Get involved: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting 'OXFORD NEWS' to 80360 or email »
7:51pm Sunday 2nd September 2007
Comments (187) Have your say »
Protesters arrived from across the country and Europe to oppose Oxford University's animal rights laboratory at their latest rally.
An estimated 700 campaigners joined the Speak protest on Saturday with coaches arriving from as far afield as Newcastle and Wales - and some protesters even flying in from Italy and Holland.
The march started in Oxpens Road and went through the city to the animal laboratory in South Parks Road.
Mike Ock, Oxford says...
12:26am Mon 3 Sep 07
I know you have so much support from the public.
Patricia Panitz, Centerville, MA, USA says...
6:35am Mon 3 Sep 07
Mike Ock, Oxford says...
7:03am Mon 3 Sep 07
Kevin, Oxford, UK says...
8:39am Mon 3 Sep 07
helen hart, swansea south wales says...
8:59am Mon 3 Sep 07
h hart, south wales says...
9:04am Mon 3 Sep 07
Mike Ock wrote: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?
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%.
Mike, oxford says...
9:10am Mon 3 Sep 07
helen hart wrote: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.
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.
Helen, Oxford says...
9:22am Mon 3 Sep 07
enough complaints will ensure that this lab will not go aheadThere aren't enough complaints, and never will be because the majority in Oxford and the country are pro testing.
we will never ever back downSo much for democracy. You have minimal support, and yet you will do this forever. Get a life. Or maybe a hamster.
Liz, manchester says...
9:46am Mon 3 Sep 07
Realistic, Oxford says...
10:03am Mon 3 Sep 07
Liz, MCR says...
10:19am Mon 3 Sep 07
Helen, Oxford says...
10:25am Mon 3 Sep 07
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.
Liz, mcr says...
10:30am Mon 3 Sep 07
Tarbatt, says...
10:34am Mon 3 Sep 07
Citizen of Oxford, says...
11:00am Mon 3 Sep 07
Steve, Oxford says...
11:20am Mon 3 Sep 07
Steven, leeds says...
11:42am Mon 3 Sep 07
Roger, Oxford says...
11:43am Mon 3 Sep 07
Helen, Oxford says...
11:43am Mon 3 Sep 07
Helen, Oxford says...
11:45am Mon 3 Sep 07
helen hart, swansea south wales says...
12:14pm Mon 3 Sep 07
Steven wrote:hi steve.
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"!!!!
Chris, Bath says...
12:16pm Mon 3 Sep 07
helen hart, swansea south wales says...
12:21pm Mon 3 Sep 07
Helen wrote: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.
Oh, sorry, there are two Helens. You meant the one who thinks giving her children placards is a good day out.
helen hart, swansea south wales says...
12:32pm Mon 3 Sep 07
Mike wrote:to mike.
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.
Oxford Uni, Oxford says...
12:45pm Mon 3 Sep 07
Roger, Oxford says...
12:46pm Mon 3 Sep 07
If it was useful the major diseases afflicting mankind would have vanished decades ago; the fact that they havent, and have instead escalated, demonstrates that vivisection is futile
Steven, leeds says...
12:50pm Mon 3 Sep 07
Steven, leeds says...
12:58pm Mon 3 Sep 07
Oxford Uni wrote:Who's the hypocrit now??
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
h hart, swansea south wales says...
1:02pm Mon 3 Sep 07
Oxford Uni wrote: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 .
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
Liz, MCR says...
1:07pm Mon 3 Sep 07
Roger wrote: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.
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\".
C, says...
1:15pm Mon 3 Sep 07
Citizen of Oxford wrote: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.
I agree with Mick Ock. So he speaks for at least two of us.
Oxford Uni, Oxford says...
1:32pm Mon 3 Sep 07
Roger, Oxford says...
1:34pm Mon 3 Sep 07
No-one should stereotype anti-vivisectionists
F, Oxford says...
1:41pm Mon 3 Sep 07
Piglet, Didcot says...
1:47pm Mon 3 Sep 07
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 ..You sound like a pervert
That smile she gave me .. i will always remember :) ...
Steven ...
Steven, Leeds says...
2:20pm Mon 3 Sep 07
liz, mcr says...
2:28pm Mon 3 Sep 07
Roger wrote: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.
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-vivisectionistsAnd yet you\'re obviously quite happy to stereotype those who support vivisection as a viable and valid method of research.
h hart, swansea south wales says...
2:42pm Mon 3 Sep 07
Steven wrote: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.
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!! )
h hart, swansea south wales says...
3:05pm Mon 3 Sep 07
Oxford Uni wrote:what makes you think that i am with alf.
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.
Chris, Oxford says...
3:12pm Mon 3 Sep 07
h ahrt, swansea south wales says...
3:34pm Mon 3 Sep 07
Billy (no mates), Mid Glamorgan says...
