investers and researchers. Don't call me a liar when if you looked at the reality you would see the truth. Methods exist which could already replace many animal experiments and replace ALL animal experiments in time to come which would be MUCH more accurate. But funnily enough VERY little money goes in to these, I think I heard that one year, it was either only £200,000 or maybe £2,000,000 put in to it, but either way it is very little (nothing compared to the £11,000,000 invested to build the oxford lab) is this a coinsidence? I don't think so.... Oh and by the way propaganda isn't necessarily lies, so it is irrelevent to suggest that we lie by using the word propaganda.

That is why I agree that animal research is not the optimum methos of reaearching, but until a VIABLE alturnative can replace it, I agree to it's use, and more over, as it has and will save human lives, I'll continue to defend it's use.

Steve wrote:
That is why I agree that animal research is not the optimum methos of reaearching, but until a VIABLE alturnative can replace it, I agree to it's use, and more over, as it has and will save human lives, I'll continue to defend it's use.

But please look into the other methods before defending it. and look at how these animals are treated. That is hoping that you do care about animals?

Don't get me started on propaganda! I would define that it is propaganda when there are web sites out there devoted to tell the whole truth and debunk "factual claims" for example:

Some 50 years ago, doctors demonstrated the remarkably beneficial effect of penicillin, saving a patient seriously ill with septicaemia. Unfortunately, the history of the development of this drug is being distorted by the animal rights groups. They have continually claimed not only that animal experiments played no part in the development of penicillin, but also that reliance on animal research could have led to penicillin being discarded(1). As usual, they attempt to justify these claims using questionable statements (eg penicillin is toxic to guinea pigs) and being highly selective in picking passages from scientific papers.

Animal rights advocates insist that penicillin would never have been used in patients if doctors had known that it kills guinea pigs and hamsters(2). A review article published in 1966 is usually quoted as the source of this claim(3).

In fact, the alleged sensitivity of hamsters to penicillin is an illusion. In 1956, experiments (4 )were carried out in which hamsters were given extremely high doses of penicillin, which did indeed kill them. The doses were equivalent to giving 70 million units to an adult patient (70-100 times the normal dose) and this hardly merits the statement that penicillin is "fatal even in tiny amounts"(2).

The reaction of the guinea-pig to penicillin was first described in a scientific paper in 1943(5) High daily doses of very impure penicillin killed 95% of guinea-pigs within 3-4 days. When the purity was increased tenfold, 60% died. We now know that even these preparations were only 60% pure. This it is quite likely, and is actually suggested in the 1943 paper, that the impurities in the early samples of penicillin were responsible for some of the toxicity. The paper also went to great pains to emphasise that the toxicity of penicillin for guinea-pigs did not mean that penicillin was toxic for people:
When treated with the same dose of penicillin per kilogram as the given to man guinea pigs did not die and, in fact, failed to show any signs of toxicity.

Later testing of pure penicillin provided more reliable estimates of its toxicity to the guinea-pig. Daily doses of about 6 times the amounts used in the 1943 tests killed about 70% of animals in 3 days (6,7). This dose is equivalent to very many times the normal human dose and the results mean that penicillin is considerably less toxic to guinea pigs than some other medicines in clincal use.

The reason that the toxicity of penicillin for guinea-pigs has been exaggerated must be its staggering lack of toxicity in other species. Its unique effect in the guinea-pig is due to an indirect effect. This is the conclusion of a study(7) which showed that bacteria normally present in the guinea-pig intestine are sensitive to penicillin. Thus, after penicillin, all these bacteria disappear and are replaced by far greater numbers of other types of bacteria. Thus infection leads to absorption of toxins and death from blood poisoning. It appears that the guinea pig, far from being strikingly different from humans, is in fact similar to the many patients who develop inflammation of the colon (colitis) when they take penicillin.

A story which is sometimes told by the animal rights sympathisers is that of the patient and the cat. One day in 1940, both were given penicillin by injection into the spine, and the following day the patient recovered and the cat had died. The patient, who was dying from meningitis, was extremely lucky. Penicillin is toxic to the brain and spinal cord and is never administered by this route today. Its toxicity was thus demonstrated by the unfortunate cat.


References

1. Sharpe R (1988) The Cruel Deception. Thorsons, Wellingborough
2. Ruesch H (1982) Naked Empress. Civis Publications, Klosters
3. Koppanyi T & Avery M A (1966) Clin Pharmacol Therap 7, 250
4. Schneierson S & Perlman E (1956) Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 91, 229
5. Hamre D M et al (1943) Am J Med Sci 206, 642
6. Stevens K & Gray I (1953) Ant Chem 3, 731
7. De Somer P et al (1955) Ant Chem 5, 463

Roger wrote:

the fact is, no-body has ever been killed or seriously hurt by any Animal Liberation Front action or that of any other activists, and it is in the ALF guidelines that all precautions are taken to protect ALL life

Sounds nice - in theory. A moment\'s research proves otherwise:

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.

Jerry Vlasak...has also advised Speak: \'It won\'t ruin our movement if someone gets killed in an animal rights action. It\'s going to happen sooner or later. \'

The managing director of Cambridgeshire-based Huntingdon Life Sciences, Brian Cass, was attacked by three masked thugs carrying baseball bats or pickaxe handles - how was that non-violent again?

Revlon manager Richard Simer\'s finger was blown off and his legs and chest were peppered with shrapnel when he opened a package bomb delivered to his home in Chandler, Arizona...yep, clearly the people who tried to murder him are \"peaceful, gentle, logical and accepting\".

I did mention that the ALF and by other activists I meant peaceful activists, there is a small faction of activists which I believe go under the name of the animal rights militia, or ARM who are responsible for physical attacks and those letter bombs, still, no-body died, but none the less as much as any animal rights activist would love to give a vivisectionist a good beating 99% of us (that is including the ALF) are peaceful, loving people and would know it is wrong to hurt any human. And the majority of us, although agreeing the vivisectionists had it coming, cannot be applied to the rest of us or go to say it will happen with the involvement of the majority of the movement. I would say that 99.9% (literally) of the movement are responsible for violent actions, hardly worth mentioning. The problem is; what people tend to forget is that animal rights activists are fighting for peace, a better world, and are driven purely by love and compassion for ALL animals and that includes humans. We may be rude from time to time, but that is only out of frustration, anybody, including yourself I am sure would be rude to somebody if they felt as upset as we get with these issues.

George wrote:

Roger wrote:

the fact is, no-body has ever been killed or seriously hurt by any Animal Liberation Front action or that of any other activists, and it is in the ALF guidelines that all precautions are taken to protect ALL life

Sounds nice - in theory. A moment\'s research proves otherwise:

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.

Jerry Vlasak...has also advised Speak: \'It won\'t ruin our movement if someone gets killed in an animal rights action. It\'s going to happen sooner or later. \'

The managing director of Cambridgeshire-based Huntingdon Life Sciences, Brian Cass, was attacked by three masked thugs carrying baseball bats or pickaxe handles - how was that non-violent again?

Revlon manager Richard Simer\'s finger was blown off and his legs and chest were peppered with shrapnel when he opened a package bomb delivered to his home in Chandler, Arizona...yep, clearly the people who tried to murder him are \"peaceful, gentle, logical and accepting\".

