A snippet of history of the phony fake "anti vivisectionist" Gill Langley:

Supported,while at the BUAV,the proposed Halsbury Bill which was initiated by Lord Halsbury-an RDS member--the bill was blantantly a vivisectionist bill;and Gilly Langley supported it as "scientific advisor":after all who would know more about vivisection than a vivisector like Gilly Langley.

The Dr Hadwen Trust,how long have you been going? Weren't you around in the early 80s?
Your organisation hasn't lessened vivisection one bit.

Dr Hadwen never believed in "alternatives" he only believed in ABOLITION;and his prestigious name has and is been used to con AVs into giving money into this ALTERNATIVE FRAUD FUND.All "alternatives" have to be "validated" by vivisection as the psuedo scientific establishment won't accept a research method which isn't:which not only means the sustaining myth that vivisection is "scientific" but also means an increase in the practice of vivisection.

Please ladies and gents,take a look at the quotes of this Gill Langley,who never fails throughout history to esteem vivisection as "scientific" and developing "breakthroughs";she even esteemed the "work" of psuedo scientist Colin Blakemore,who sewed the eyes shut of kittens and primates,as "having clinical value" while ofcourse,to maintain the anti vivisectionist pretence,objecting to vivisection on "ethical grounds".

Thanks for the reminder Tim.

The BAVA website has some interesting things to say about her if anyone is not aware.

The comment posted by ‘Tim’ contains inaccurate and libellous information about Dr Langley of the Dr Hadwen Trust, which warrants correction.

Dr Langley is not and has never been a ‘vivisector’ as claimed. She has never held a licence to perform animal experiments and she has never been an employee of or otherwise associated with Ceiba Geigy (a company which in any case no longer exists.) Dr Langley is a vegan and became an anti-vivisectionist during the 1970s. She has worked tirelessly for anti-vivisection organisations since that time and is dedicated to the abolition of animal experimentation without exception. Contrary to the writer's assertion, Dr Langley has been a severe and outspoken critic of the shortcomings of the 1986 Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act (the legislation that followed the 'Lord Halsbury Bill') and indeed a prominent critic of the eye research of Colin Blakemore that was referred to.

The Dr Hadwen Trust has been in existence for 36 years. During this time the number of animal experiments in the UK has almost halved -- a reduction of over 2.5 million. Replacements to animal experiments are acknowledged by all sides of the debate as being the main reason for this reduction. The Dr Hadwen Trust has played an enormously significant role, being at the forefront of funding and promoting non-animal research techniques with great success. Our work will not be done until we see all animal experiments replaced.

Contrary to the writer's understanding, the concept of 'alternatives' to animal experiments was first developed in the 1950’s, 20 years after Dr Hadwen's death, rendering it rather difficult for Dr Hadwen to have had the opportunity to pass a comment upon them. In any case, the Dr Hadwen Trust only funds complete replacement, non-animal methods of research (not refinement procedures) because they are ethical, effective and relevant to the study of human illness, thus reducing not increasing the 'practice of vivisection'.
We are all in favour of free speech and naturally everyone is entitled to their point of view, but posting inaccurate hearsay is not productive.

Terry Huxtable
CEO, Dr Hadwen Trust

Try the NC3Rs website and even Wikipedia as well as the BAVA website to get an overall view. It’s not personal, I would not claim to know much (or care much) about the person in question. But I would feel the need to question the credibility of anyone (whoever they are) listed as being involved (in whatever way) with any initiative set up by David Sainsbury: an enthusiast for vivisection who received a title and a ministerial job after donating large sums of money to the Labour party. If we read about such antics going on in any other country where other useless people make themselves useful with their money, we might shout ‘corruption!’

CIVIS Bulletin Nr 2, New Year 1988 (Part Three)





Meanwhile, Gill was riding for a fall. Even as she was propagandizing the need for vivisection and rejecting all allegations that she was an infiltrator, the shining fortress of humaneness she had built around herself came unstuck. A vegan, Mr Alfred Bunting of Uxbridge, while investigating how come a Dr Christopher Langley had ever managed to escalate into the directorship of the Vegan Society of Great Britain, made a startling discovery, concerning not only this Christopher Langley, but also his wife, Gill: both Chris and Gill were trained vivisectors - and Christopher Langley was an employee of Ciba-Geigy to boot! This Swiss multinational had conducted a covert, intense smear propaganda against Hans Ruesch's works in Switzerland. This gave at last a logical explanation to Gill Langley's persistent defamation of Hans Ruesch in the anti-vivisectionist press.