3:44pm Mon 3 Sep 07
Bella, Abingdon says...
3:46pm Mon 3 Sep 07
Bella, Abingdon says...
3:49pm Mon 3 Sep 07
Billy (no mates) wrote:Thanks Billy i forgot to mention the bizzare sentences.
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
h hart, swansea south wales says...
3:51pm Mon 3 Sep 07
h hart, swansea south wales says...
3:53pm Mon 3 Sep 07
Bella wrote:thank you for your advice.
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. BillThanks 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.
Liz, MCR says...
3:57pm Mon 3 Sep 07
Francis Giles, Berkshire says...
4:00pm Mon 3 Sep 07
amanda, yorkshire says...
4:08pm Mon 3 Sep 07
Bella, Abingdon says...
4:09pm Mon 3 Sep 07
Bella, Abingdon says...
4:11pm Mon 3 Sep 07
Steve, Botley says...
4:12pm Mon 3 Sep 07
C, says...
4:21pm Mon 3 Sep 07
Bella wrote: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.
Hmmmmm anyone else think the sudden increase of people on Helen's side is a bit suspicious..........
Liz, mcr says...
4:29pm Mon 3 Sep 07
Bella wrote:Not really, i dont have a clue who Helen is! all i know is that im on her side!
Hmmmmm anyone else think the sudden increase of people on Helen's side is a bit suspicious..........
Francis Giles, Berkshire says...
4:31pm Mon 3 Sep 07
Liz, mcr says...
4:32pm Mon 3 Sep 07
C wrote: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??
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.
Liz, mcr says...
4:34pm Mon 3 Sep 07
Steve wrote:WE'RE being lied to??????????????????
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.
h hart, swansea south wales says...
4:37pm Mon 3 Sep 07
Bella wrote:Hello BELLA.
Helen Hart it would be nice if you would respond to my above post....
Chris, Bath says...
4:41pm Mon 3 Sep 07
h hart, swansea south wales says...
4:50pm Mon 3 Sep 07
Bella wrote:I would not say suspicious.
Hmmmmm anyone else think the sudden increase of people on Helen's side is a bit suspicious..........
Steve, Botley says...
4:57pm Mon 3 Sep 07
Steve, Botley says...
4:59pm Mon 3 Sep 07
Liz, mcr says...
5:04pm Mon 3 Sep 07
Steve wrote: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.
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.
Steve, Botley says...
5:36pm Mon 3 Sep 07
Sam, Doesn't matter says...
5:49pm Mon 3 Sep 07
Amanda, Oxford says...
5:49pm Mon 3 Sep 07
Kit, Oxford says...
6:41pm Mon 3 Sep 07
Sam wrote: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 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.
James Crump, London says...
8:06pm Mon 3 Sep 07
Adrian Appley, Bromley, Kent. says...
8:51pm Mon 3 Sep 07
Steve, Botley says...
8:59pm Mon 3 Sep 07
Gary l. Francione, USA says...
9:54pm Mon 3 Sep 07
Dr D Mathews, London says...
10:25pm Mon 3 Sep 07
Karin Hilpisch, Germany says...
10:53pm Mon 3 Sep 07
Roger, Oxford says...
11:55pm Mon 3 Sep 07
I am an anti-vivisectionist and we do not have to resort to violence or name calling.
"you as a pro-vivisectionist have a sick mind"
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?
Karen, London says...
12:53am Tue 4 Sep 07
Karen, London says...
1:11am Tue 4 Sep 07
Liz, mcr says...
9:24am Tue 4 Sep 07
Steve wrote: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.
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!
Liz, mcr says...
9:32am Tue 4 Sep 07
Roger wrote: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?
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.
Mia, London says...
11:05am Tue 4 Sep 07
Liz, mcr says...
11:18am Tue 4 Sep 07
Mia wrote:Brilliant!
Its 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 dont you stand up and volunteer yourself to be tested on?? Come on, its 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, Alzheimers (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 youre 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 youre just all mouth?
Bella, Abingdon says...
12:10pm Tue 4 Sep 07
Bella wrote:Helen Hart - please see message above.
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.
Steve, Botley says...
12:21pm Tue 4 Sep 07
Liz, mcr says...
12:30pm Tue 4 Sep 07
Bella wrote: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/
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.
C, says...
12:35pm Tue 4 Sep 07
Where are the volunteers? Steve, Botley - Bella, Abingdon - Roger, Oxford and others. Are you going to be cowards or youre going to show us how important a proper, worthwhile vivisection/research really is to you? Well .? NO?
George, Surrey says...
12:48pm Tue 4 Sep 07
Mike Ock wrote: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....
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.
George, Surrey says...
1:01pm Tue 4 Sep 07
Liz wrote: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.
Roger wrote: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?
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.