I did mention that the ALF and by other activists I meant peaceful activists, there is a small faction of activists which I believe go under the name of the animal rights militia, or ARM who are responsible for physical attacks and those letter bombs, still, no-body died, but none the less as much as any animal rights activist would love to give a vivisectionist a good beating 99% of us (that is including the ALF) are peaceful, loving people and would know it is wrong to hurt any human. And the majority of us, although agreeing the vivisectionists had it coming, cannot be applied to the rest of us or go to say it will happen with the involvement of the majority of the movement. I would say that 99.9% (literally) of the movement are responsible for violent actions, hardly worth mentioning. The problem is; what people tend to forget is that animal rights activists are fighting for peace, a better world, and are driven purely by love and compassion for ALL animals and that includes humans. We may be rude from time to time, but that is only out of frustration, anybody, including yourself I am sure would be rude to somebody if they felt as upset as we get with these issues.

Also, as childish as this may sound; anti-animal rights people often start up arguments and fights, for example some little brats stuck a **** off sign out of their dorm window at us in Oxford and that was only the other day, more commonly than we try to start fights.... shame they weren't sinsere enough to show their faces though- pathetic little wimps.

Bella, if u found that upsetting, I hate to disappoint u - it gets a lot worse then ‘just’ punching. They get burned, cut open, purposely injured, poisoned etc., you name it. With no relief for the pain. A lot of times, these procedures are repeated over and over.
Watch some of those undercover videos. Please don’t turn your head and say you can’t bear to watch it. These animals are forced to endure unimaginable pain every day of their miserable lives. The least you can do for them, is to watch it and open your eyes to the lies of animal researchers who tell you, they care about those animals and their well-being. Of course, they would rather, for you to not know the truth.
All you got to do is go on www.youtube.com , type in - Animal Testing - and it will give you so many undercover videos, pictures etc. You won’t need to visit another site to learn all about it.
I don’t care whether you’re pro-test or anti-vivisectionist. The undisputable fact is, the animals suffer tremendously, both physically and psychologically. It is like an animal holocaust. And there’s no valid excuse for it. It is a pure evil.
If you don’t believe this, don’t take it from me, watch the videos and see for yourself. Thanks.

Liz,

The fact is these experiments are already taking place. The Oxford Animal Lab will ensure they are performed in state of the art, custom-designed facilities as recommended by the RSPCA and government to minimise animal suffering.

Yes, there are some bad people in science just as every other profession but being involved in testing myself I can attest that generally conditions are excellent, animals treated humanely and suffering minimised as far as possible - only about 3,300 primates are used in the UK per year but these are for crucial research. By far the majority of experiments are on rodents or similar (similar to dissections at schools).

The UK has some of the highest ethical standards in the world. Animal extremism is already forcing many experimenters abroad where standards are far lower - totally counter-productive to ensuring humane treatment of animals.

tinyurl.com/yfu8gz

Steve wrote:
Don\'t get me started on propaganda! I would define that it is propaganda when there are web sites out there devoted to tell the whole truth and debunk \"factual claims\" for example:

Some 50 years ago, doctors demonstrated the remarkably beneficial effect of penicillin, saving a patient seriously ill with septicaemia. Unfortunately, the history of the development of this drug is being distorted by the animal rights groups. They have continually claimed not only that animal experiments played no part in the development of penicillin, but also that reliance on animal research could have led to penicillin being discarded(1). As usual, they attempt to justify these claims using questionable statements (eg penicillin is toxic to guinea pigs) and being highly selective in picking passages from scientific papers.

Animal rights advocates insist that penicillin would never have been used in patients if doctors had known that it kills guinea pigs and hamsters(2). A review article published in 1966 is usually quoted as the source of this claim(3).

In fact, the alleged sensitivity of hamsters to penicillin is an illusion. In 1956, experiments (4 )were carried out in which hamsters were given extremely high doses of penicillin, which did indeed kill them. The doses were equivalent to giving 70 million units to an adult patient (70-100 times the normal dose) and this hardly merits the statement that penicillin is \"fatal even in tiny amounts\"(2).

The reaction of the guinea-pig to penicillin was first described in a scientific paper in 1943(5) High daily doses of very impure penicillin killed 95% of guinea-pigs within 3-4 days. When the purity was increased tenfold, 60% died. We now know that even these preparations were only 60% pure. This it is quite likely, and is actually suggested in the 1943 paper, that the impurities in the early samples of penicillin were responsible for some of the toxicity. The paper also went to great pains to emphasise that the toxicity of penicillin for guinea-pigs did not mean that penicillin was toxic for people:
When treated with the same dose of penicillin per kilogram as the given to man guinea pigs did not die and, in fact, failed to show any signs of toxicity.

Later testing of pure penicillin provided more reliable estimates of its toxicity to the guinea-pig. Daily doses of about 6 times the amounts used in the 1943 tests killed about 70% of animals in 3 days (6,7). This dose is equivalent to very many times the normal human dose and the results mean that penicillin is considerably less toxic to guinea pigs than some other medicines in clincal use.

The reason that the toxicity of penicillin for guinea-pigs has been exaggerated must be its staggering lack of toxicity in other species. Its unique effect in the guinea-pig is due to an indirect effect. This is the conclusion of a study(7) which showed that bacteria normally present in the guinea-pig intestine are sensitive to penicillin. Thus, after penicillin, all these bacteria disappear and are replaced by far greater numbers of other types of bacteria. Thus infection leads to absorption of toxins and death from blood poisoning. It appears that the guinea pig, far from being strikingly different from humans, is in fact similar to the many patients who develop inflammation of the colon (colitis) when they take penicillin.

A story which is sometimes told by the animal rights sympathisers is that of the patient and the cat. One day in 1940, both were given penicillin by injection into the spine, and the following day the patient recovered and the cat had died. The patient, who was dying from meningitis, was extremely lucky. Penicillin is toxic to the brain and spinal cord and is never administered by this route today. Its toxicity was thus demonstrated by the unfortunate cat.


References

1. Sharpe R (1988) The Cruel Deception. Thorsons, Wellingborough
2. Ruesch H (1982) Naked Empress. Civis Publications, Klosters
3. Koppanyi T & Avery M A (1966) Clin Pharmacol Therap 7, 250
4. Schneierson S & Perlman E (1956) Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 91, 229
5. Hamre D M et al (1943) Am J Med Sci 206, 642
6. Stevens K & Gray I (1953) Ant Chem 3, 731
7. De Somer P et al (1955) Ant Chem 5, 463

You didn't seem to tell me why no money is being given to alternative research... Also, just because something that has been told by animal rights activists is not the whole truth it does not mean they totally changed it on purpose, they wouldn't need to do this as there is enough un-altered evidence to say the same thing. I don't care what the real deal was with Penicillin anyway, I only said it to demonstrate that it had different effects in humans to other animals, if I'm wrong it doesn't matter. Technology that old doesn't apply anymore, and there are enough examples and statistics in other areas to suggest the unreliability of animal experiments that apply to modern medicine. And it's not just about the science, it's about the politics, there is enough eveidence to suggest that animal experiments serve very little use and are most often detrimental to progress for my statement that no money is given to alternative methods to suggest that it's just a corrupt, fraudulant scam which is doing nothing but earning some people a lot of money.

liz wrote:

The Truth wrote:

For example, penicillin was shown to kill rabbits so it wasn\'t studied any further, ten years later the man who discovered it gave it to a friend in a desperate attempt to save him, and it worked! What a surprise! Thanks to animal tests we almost lost one of our most valued treatments!

