channel 4 profit from vivisection through advertising money from vivisection users-johnson and johnson,glaxo,cosmetic companies,BP,Shell,cancer research uk,british heartless foundation etc etc etc.

Are channel 4 going to jeoperidise their advertising money? of course not.

the usually format the caring humanitarian ''scientist'' verses the human hating animal loving animal rights extremist- all the medical people from as far back as 1825 to today(all documented in books by hans ruesch slaughter of the innocent and naked empress;or the great medical fraud) who have been and are against vivisection because its used to get useless or dangerous drugs,envioronmental toxins,agro-chemicals and torturing practises like chemo and radiation passed as ''SAFE'' thus creating new diseases and perpetuating others.A heathly society is a dead drugs industry.

the usually nobel euphemisms will be used in the truth witholding programme, ''RESEARCH'' and ''SCIENCE'' while diesease and illness becomes more eternal and the white coated disease producing con merchants and their PR department the tv,radio,newpaper media laugh on thus opening more disease markets and more ''RESEARCH'' rackets.

Wont comment on the programme until Ive actually seen it but there definetly does seem to be a conflict of interest there with the advertising. I doubt the programmes will name names though and I expect you will find those companies advertising during the programme no matter what side it comes down on. ive noticed that on television animal rights activists have seriuos probles getting there message across. Even if it was as simple solution as just opening the cages and letting everything run free I dont think the movement has the man power. There was aguy on during this thging with the nurseries. He was being interviewed by someone on the channel 4 news. He wouldnt answer the questions he just seemed to talk some pre-prepared crap which although it was quite important he could probably got more of a message out if he went along with the interview. In the end he just came across as an arrogant and aggressive prick the kind of person who alienates many sympathetic persons fro getting involved with animal rights groups.

its interesting to look at the media corporations who claim to be unbaised when referring to vivisection(where they would say animal research).ITV,CHANNEL 4,CHANNEL 5 consistantly have vivisection users advertisers for products like SUNNY DELIGHT,FAIRY LIQUID,IAMS and many others but what about the self proclaiming fair BBC-Sir Christoper Bland chairman is or was chairman of the BBC board of governers and chairman of mult-national LIFE SCIENCES INTERNATIONAL who sold equipment ot vivisection labs(media term-research labs)which included animal isolators, made by the subsiduary company FORMA(which has been subsequentually sold to thermo instruments systems) and Colin Blakemore(vivisector but prefers to be called scientist or researcher) and Sir Walter Bodmer director general of imperial cancer research fund(now called cancer research uk) and hon vice president of the RESEARCH DEFENSE SOCIETY(promotes vivisection) and general BBC general advisory council, both were on the BBC scientific consultative group which disbanded towards the end of 1994.BBC celebs like Poly Toynbee on the advisory group on the xenotransplantation board(animal organs into people) and Esther Ranzen been on the BBC alot throughout the years is a patron for SIMR a drug industry funded pretenced charity and who else Prof I an Kennedy vice president of the RESEARCH DEFENSE SOCIETY(promotes vivisection) and chairman on the advisory group of the xenotransplantation board and formerly on the BBC general advisory council.
Please remember vivisection is a life saving practise and animal rights activists are terrorists they would rather save rats than babies-NOW WHERE DID I GET THAT FROM?

Not a bad effort BUT ( and a big 'BUT' ) there was a lack of representation from the growing numbers of people opposed to vivisection from the scientific community and of recent studies in science.

Example - check this correspondence from New Scientist and the extract from an article by Ray Greek from the ( US ) National Anti-Vivisection Society.

"Come out and talk - 22 October 2005
From New Scientist Print Edition. Adolfo Sansolini London, UK

We agree wholeheartedly with Fiona Fox when she calls for open and honest debate between animal rights protestors and scientists (24 September, p 22). The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection often criticises the government for failing to open a public and unbiased inquiry into the results of animal testing, and for not making any attempt to open the gates of animal testing laboratories to public scrutiny.

However, the animal research community, aided by the UK government, does everything to stifle debate on animal testing by opposing the release of meaningful information about what is done to animals in laboratories, or why it is done to them. They say this is because of fear of violent reprisal but Fox herself says there is no evidence that "speaking out" is the spark for intimidation and attacks.

The Home Office fiercely resists applications from responsible organisations for anonymised information under the Freedom of Information Act. They will only publish very brief summaries of licences, written by the researchers themselves, concealing more than they reveal, and downplaying the suffering involved.

However, in suggesting that such debate only lies between scientists and animal rights "extremists" Fox is out of date. We want an open debate between researchers who use animals and the increasing number of scientists who consider animal experiments as flawed science.

Only three weeks ago, the Financial Times reported on "human micro-dosing", a method that can test "whole body" effects of drugs in humans, bypassing the use of animals. And on 26 September the British Pharmaceutical Conference in Manchester unveiled the microfluidic circuit, a chip containing areas of cells representing different parts of the human body, linked by tiny channels that circulate nutrients between them. It is designed to assess the effects of a potential new drug compound on humans, and gives human-specific data, in contrast to misleading and dangerous animal data that cannot be extrapolated to humans. Surely, it is "new science" like this that New Scientist should be covering.

From Colleen McDuling

Fiona Fox is absolutely correct in saying that scientists should speak out on animal research. The only problem I have with her article is that I am ineligible to participate. According to the article, those taking part in the debate are clearly either animal rights extremists (who oppose animal testing), or scientists (who favour it). What about those of us who are neither? Are they automatically excluded? I happen to be a medical scientist who is opposed to animal research, but I am not an animal rights extremist.

While those scientists who argue for animal experimentation may be lauded by their peers, those who are against it are likely to be persecuted for their stance, if they make their views publicly known. They hide in the background wanting to speak out, but are too afraid to do so. I know full well what it is like to endure this persecution and ridicule. And yet, those of us who are not extremists also have a right to make our voices heard. We are law-abiding, and oppose violence in any form.

There is a powerful scientific, as well as ethical argument, to be made against animal testing. Not only are animals so biologically different from humans such that results from them cannot in any way be extrapolated safely to humans, they are sentient and highly emotional beings with some basic feelings similar to our own. Thus they should be afforded the same respect that we would give to our fellow humans.

I would therefore respectfully ask Fox to acknowledge people such as myself when writing similar articles in the future, lest the general public be left with the notion that all who support animal research must be law-abiding scientists, while all who oppose it are violent extremists

Sevenoaks, Kent, UK
British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection
From issue 2522 of New Scientist magazine, 22 October 2005, page 26"

" I and others (see Brute Science by LaFollette and Shanks Routledge 1996), have said for years that the differences in regulatory genes would far outweigh the similarities in structural genes. Others agree. Again according to New Scientist, "Tim Hubbard, head of genome analysis at the Sanger Institute in Cambridge, UK, is sceptical about the significance of the 2.5 per cent difference. He thinks that the genes might in fact all be identical and that differences between species might arise solely through divergence in the "regulatory regions" which switch other genes on and off." While we will no doubt read many more stories about the similarities between the genome of human and that of other animals, we should keep in mind that these similarities are meaningless without knowledge of how the structural genes are regulated. To conclude that 98 or 99% similarity means the animal will be a good model for studying human disease and drug reaction exposes an ignorance, willful or otherwise, of basic biology. Ray Greek, MD "

So, the bottom line would appear to be funding ( and ego ).How hard is it for these vivsectionists to say when they are wrongwith theirtesting.Very, I imagine. Check the recent scandal with cloning.Nuff said.