Mia, London says...
1:09pm Tue 4 Sep 07
Steve wrote: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
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.
The Truth, Oxford says...
1:10pm Tue 4 Sep 07
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!
Anita Young, Ipswich Suffolk says...
1:15pm Tue 4 Sep 07
Bella, Abingdon says...
1:20pm Tue 4 Sep 07
Liz wrote:Liz
Bella wrote: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/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.
Mia, London says...
1:34pm Tue 4 Sep 07
Kit, Oxford says...
1:38pm Tue 4 Sep 07
Roger, Oxford says...
1:40pm Tue 4 Sep 07
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
Roger, Oxford says...
1:47pm Tue 4 Sep 07
the best way to help humans is to test on humans
Bella, Abingdon says...
1:51pm Tue 4 Sep 07
Kit wrote:Thanks Kit that's excellent!
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!
liz, mcr says...
2:15pm Tue 4 Sep 07
Bella wrote: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.
Liz wrote: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 againBella wrote: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/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.
Liz, mcr says...
2:18pm Tue 4 Sep 07
Bella wrote: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.
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!
Mia, London says...
2:21pm Tue 4 Sep 07
liz, mcr says...
2:23pm Tue 4 Sep 07
The Truth wrote: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??
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.
Roger, Oxford says...
2:57pm Tue 4 Sep 07
liz, mcr says...
3:51pm Tue 4 Sep 07
Roger wrote: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.
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?
Mia, says...
3:52pm Tue 4 Sep 07
Bella, Abingdon says...
4:07pm Tue 4 Sep 07
Chris, Bath says...
4:08pm Tue 4 Sep 07
liz, mcr says...
4:14pm Tue 4 Sep 07
Bella wrote: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.
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)
liz, mcr says...
4:18pm Tue 4 Sep 07
Steve, Botley says...
4:20pm Tue 4 Sep 07
liz, mcr says...
4:27pm Tue 4 Sep 07
Steve wrote: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.
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.
George, Surrey says...
4:44pm Tue 4 Sep 07
liz wrote: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.
The Truth wrote: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??
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.
Steve, Botley says...
4:47pm Tue 4 Sep 07
liz, mcr says...
4:51pm Tue 4 Sep 07
Steve wrote: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?
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, Botley says...
4:54pm Tue 4 Sep 07
George, Surrey says...
4:56pm Tue 4 Sep 07
Roger wrote: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.
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\".
George, Surrey says...
5:00pm Tue 4 Sep 07
George wrote: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.
Roger wrote: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.
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\".
Mia, London says...
5:13pm Tue 4 Sep 07
Kit, Oxford says...
5:19pm Tue 4 Sep 07
George, Surrey says...
5:33pm Tue 4 Sep 07
Steve wrote: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.
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
George, Surrey says...
5:43pm Tue 4 Sep 07
liz wrote: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.
The Truth wrote: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??
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.
Roger, Oxford says...
6:02pm Tue 4 Sep 07
Not enough money is being given to develop the non-animal methods
Steve, Botley says...
6:04pm Tue 4 Sep 07
Tom, Oxford says...
9:09pm Tue 4 Sep 07
Karen, London says...
9:42pm Tue 4 Sep 07
Carl, London says...
10:46am Wed 5 Sep 07
Carl, London says...
10:49am Wed 5 Sep 07
Carl, London says...
10:51am Wed 5 Sep 07
Steve, Botley says...
11:19am Wed 5 Sep 07
Carl, London says...
11:40am Wed 5 Sep 07
Steve, Botley says...
11:51am Wed 5 Sep 07
Kit, Oxford says...
12:00pm Wed 5 Sep 07
liz, mcr says...
12:02pm Wed 5 Sep 07
Roger wrote: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.
Not enough money is being given to develop the non-animal methodsThank 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.
liz, mcr says...
12:04pm Wed 5 Sep 07
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?
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.
liz, mcr says...
12:14pm Wed 5 Sep 07
Kit wrote: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.
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, Oxford says...
12:21pm Wed 5 Sep 07
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, mcr says...
12:50pm Wed 5 Sep 07
Kit wrote: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.
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.
Lynne Shepherd, says...
3:18pm Wed 5 Sep 07
Peter, Botley Oxford says...
3:57pm Wed 5 Sep 07
Carl, London says...
4:15pm Wed 5 Sep 07
liz, mcr says...
4:17pm Wed 5 Sep 07
Peter wrote: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?
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.
John, London says...
4:35pm Wed 5 Sep 07
Carl, says...
4:55pm Wed 5 Sep 07
liz, mcr says...
4:57pm Wed 5 Sep 07
Peter wrote:so, what are you doing to help your fellow humans? have you got many campaigns going on at present?
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.
Steve, Botley says...
5:27pm Wed 5 Sep 07
Carl wrote: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.