Ah, another one of the stupid lies that you lot peddle. If you read outside of your SPEAK propoganda you\'d realise that penicillin was discovered due to it\'s effects on other bacteria - it\'s development was delayed due to finding a reliable way to manufacture it, not due to animal testing. The lies, half-truths and emotional blackmail you try to push only serves to weaken your already poor cause - it\'s so easy to catch you out as truthful, unbiased information can easily be found.

We use emotional blackmail?? So it is not emotional blackmail to say 'if we dont use animals in experiments then humans will die?' when this is not necessarily the case??

Haha, the worst emotional blackmail comes from the side of pro-vivisection; if I had a pound for every time I heard the phrase "but what if it was your mother dying" I'd be extremely rich.

Not enough money is being given to develop the non-animal methods

Thank you Liz - you're the first and only person who has actually posted anything to do with how the problem of finding a viable alternative might be addressed.

If Speak were to focus on doing something positive based on the above (that is, campaigning for more money to be spent on finding viable alternatives to animal testing) I believe they would have (a) a much greater chance of success, and (b) a far greater level of support in the community.

As it is, it's sadly people like Mia who shout at people who disagree with them that get the most press.

i am not defending funding rates to alturnative methods. I was defending andimal research that is needed. I was also debunking your "facts" as propaganda.

The antivivs appear to misunderstand the amount of non-animal research that goes on. When a scientist is working on developing a cure or studying a physiological system, he will usually use animal methods in his tests which will be complemented by non-animal research methods. This set fo experiments will go down as being animal experimentation despite the fact 60% of it might be using other methods. This concept of "alternatives" creates a dichotomy that is not there.

I hope those who are undecided will note that none of the pro-vivisectionists has been able to enlighten us as to any scientific case to experiment on other species...

one can only wonder upon what they are basing their claimed belief!

People like Roger, Steve and other pro-vivisectionists remind me of the medieval times when the brainwashed, religious fanatics used to burn people tied to a pole accusing them of witchery. They used to scream: “Burn them, burn them.” Today we look down at those people, they were obviously primitive. Years from now, we’re going to dismiss the same way these people that are cold-heartedly screaming for the animals to be burned, poisoned etc. They are primitives but it’s going to be obvious on a larger scale in the future.

People like Roger, Steve and other pro-vivisectionists remind me of the medieval times when the brainwashed, religious fanatics used to burn people tied to a pole accusing them of witchery. They used to scream: “Burn them, burn them.” Today we look down at those people, they were obviously primitive. Years from now, we’re going to dismiss the same way these people that are cold-heartedly screaming for the animals to be burned, poisoned etc. They are primitives but it’s going to be obvious on a larger scale in the future.

People like Roger, Steve and other pro-vivisectionists remind me of the medieval times when the brainwashed, religious fanatics used to burn people tied to a pole accusing them of witchery. They used to scream: “Burn them, burn them.” Today we look down at those people, they were obviously primitive. Years from now, we’re going to dismiss the same way these people that are cold-heartedly screaming for the animals to be burned, poisoned etc. They are primitives but it’s going to be obvious on a larger scale in the future.

carl, a couple of points:
who does the screaming and bruning and terrorism against scientists?
in the middle ages countless millions of the world population died through desease. this had been massively reduced in no small part to animan testing. so is it you that wants us to go back to the middle ages?

They stand up and scream against the vicious work of animal killers, what's wrong with that. Same people that would stand up to a hooligan if they saw one torturing a puppy in the park. The difference in your eyes is, torturing another being is ok as long as you can get a profit out of it.
Testing on animals has been done for centuries, it’s very barbaric and has no place in 21st century, if you don’t see that, then, you are, my dear, stuck in the middle ages

Until I see a Viable alturnative, your proposing a cull of the human species. I have no problem with that as it goes, population growth is the biggest threat to our world at the moment. to be quite frank however. I don't really care what you think. only that your group is marginalised, whis it appears is happening.

Carl,

Just out of interest, why do animal rights spend so much time protesting against animal testing? Other practices such as Halal and Kosher slaughter seem much more cruel and with much less benefit to people (I'm assuming that even if you question the extent of medical progress gained as a result of animal testing, you accept there has at least been some).

I think if you focussed on these sorts of issues first you would get far greater support from people, as many times more animals die this way than due to animal testing.

SPEAK saying that they condemn violence, intimidation and the ALF's tactics; and sacking the nutters Mel Broughton and Robin Webb would also greatly increase my respect for your cause.

Roger wrote:

Not enough money is being given to develop the non-animal methods

Thank you Liz - you're the first and only person who has actually posted anything to do with how the problem of finding a viable alternative might be addressed. If Speak were to focus on doing something positive based on the above (that is, campaigning for more money to be spent on finding viable alternatives to animal testing) I believe they would have (a) a much greater chance of success, and (b) a far greater level of support in the community. As it is, it's sadly people like Mia who shout at people who disagree with them that get the most press.

Speak are a very positive campaining group, look on their website and you will find lots of good info. Groups such as Europeans for Medical Progress and the Dr Hadwen Trust are finding alternatives all of the time, but they rely on donations. This is the point: money that is being spent on Oxford University could have been pumped into finding alternatives, there are already many laboraties in the UK, why build another one if we are supposed to be finding alternatives. I believe the public need to be educated about what really happens in labs, instead of plainly being told: animal experiments save lives. Why are animal labs not open for public viewing? Because there is a lot of cruelty that goes on in them. I dont understand why people who agree with experiments get so angry towards people such as me who do not believe in them. I dont want their to be any cruelty to animals, plain and simple. And i will forever be haunted by videos and images i have seen.

Kit wrote:
Carl, Just out of interest, why do animal rights spend so much time protesting against animal testing? Other practices such as Halal and Kosher slaughter seem much more cruel and with much less benefit to people (I'm assuming that even if you question the extent of medical progress gained as a result of animal testing, you accept there has at least been some). I think if you focussed on these sorts of issues first you would get far greater support from people, as many times more animals die this way than due to animal testing. SPEAK saying that they condemn violence, intimidation and the ALF's tactics; and sacking the nutters Mel Broughton and Robin Webb would also greatly increase my respect for your cause.

Animal rights people do campaign against all sorts of cruelty to animals which includes experiments, factory farming, blood sports, circuses. Do you really think we'd only stop at experiments?

Kit wrote:
Liz, The fact is these experiments are already taking place. The Oxford Animal Lab will ensure they are performed in state of the art, custom-designed facilities as recommended by the RSPCA and government to minimise animal suffering. Yes, there are some bad people in science just as every other profession but being involved in testing myself I can attest that generally conditions are excellent, animals treated humanely and suffering minimised as far as possible - only about 3,300 primates are used in the UK per year but these are for crucial research. By far the majority of experiments are on rodents or similar (similar to dissections at schools). The UK has some of the highest ethical standards in the world. Animal extremism is already forcing many experimenters abroad where standards are far lower - totally counter-productive to ensuring humane treatment of animals. tinyurl.com/yfu8gz

Kit, we obviously have different views. You say 3.300 primates are used in the UK per year, I dont even agree with 1 being used. I believe that each and every animal is a unique being. How can an animal in a lab ever be in excellent conditions? For e.g. a monkey: they should be outside in their home country, swinging through trees, picking fruit; a mouse: should be free to do whatever a mouse does! I believe that rodents have feelings and it saddens and annoys me when people say 'a mouse' or 'a rat' as if they are nothing. How dare any human think they have the right to be cruel to another living being. I cant bear to think of the cruelty that goes on to these creatures. There is no halfway with me, I want to see all experiments stopped.

Animal rights people do campaign against all sorts of cruelty to animals which includes experiments, factory farming, blood sports, circuses. Do you really think we'd only stop at experiments?

Liz - I can't speak for everybody but the only media coverage I see of animal rights is either the Oxford Lab or ALF activities. I know this isn't entirely AR's fault but surely the close connection that AR leaders typically have to criminals or criminal activity, it's perhaps somewhat unsurprising.

Personally, if I was trying to get public support - which is what you need to stop animal testing - I'd certainly not choose unsavoury characters like Mel and Robin to lead my campaign. I also wouldn't march through Oxford shouting "shame on you" at the public.

Please don't take this as a personal attack. I just this you're crazy to be throwing away potential support; my girlfriend, who is a strict vegetarian, get turned off from AR issues by the abrasive mob-mentality a lot of protesters, such as Helen above, seem to have.

Kit wrote:

Animal rights people do campaign against all sorts of cruelty to animals which includes experiments, factory farming, blood sports, circuses. Do you really think we'd only stop at experiments?

Liz - I can't speak for everybody but the only media coverage I see of animal rights is either the Oxford Lab or ALF activities. I know this isn't entirely AR's fault but surely the close connection that AR leaders typically have to criminals or criminal activity, it's perhaps somewhat unsurprising. Personally, if I was trying to get public support - which is what you need to stop animal testing - I'd certainly not choose unsavoury characters like Mel and Robin to lead my campaign. I also wouldn't march through Oxford shouting "shame on you" at the public. Please don't take this as a personal attack. I just this you're crazy to be throwing away potential support; my girlfriend, who is a strict vegetarian, get turned off from AR issues by the abrasive mob-mentality a lot of protesters, such as Helen above, seem to have.

I do see your point of view, but it is not up to me which characters are chosen for SPEAK as i do not run it.
In my home town I often do a stall with petitions so that members of the public can come over.
Also, please dont take everything the media say as true. I work in the media and believe me I know how it works! There are many animal charities that do not get a look in to have their say because often the media likes to try and make animal rights people look bad? Why? Well im not definitely sure, could be to do with the multi-million companies behind animal testing persuading the press?
I am a vegan too, nice to hear your girlfriend is a veggie. I was in the march on Sat and i can assure you most people are not into any criminal activities. But again what do you call criminal? Rescuing an animal from a lab? The law says this is illegal, yet if you were to rescue an animal being abused from someones garden, this may be deemed legal.

I also attended the march on 1st September with my 12 year old son and my husband. I am 39 years old,have a job in the public sector and am educated to Masters degree.

I would never wish to terrorise anyone and indeed never have. I have never met a group of more compassionate, open minded people than those who support animal rights, regardless of who they are talking to, pro or anti testing.

Whatever the utilitarian arguments about vivisection may be, and they are questionable - just because we have cures for all the things listed earlier does not mean this all came about from testing on animals, although it obviously benefits the scientific community to promote this, then they have as many dispensable resources as they want. Our opinion is that these are not dispensable resources. These are thinking, feeling beings which are TIED DOWN AND THEN CUT OPEN WHILE STILL ALIVE. How can any compassionate individual say this is OK and then attack us for our views.
Would everybody really rather live a few years longer, again questionable if this would actually be the case anyway, at the cost of their humanity and soul.
As for the man saying take your kids to Alton Towers instead -well I do. Thats the whole point - I am not some hippy crank who you and the media can pigeonhole to draw attention away from the issue. I dont favour animals over people - I also support many charities which help people. I just want a world as free as it can be from pain and suffering for all species, not for one species at the expense of all the others.
Finally the organisation is called SPEAK - thats because we need to speak out as these animals have no voice and no rights, so as for the 'not marching through Oxford' that has been quoted - what should we do - sit at home and say how sad and achieve nothing. Is that what the suffragettes did or the hunt saboteurs to change unacceptable laws?

I consider myself to have a lot of compassion and do not advocate unnecessary suffering of animals. I abhor hunting and shooting as do many others, I believe very firmly in a hierarchical structure to society which puts fellow human beings significantly above other animal species. If you consider the drugs and life saving treatments administered to our children, our parents and our loved ones, that would not have been possible without testing on animals, how can anyone POSSIBLY argue against this. I do NOT buy cosmetics that are tested on animals nor does anyone in my immediate family but my point is that so many protesters are just that - people looking for an outlet for their energies - I simply say put this energy into looking after fellow humans - get socially or politically active to make life better for PEOPLE who have poor existences - in my order of things this is far more honourable and makes a more positive contribution to society.

Kit

You obviously need more education. Read up some stuff then you don't have to ask silly questions.
Then we can talk

Peter wrote:
I consider myself to have a lot of compassion and do not advocate unnecessary suffering of animals. I abhor hunting and shooting as do many others, I believe very firmly in a hierarchical structure to society which puts fellow human beings significantly above other animal species. If you consider the drugs and life saving treatments administered to our children, our parents and our loved ones, that would not have been possible without testing on animals, how can anyone POSSIBLY argue against this. I do NOT buy cosmetics that are tested on animals nor does anyone in my immediate family but my point is that so many protesters are just that - people looking for an outlet for their energies - I simply say put this energy into looking after fellow humans - get socially or politically active to make life better for PEOPLE who have poor existences - in my order of things this is far more honourable and makes a more positive contribution to society.

How do you know it was because of animal testing? these drugs may have been found using alternatives. What about the people that become ill due to side effects of drugs which did not show up in animals?

Peter,

There’s a lot of contradiction in your post. And based on that, I hate to be the one to tell you, but you’re not a compassionate person. All you do is pick and choose what’s convenient for you. It’s like saying something stupid as, you’re not racist and like colored people but, it’s ok for black people to die in Africa, there’s too many of them anyway. Do you see the ridicule in that? So, wake up and don’t insult here people that actually ARE compassionate.

Peter, I understand what you're saying. We're so afraid of any pain or dying - in fact terrified of it. Our ancestors were so much braver. We're very happy to kill millions of animals just so we don’t die prematurely or have to suffer even tiny bit. I wonder how many animals had to be tortured and killed to give us a headache tablet. I bet you’re one of those people who take a pain reliever as soon as the headache starts. Of course, you have to support animal testing, because there’s a chance that without it you may be in pain, gosh that would be so terrible.