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 dont 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 youre one of those people who take a pain reliever as soon as the headache starts. Of course, you have to support animal testing, because theres a chance that without it you may be in pain, gosh that would be so terrible.
Steve, Botley says...
5:37pm Wed 5 Sep 07
Carl, London says...
6:00pm Wed 5 Sep 07
Steve wrote:Yes, You would say that. Good for you, of course
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.
Paul, says...
9:41pm Wed 5 Sep 07
Mia, London says...
11:25am Thu 6 Sep 07
Mia, London says...
11:43am Thu 6 Sep 07
Bella, Abingdon says...
2:07pm Thu 6 Sep 07
Simon, London says...
3:02pm Thu 6 Sep 07
Roger wrote: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!
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\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\".
George, Surrey says...
6:08pm Thu 6 Sep 07
Steve wrote: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?
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.
George, Surrey says...
6:11pm Thu 6 Sep 07
Simon wrote: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.
Roger wrote: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!
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\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\".
George, Surrey says...
7:08pm Thu 6 Sep 07
Steve wrote: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!
Carl wrote: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.
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 dont 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 youre one of those people who take a pain reliever as soon as the headache starts. Of course, you have to support animal testing, because theres a chance that without it you may be in pain, gosh that would be so terrible.
George, Surrey says...
7:15pm Thu 6 Sep 07
liz wrote: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.
Peter wrote:so, what are you doing to help your fellow humans? have you got many campaigns going on at present?
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.
George, Surrey says...
7:20pm Thu 6 Sep 07
Mia, London says...
9:17pm Thu 6 Sep 07
George wrote: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!
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.
Paul, says...
9:56pm Thu 6 Sep 07
Mia wrote: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 fact is, we will never find a cure for eg Alzheimers, Parkinsons or other illnesses by testing on animals. First of all, animals dont suffer from these illnesses!!
So it is against nature and it doesnt 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 doesnt 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 wont 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 dont 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 didnt work on dogs.
If we had relied on animal tests we would still believe that humans dont need vitamin C, that smoking doesnt cause cause cancer and alcohol doesnt cause liver damage.
It was denied for decades that asbestos caused disease in humans because it didnt 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.\"
liz, mcr says...
8:49am Fri 7 Sep 07
Bella wrote: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.
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
Mia, London says...
10:03am Fri 7 Sep 07
frumbie, oxon says...
5:12pm Fri 7 Sep 07
George, Surrey says...
7:00pm Fri 7 Sep 07
frumbie wrote: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 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.
alan q, says...
2:33pm Sun 9 Sep 07
Monika, says...
5:25pm Sun 9 Sep 07
alan q wrote:Not a surprising behavior from a person that can't even spell - Ecstasy - your dog probably can
i test my ecsatcy tablets on my dog 1st, to check that they are ok for me. he loves it.
frumbie, oxon says...
5:58pm Sun 9 Sep 07
alan q wrote:I read somewhere that a secondary effect of ecstacy is losing the ability to spell. The opposite effect on dogs, amazingly.
i test my ecsatcy tablets on my dog 1st, to check that they are ok for me.
he loves it.
Steven McLean, Leeds says...
10:23am Tue 11 Sep 07
amanda wrote:Well said amanda ..
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.
Gemma Nichols, UK says...
10:51am Wed 12 Sep 07
Joanna, GB says...
10:11am Fri 14 Sep 07
beth, southampton says...
2:20pm Wed 19 Sep 07
George, Surrey says...
7:19pm Wed 19 Sep 07
frumbie wrote: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.
alan q wrote:I read somewhere that a secondary effect of ecstacy is losing the ability to spell. The opposite effect on dogs, amazingly.
i test my ecsatcy tablets on my dog 1st, to check that they are ok for me.
he loves it.
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!
George, Surrey says...
7:22pm Wed 19 Sep 07
Steven McLean wrote:She's right. I will NOT stop fighting until the day I die. None of us will.
amanda wrote:Well said amanda ..
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.
Steven ...
marlene thompson, Nottingham UK says...
10:09am Thu 20 Sep 07
Steve, Botley says...
10:32pm Thu 20 Sep 07
Gemma Nichols, UK says...
11:09am Fri 21 Sep 07
Monika, London says...
5:30pm Fri 21 Sep 07
Monika, London says...
5:47pm Fri 21 Sep 07
"BUT animal reasurch has in the past and is continuing to do a vital job keeping people like you and me alive."
Steve, Botley says...
6:10pm Fri 21 Sep 07
Steve, Botley says...
6:45pm Fri 21 Sep 07
Rachel, says...
8:39pm Fri 21 Sep 07
Mike Ock wrote:How deluded and stereotypically sad. It is apparent that this is the post of
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%.
Karen, London says...
11:46pm Sun 2 Sep 07
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.