Peter wrote:
I consider myself to have a lot of compassion and do not advocate unnecessary suffering of animals. I abhor hunting and shooting as do many others, I believe very firmly in a hierarchical structure to society which puts fellow human beings significantly above other animal species. If you consider the drugs and life saving treatments administered to our children, our parents and our loved ones, that would not have been possible without testing on animals, how can anyone POSSIBLY argue against this. I do NOT buy cosmetics that are tested on animals nor does anyone in my immediate family but my point is that so many protesters are just that - people looking for an outlet for their energies - I simply say put this energy into looking after fellow humans - get socially or politically active to make life better for PEOPLE who have poor existences - in my order of things this is far more honourable and makes a more positive contribution to society.

so, what are you doing to help your fellow humans? have you got many campaigns going on at present?

Carl wrote:
Peter, I understand what you\\\'re saying. We\\\'re so afraid of any pain or dying - in fact terrified of it. Our ancestors were so much braver. We\\\'re very happy to kill millions of animals just so we don’t die prematurely or have to suffer even tiny bit. I wonder how many animals had to be tortured and killed to give us a headache tablet. I bet you’re one of those people who take a pain reliever as soon as the headache starts. Of course, you have to support animal testing, because there’s a chance that without it you may be in pain, gosh that would be so terrible.

Blimey... thats absolutly out of order. in your little cult is that how your told to make friends and influence people. Look if you cant discuss only insult, whats the point? How abouit campaigning to make sure that animal testing does not stop. thats pretty darn humanitarian as those very drugs and research have the biggest impact in Africa. What do you do other than this? have you ever worked tho pooer parts of africa improving things? how someone could see so many illnesses out there and come back here to campain to stop them getting well.. not very humane! I have seen some horrific illnesses and people dying in West and North Africa. It makes me know clearly which "side" I am on.

I'mored of this debate now. claims were rebuffed and now all the anti-viv groups can do is insult. Pointless.
I hope you have fun in your goals. I as one will campain to keep animal testing an important part of medical research until an alternative is avaliable.

Steve wrote:
I'mored of this debate now. claims were rebuffed and now all the anti-viv groups can do is insult. Pointless. I hope you have fun in your goals. I as one will campain to keep animal testing an important part of medical research until an alternative is avaliable.

Yes, You would say that. Good for you, of course

I just wanted to say that what ever peoples ethical views on animal research the argument against it based on it being unscientific are untrue.

Animal research has made huge contributions to medicine in the past and in the present, just because we don't yet have a cure for a cancer doesn't mean animal research doesn't work, there have been advances. If we stop animal research we stop medical research and this means we won't be getting a cure for it at all.

The fact is, we will never find a cure for eg Alzheimers, Parkinsons’ or other illnesses by testing on animals. First of all, animals don’t suffer from these illnesses!!
So it is against nature and it doesn’t make sense. If you watch animals and know anything about them, you can see they are closer to us on emotional level (they feel happiness, relaxation, stress, upset, fear, maternal love etc.)On a physical level they are quite different. Just because something has two eyes, nose and mouth doesn’t make it compatible to human body. If you wanted to find a cure for a decease found in rats only, would you test on monkeys to find it? It just won’t work, logically. Sure we have some medicine that came out of the testing but do each of us really know if it was due to animal tests, or is that what they tell us? Please see examples below that back up the fact how animals are very different then human beings. Maybe reasons why the heck we still don’t have cures for cancer, Alzheimers and many others with all the billions of animals killed already?
Rats are not capable of puking up, chocolate can be fatal to dogs even in small portions. But please see these other examples
• Less than 2% of human illnesses (1.16%) are ever seen in animals. Over 98% never are.
• At least 50 drugs on the market cause cancer in lab animals. They are allowed because it is admitted that animal tests are not relevant.
• When asked if they agreed that animal experimentation can be misleading because of anatomical and physiological differences between animals and humans, 88% of doctors agreed.
• Rats are 37% effective in identifying what causes cancer in humans. Flipping a coin would be more accurate.
• According to animal tests lemon juice is deadly poison, but arsenic, hemlock and botulin are safe.
• 40% of patients suffer side effects as a result of prescription treatment.
• Over 200,000 medicines have been released most of which are now withdrawn. According to the World Health Organisation, 240 medicines are ‘essential’.
• Thousands of drugs passed safe in animals have been withdrawn or banned due to their effect on human health.
• Aspirin fails animal tests, as do digitalis (heart drug), cancer treatments, insulin (causes animal birth defects), penicillin and other safe medicines. They would be banned if results from animal experimentation were accurate.
• When the producers of thalidomide were taken to court, they were aquitted after numerous experts agreed animal tests could not be relied on for human medicine.
• At least 450 methods exist with which we can replace animal experiments.
• Morphine puts humans asleep but excites cats.
• 95% of drugs passed by animal tests are immediately disgarded as useless or dangerous to humans.
• One is six patients in hospital are there because the drug they have taken had been passed safe for us on humans after animal tests.
• Worldwide, at least 22 animals die every second in labs. In the UK one animal dies every five seconds.
• The contraceptive pill causes blood clots in humans but it had the opposite effect in dogs.
• We use aspirin for aches and pains. It causes birth defects mice, rabbits and rats.
• Researchers refused to believe that benzene could cause cancer in humans because it failed to in animal tests.
• Dogs failed to predict heart problems caused by the cardiovascular drugs encainide and flecainide, which led to an estimated 3,000 deaths in the USA.
• Heart by pass surgery was put on hold for years because it didn’t work on dogs.
• If we had relied on animal tests we would still believe that humans don’t need vitamin C, that smoking doesn’t cause cause cancer and alcohol doesn’t cause liver damage.
• It was denied for decades that asbestos caused disease in humans because it didn’t in animals.
• Polio researchers were mislead for years about how we catch the disease because they had experimented on monkeys.
• As one researcher points out, “the ultimate dilemma with any animal model of human disease is that it can never reflect the human situation with complete accuracy."

As well as reading the above examples of animals experimentation as scientific fraud, PLEASE also see this website, http://www.testingto
day.info
And take a look at the funny cartoon!! :) and the other links, also the video under Inside the Lab.
Many thanks.

Liz/Kit

I would just like to thank you both for giving your 'sides' in such a reasonable way, you have both made alot more sense than everyone else who seems to get to angry.

I would also like to thank you both for the information you have given me, which has helped me understand both sides alot better.

Thanks again

Roger wrote:
You might not be a terrorist Liz, but at least some of your friends and compatriots are. You\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'ll no doubt recall the arson attack at Deans Foods that destroyed 6 trucks? The firebombs at Field Farm that destroyed tractors and - ironically - suffocated several animals? The sports pavilion at Queens College being set alight? The destruction of the Hertford College boathouse? The attempted murder of Paul Blackburn and his family in Beaconsfield? And that\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s just the local ones - there\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s the desecration of Gladys Hammond\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s grave by animal rights scum...I could go on and on. It is an absolute FACT that the terrorist scum you associate yourself with WILL threaten the ordinary people who work at the new lab. As Helen Hunt says, your priority is animals. Those who carry out this necessary research don\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t do so for fun - their priority, unlike yours, is to save human lives and mitigate human suffering. You would obviously rather see people die in agony than do whatever you can to help them. So much for your so-called \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"morals\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" and \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"ethics\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\".

I doubt there is a a vivisector/ scientistalive that dossn't think at some stage animal experiments for human disease will not be necessary( I believe they are not necessary) at some stage in the future. Why don'y they pull their fingers out and stop prolonging the inevitable!

Steve wrote:
I'mored of this debate now. claims were rebuffed and now all the anti-viv groups can do is insult. Pointless.
I hope you have fun in your goals. I as one will campain to keep animal testing an important part of medical research until an alternative is avaliable.

Why don't you campaign for the alternatives that will do a better job than the quite frankly dangerous animal experiments we have now. I will point out like I have before that there is suspiciously little funding in to alternatives (that already exist but could be developed easily with more funding), so like I say; why not campaign for better research and campaign for alternatives by donating to the Dr Hadwen trust or suchlike?

Simon wrote:

Roger wrote:
You might not be a terrorist Liz, but at least some of your friends and compatriots are. You\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'ll no doubt recall the arson attack at Deans Foods that destroyed 6 trucks? The firebombs at Field Farm that destroyed tractors and - ironically - suffocated several animals? The sports pavilion at Queens College being set alight? The destruction of the Hertford College boathouse? The attempted murder of Paul Blackburn and his family in Beaconsfield? And that\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s just the local ones - there\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s the desecration of Gladys Hammond\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s grave by animal rights scum...I could go on and on. It is an absolute FACT that the terrorist scum you associate yourself with WILL threaten the ordinary people who work at the new lab. As Helen Hunt says, your priority is animals. Those who carry out this necessary research don\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t do so for fun - their priority, unlike yours, is to save human lives and mitigate human suffering. You would obviously rather see people die in agony than do whatever you can to help them. So much for your so-called \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"morals\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" and \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"ethics\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\".

I doubt there is a a vivisector/ scientistalive that dossn't think at some stage animal experiments for human disease will not be necessary( I believe they are not necessary) at some stage in the future. Why don'y they pull their fingers out and stop prolonging the inevitable!

I really think Roger should take a look at reality, and realise that there are more violent people in an old people's home by proportion than in the animal rights movement. I'd also like to say that I think it's sick how people call animal rights activists terrorists when they have never killed anybody; and there are real terrorists out there ruining lives. It's an insult the the victims of real terrorism.

Steve wrote:

Carl wrote:
Peter, I understand what you\\\'re saying. We\\\'re so afraid of any pain or dying - in fact terrified of it. Our ancestors were so much braver. We\\\'re very happy to kill millions of animals just so we don’t die prematurely or have to suffer even tiny bit. I wonder how many animals had to be tortured and killed to give us a headache tablet. I bet you’re one of those people who take a pain reliever as soon as the headache starts. Of course, you have to support animal testing, because there’s a chance that without it you may be in pain, gosh that would be so terrible.

Blimey... thats absolutly out of order. in your little cult is that how your told to make friends and influence people. Look if you cant discuss only insult, whats the point? How abouit campaigning to make sure that animal testing does not stop. thats pretty darn humanitarian as those very drugs and research have the biggest impact in Africa. What do you do other than this? have you ever worked tho pooer parts of africa improving things? how someone could see so many illnesses out there and come back here to campain to stop them getting well.. not very humane! I have seen some horrific illnesses and people dying in West and North Africa. It makes me know clearly which "side" I am on.

Drug companies send drugs to poor African coomunities knowing **** well they will kill them! I'm not sure of the details of this, but I believe it's true. Also, as a member of an Amnesty International group (not that it's quite related to Africans with illness) I would like to see Africans be helped using real drug development procedures! Not the ones that are probably killing them as we speak!

liz wrote:

Peter wrote:
I consider myself to have a lot of compassion and do not advocate unnecessary suffering of animals. I abhor hunting and shooting as do many others, I believe very firmly in a hierarchical structure to society which puts fellow human beings significantly above other animal species. If you consider the drugs and life saving treatments administered to our children, our parents and our loved ones, that would not have been possible without testing on animals, how can anyone POSSIBLY argue against this. I do NOT buy cosmetics that are tested on animals nor does anyone in my immediate family but my point is that so many protesters are just that - people looking for an outlet for their energies - I simply say put this energy into looking after fellow humans - get socially or politically active to make life better for PEOPLE who have poor existences - in my order of things this is far more honourable and makes a more positive contribution to society.

so, what are you doing to help your fellow humans? have you got many campaigns going on at present?

How can we hope for a peaceful society when we are torturing and killing countless animals in a futile attempt to help humans? Who by the way I care about. In my book, for a completely peaceful society ALL cruelty must end and there must be moral equality.

Oh and for all those pro-vivesectionists out there who undoubtably eat meat and claim to "care" about humans better think about how the animal farming industry is a large factor of hunger in the third world.

George wrote:
Oh and for all those pro-vivesectionists out there who undoubtably eat meat and claim to "care" about humans better think about how the animal farming industry is a large factor of hunger in the third world.

Very true, George, maybe they should read up a bit about that. It's an undisputable fact. I read, if everyone or least a majority were vegan, we could feed the whole world! I wish!

Mia wrote:
The fact is, we will never find a cure for eg Alzheimers, Parkinsons’ or other illnesses by testing on animals. First of all, animals don’t suffer from these illnesses!!
So it is against nature and it doesn’t make sense. If you watch animals and know anything about them, you can see they are closer to us on emotional level (they feel happiness, relaxation, stress, upset, fear, maternal love etc.)On a physical level they are quite different. Just because something has two eyes, nose and mouth doesn’t make it compatible to human body. If you wanted to find a cure for a decease found in rats only, would you test on monkeys to find it? It just won’t work, logically. Sure we have some medicine that came out of the testing but do each of us really know if it was due to animal tests, or is that what they tell us? Please see examples below that back up the fact how animals are very different then human beings. Maybe reasons why the heck we still don’t have cures for cancer, Alzheimers and many others with all the billions of animals killed already?
Rats are not capable of puking up, chocolate can be fatal to dogs even in small portions. But please see these other examples
• Less than 2% of human illnesses (1.16%) are ever seen in animals. Over 98% never are.
• At least 50 drugs on the market cause cancer in lab animals. They are allowed because it is admitted that animal tests are not relevant.
• When asked if they agreed that animal experimentation can be misleading because of anatomical and physiological differences between animals and humans, 88% of doctors agreed.
• Rats are 37% effective in identifying what causes cancer in humans. Flipping a coin would be more accurate.
• According to animal tests lemon juice is deadly poison, but arsenic, hemlock and botulin are safe.
• 40% of patients suffer side effects as a result of prescription treatment.
• Over 200,000 medicines have been released most of which are now withdrawn. According to the World Health Organisation, 240 medicines are ‘essential’.
• Thousands of drugs passed safe in animals have been withdrawn or banned due to their effect on human health.
• Aspirin fails animal tests, as do digitalis (heart drug), cancer treatments, insulin (causes animal birth defects), penicillin and other safe medicines. They would be banned if results from animal experimentation were accurate.
• When the producers of thalidomide were taken to court, they were aquitted after numerous experts agreed animal tests could not be relied on for human medicine.
• At least 450 methods exist with which we can replace animal experiments.
• Morphine puts humans asleep but excites cats.
• 95% of drugs passed by animal tests are immediately disgarded as useless or dangerous to humans.
• One is six patients in hospital are there because the drug they have taken had been passed safe for us on humans after animal tests.
• Worldwide, at least 22 animals die every second in labs. In the UK one animal dies every five seconds.
• The contraceptive pill causes blood clots in humans but it had the opposite effect in dogs.
• We use aspirin for aches and pains. It causes birth defects mice, rabbits and rats.
• Researchers refused to believe that benzene could cause cancer in humans because it failed to in animal tests.
• Dogs failed to predict heart problems caused by the cardiovascular drugs encainide and flecainide, which led to an estimated 3,000 deaths in the USA.
• Heart by pass surgery was put on hold for years because it didn’t work on dogs.
• If we had relied on animal tests we would still believe that humans don’t need vitamin C, that smoking doesn’t cause cause cancer and alcohol doesn’t cause liver damage.
• It was denied for decades that asbestos caused disease in humans because it didn’t in animals.
• Polio researchers were mislead for years about how we catch the disease because they had experimented on monkeys.
• As one researcher points out, “the ultimate dilemma with any animal model of human disease is that it can never reflect the human situation with complete accuracy.\"

I have seen many of these claims before, and have seen the relevant proof that they are false as well, i don't have the time to go and find every relevant bit of information but just as an example:

The claim about Morphine, this only occurs where different doses are used, if we had equivalent doses for a human and cat the result would be the same.

The Polio claim is also not true, it was through testing on monkeys that a good model on the transmission of Polio was found it was also through the use on monkeys, rats and mice led directly to he introduction of the Salk and Sabin polio vaccines in the 1950s

Hopefully someone else will have the time to point out the other mistakes in the claims.

Bella wrote:
Liz/Kit I would just like to thank you both for giving your 'sides' in such a reasonable way, you have both made alot more sense than everyone else who seems to get to angry. I would also like to thank you both for the information you have given me, which has helped me understand both sides alot better. Thanks again

You're welcome Bella! I really dont see any point in arguing or bickering about the subject. Everyone does have their different opinions, but I just hope that more people do come to realise the real truth of what goes on inside labs.
Glad the info was helpful, take care!

Paul
You’re obviously a pro-viv. Now what else, are you a scientist that you know this first hand? No, I think you just utterly hate animals and happy to claim the truth - is in fact lie. The examples I noted are backed up by a true ex-scientist who agrees animal experiments are dangerous to humans (so many people die from side affects of medicine passed through animal tests); they are poor and unreliable models for human deceases. Don’t you even care about the people that are dying of the side effects of drugs you insist are reliable from animal tests? And there are plenty!!

Ok, I would like to know what you can say about this specific case that at least everyone must have heard about.
TGN1412 – Clinical trial carried in March 2006, causing a catastrophic systemic failure in the people, despite being administered at 500 (!) times lower than the dose found safe in animals? Sure, somehow you will dismiss this one, despite the obvious fact.
I personally care about people and animals. What do you.

I got talking to this very nice man who was one of the organizers. I asked him if he could save the life of his daugher by killing an animal, would he do it. He just wouldn't answer my question. None of his mates wanted to either. I think SPEAK is taking sanctity of life to the very extreme. Animal testing is not perfect, and yes, there are big biological differences between us and animals. There are also big differences between human individuals. Human testing would not be perfect either although better than animal testing. Experimenting on animals is the next best thing and sad that this is the case but it's the fastest rational route to finding cures to diseases that kill us. If animal rights activists want to make an impact, they should start boycotting/ protesting use of drugs at hospitals that was developed by animal experimentation. You will soon make many friends. Please do it.

frumbie wrote:
I got talking to this very nice man who was one of the organizers. I asked him if he could save the life of his daugher by killing an animal, would he do it. He just wouldn\'t answer my question. None of his mates wanted to either. I think SPEAK is taking sanctity of life to the very extreme. Animal testing is not perfect, and yes, there are big biological differences between us and animals. There are also big differences between human individuals. Human testing would not be perfect either although better than animal testing. Experimenting on animals is the next best thing and sad that this is the case but it\'s the fastest rational route to finding cures to diseases that kill us. If animal rights activists want to make an impact, they should start boycotting/ protesting use of drugs at hospitals that was developed by animal experimentation. You will soon make many friends. Please do it.

No-body is suggesting that we simply test on humans; as in live humans only, you've got the wrong idea. Plus, it happens anyway, that's pretty much what clinical trials are- unfortunately they often go terribly wrong, and there are many examples of this. And why? ...Because the animal experiments can't predict the effects well enough.

i test my ecsatcy tablets on my dog 1st, to check that they are ok for me.

he loves it.

alan q wrote:
i test my ecsatcy tablets on my dog 1st, to check that they are ok for me. he loves it.

Not a surprising behavior from a person that can't even spell - Ecstasy - your dog probably can

alan q wrote:
i test my ecsatcy tablets on my dog 1st, to check that they are ok for me.

he loves it.

I read somewhere that a secondary effect of ecstacy is losing the ability to spell. The opposite effect on dogs, amazingly.
Q for alan q: what does it do to your dog? Btw, my dog loves beer but wouldn't touch red wine.

George, With all the faults of animal experimentation, it still has massive impact on medical research. Without it, discovery of cures/ treatments for serious diseases will be delayed. Next time somone close to you gets diagnosed with something awful, the chances are that treatments offered would have been developed on animals. In support for these animals lets all call for a ban on all medication developed through animal experimentation. You will really hit the drugs industry this way. Go for it!

amanda wrote:
How can people justify this discusting act of cruelty on these animals?Everyone has to die of something, why should other beings that HAVE feelings also go though this immense amount of pain? I have lost people to cancer; very close relitives WHO DIDDN\'T take any medication.. why prolong something which in enevitable. ITS SELFISH. I think that it is good that Helens children have been allowed to KNOW the truths about animal experimentation.. AND Chris.. Whos the \"nasty\" one, the person willing to torture animals or the one willing to stand up for LIBERATION. When it came to it and you were stood over this terrified animal could you do what these vivisectors do? Because that is truly NASTY. The people of SPEAK show compassion to animals and eachother and they truly are the nicest people i have EVER met.Not this TERRORIST steriotype that the media and Oxford university would have you think. \"Lets wage a dirty war\", a quote from the POLICE, now if that isn\'t terrorism in itself then what is!? WE WILL NEVER STAND DOWN.

Well said amanda ..
Steven ...

The pharmaceutical ind.fund bulk of research, & must produce continual flow of new drugs in order to survive. Animals are used to try new ideas of developing more drugs under pretext of finding cures, that conveniently never materialise, ensuring public demand for 'improved' drugs. Drugs alleviate symptoms but do not cure, if they did drug cos. would collapse. Official sources admit majority of drugs do not work in most people & are 4th major cause of death. All medical advances are due to trial & error in human patients, hence numerous tragedies & drugs withdrawn. Apart from anti-biotics, discovered by accident,years of research on billions of animals has not produced a single cure nor stemmed the huge increase in disesases. In fact despite(or because of) increased consumption of drugs we have more sickness & disease today than any time in history,new diseases unheard of before & drug related diseases have reached epidemic proportions.

Gemma (12 Sep)is right. I might add that scientists, hospitals, universities etc are aware of the fallacies of animal experiments but have to support them due to their heavy dependence upon funding from the big pharmas. A recent report in The British Medical Journal revealed that 'the London School of Tropical Hygiene & Medicine studied 6 animal trials and found that none of them were replicable in humans; i.e 2 examples corticosteroids helped in cases of head injury, but were of no benefit to humans. A heart drug that proved effective in animals made the condition worse in humans'. The report pointed out 'the very obvious biological differences between animals & humans are often so great any results are meaningless. Even most drug companies agree animal tests are ueless but must be carried out because they are required part of the licencing process'.

www.curedisease.net

the truth about animal experimentation.

frumbie wrote:

alan q wrote:
i test my ecsatcy tablets on my dog 1st, to check that they are ok for me.

he loves it.

I read somewhere that a secondary effect of ecstacy is losing the ability to spell. The opposite effect on dogs, amazingly.
Q for alan q: what does it do to your dog? Btw, my dog loves beer but wouldn\'t touch red wine.

George, With all the faults of animal experimentation, it still has massive impact on medical research. Without it, discovery of cures/ treatments for serious diseases will be delayed. Next time somone close to you gets diagnosed with something awful, the chances are that treatments offered would have been developed on animals. In support for these animals lets all call for a ban on all medication developed through animal experimentation. You will really hit the drugs industry this way. Go for it!

I'm not suggesting we destroy the medical system. I am saying that animal experiments are pointless, and just pose danger to humans who use the treatments after them. As Gemma said treatments are put to the real test when they are given to humans for the first time. What I and all the other anti-vivsections are suggesting is that money is actually given to research a REAL way of ensuring better assurance for humans who use treatments after the development stage.

Steven McLean wrote:

amanda wrote:
How can people justify this discusting act of cruelty on these animals?Everyone has to die of something, why should other beings that HAVE feelings also go though this immense amount of pain? I have lost people to cancer; very close relitives WHO DIDDN\'T take any medication.. why prolong something which in enevitable. ITS SELFISH. I think that it is good that Helens children have been allowed to KNOW the truths about animal experimentation.. AND Chris.. Whos the \"nasty\" one, the person willing to torture animals or the one willing to stand up for LIBERATION. When it came to it and you were stood over this terrified animal could you do what these vivisectors do? Because that is truly NASTY. The people of SPEAK show compassion to animals and eachother and they truly are the nicest people i have EVER met.Not this TERRORIST steriotype that the media and Oxford university would have you think. \"Lets wage a dirty war\", a quote from the POLICE, now if that isn\'t terrorism in itself then what is!? WE WILL NEVER STAND DOWN.

Well said amanda ..
Steven ...

She's right. I will NOT stop fighting until the day I die. None of us will.

Supporters of vivisection seem to think that animal experiments have given us advances in medicine. They are wrong. As Gemma points out animals are merely convenient 'tools' to try new ways of producing more drugs. All treatments have to be tested in animals to satisfy the licencing authorities, but; What might cure a dog may kill a cat, be ineffective in a rabbit, but toxic to a rat. And man? Will he react like the dog, the cat the rabbit or the rat?! A contraceptive drug that worked in rats had the opposite effect in humans. Its now used for cancer but causes liver tumours in rats, but not mice! How would I react like the rat or the mouse? Only after human use do we know if drugs are safe or effective, -proving just who the real guinea-pigs are! To those who ask is we antis would refuse an animal tested drug. I would only risk anything that had been on the market for a number of years and had passed the safety test via years of human use.

As a pro Viv and a scientist to. I know that your and Gemma's statements are wrong, the propaganda being distributed by the antiviv groups is pathetic. Just saying that no cures have been developed means nothing with out facts. The ones presented earlier were slammed down as false. I agree with thr idea that not all experiements should be performed and more over that alternatives should be used where suitable. BUT animal reasurch has in the past and is continuing to do a vital job keeping people like you and me alive.

Steve, as a pro-viv supporter (& scientist') perhaps you could answer the following: After years of experiments on billions of animals; Name a single drug (apart from anti-biotics)that can actually CURE a disease: Why despite increased consumption of drugs sickness & disease is rising: Why did Alan Roses, vice president of UK drugs giant admit majority of drugs do not work in most people: Your opinion about The Journal of American Medical Assoc. report that prescription drugs are 4th major cause of death: And why did the British Medical Journal report from London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine claim 'due to physiological differences animal experiments are meaningless'. Does this mean the medical journals have got it wrong. Surely if animal experiments are relevant to human health shouldn't we be seeing a decline in illnesses? As for keeping us alive,bear in mind prescription drugs are 4th major cause of death!! What does all this say about current methods of research on animals? Hardly a success story!!

Steve, you being a scientist (assuming, one that tests on animals), please enlighten me. What useful, successful result for human health have you personally gained from performing experiments on animals? And what cure have you come up with by you testing on animals? Hope you don’t mind me asking, just curious.

"BUT animal reasurch has in the past and is continuing to do a vital job keeping people like you and me alive."

Your statement is false.
My Granny died of Alzheimer’s desease and suffered terribly. Why isn't there a cure for this desease with all the amount of testing done? Because people like you, are 'trying to find' a cure for human desease by torturing animals. Alzh. is human-only illness, never found in animals! Where's the logic in that, dear scientist?

1. Your wrong actually I am an ev=nvironmental scientist. however when I was a marine Biologist some years ago experimentation on animals was a normal activity to gain more information on species and ecosystems. Now I study the physical environment with very little interaction with animals. So Minika, I can not answer your request. However I am very sorry that your grandmother passed away. I hope that continued research will eventually find a cure. however, just because you want a cure doesn't mean one can pull one out of a hat. I am recovering from surgery at the moment. The operation was not avlaiable when I first needed it 13 years ago. but now it is and is regularly performed. in years to come an alternative may be avaliable that is better. WIth progress things improve. I hope that progress in medicime including Alzheimers continues so that a "cure" may be found.

2. Gemma

How about Polio.
Because the human population is living closer together in massivly increasing numbers with global travel. I travel to Congo frequently, Ebola is there. At the moment it is in remote areas but as people travel more in the area, Ebola will be found more freqeuntly. Pretty obvious.

Your missing my point. It is not a case of if we research for 1 year we get cures for 12 diseases. and then if another year, another 12 diseases. I find your comments about the drugs effect to be totally irelevant. Sorry. But what I am hearing is that the drugs industry is not performing very well. I am not advocating the Drugs industry, but I DO advocate useful animal testing and research.

Thank you for your quote from the BMJ. After looking at their online pages I am happy to see that several articles were written rapidly afterwards pointing out the work was to promote clinical studies and not reduce amimal research. The later articles comdemned the phrasing and POV given in the aricle you quote.

Could you show me where that 4th largest killer comment is from. I can't find a source to review it.

At the end of the day I disagree with your view of the world. I'll never expect to convince you.

Mike Ock wrote:

I know you have so much support from the public.

You obviously haven\'t ever tried speaking to anyone in Oxford. We\'re all sick to the back teeth of the lot of you. Well done for Oxford Uni sticking to building the lab and not being intimidated by these nutters - the thousands saved by the crucial research slated to be carried out is a thousand times more important than the demented shouting from crazed vegans. We the citizens of Oxford are behind you 100%.

How deluded and stereotypically sad. It is apparent that this is the post of