Following is an abstract of a letter Mr A Bunting addressed to Mark Souster of the Sunday Mirror on May 10, 1987, explaining the Langley case:



"Thank you for your article today, publicising the fiendish cruelty of Professor Colin Blakemore of Oxford University. But I am surprised to see your mention that 'Dr Gill Langley' pontificated on "clinical value", as though she were a physician. She isn't.



"'Dr Gill' had no medical training whatsoever. She is Mrs Gillian Rose Langley, nee Dymond, of 46 King's Road, Hitchin. She got her PhD for experimenting on cockroaches. After getting her PhD she worked for about a year at Nottingham University, experimenting on rabbits. Though no expert on "clinical value", she certainly knows about cruelty in laboratories. As an apparently lucrative sideline Mrs Langley is the boss and sole paid employee of the Dr Hadwen (begging) Trust for Humane Research. Its leaflets ask for money to be sent to her home, though she is not the treasurer.



"Although ostensibly opposed to vivisection, Mrs Langley's writings put in plugs for the alleged benefits of vivisection. And she never mentions her husband's estimated £35,000 per year Ciba-Geigy bloodmoney. Ciba-Geigy is one of the largest multinational vivisection-based pharmaceutical manufacturers. Its nerve centre is the CIBA FOUNDATION FOR THE PROMOTION OF INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION IN MEDICAL AND CHEMICAL RESEARCH, 41 Portland Place, London W1. Senior Physiologist there is Mr Christopher Kenneth Langley PhD, 'Dr Gill's' husband. Like his wife he has no medical qualification. Without revealing his full true name or his Ciba job, 'Dr Chris Langley' became director of the formerly humanitarian Vegan Society Ltd. In his first 2 years as director the Society lost £ 75,959."



But don't stop reading yet, folks. The Langley story, like Caesar's wife, gets more exciting as the night grows older.



When the information unearthed and disseminated by Mr Bunting started causing considerable ripples in vegan circles, the Langleys resorted to a trick they must have learned from the confidential vade mecum of the Swiss multinationals, revealed by the "Group of Berne", a respectable, watchdog Swiss organisation made up of concerned businessmen: to discredit Mr Bunting and undermine his credibility, they started disseminating faked letters that Mr Bunting was supposed to have written, counterfeiting his signature. This was a trick the multinationals employed in Switzerland against us, too, at the time of the Franz-Weber-Initiative. Mr Bunting refused to be intimidated or disconcerted, and saw to it that in October 1986 Christopher Langley was served with a writ that said among other things:



"You falsely and maliciously wrote and published to various persons including Society members defamatory matter concerning me including a faked letter to 'Dear Glad' purporting to be written by me that you pretended I had sent you; you falsely passed off the said faked letters as being my writing."



But meanwhile his wife, Gill, had already broken down in a desperate attempt to restore her damaged image in the eyes of the naive who had not yet abandoned AA or cancelled any legacies to her private Hadwen Trust in their wills. In an amazing circular, reeking with sanctimoniousness and soggy from crocodile tears, entitled GILL LANGLEY'S POSITION STATEMENT ON THE McCANN/RUESCH ACCUSATIONS, she tried to justify her past as a vivisector with the following confession:

(BELOW:GILL LANGLEY THE ANIMAL "LOVER" CONFESSES)

"Tommy McCann accuses me of having been a vivisector. These are the facts: At university as an undergraduate (1971-74) I took part in physiology(read: vivisection) practical classes where decerebrate rabbits were used to demonstrate known medical facts. I intensely disliked these classes... These experiments were not legally defined as vivisection and did not appear in the annual statistics. They are standard practice for physiology students...I spent nearly 4 years doing a PhD (1971-74) in which I studied the nervous system of cockroaches. I dissected many hundreds in research which I gradually came to feel was morally unjustified. In 1977 I became an anti-vivisectionist, persuaded by the ethical arguments... In 1979 I could carry on no longer with work which contradicted my principles..."



So it took this good lady, who already in 1971 "intensely disliked" what she had been doing with decerebrate rabbits, all of 6 years of uninterrupted laboratory activity to "become an antivivisectionist," and then it took her another two years of more of all that sadistic idiocy to make her decide that she "could carry on no longer" with that sort of work!

(BELOW:EXPLANATION OF HOW STATISTICS ON VIVISECTION ARE MINIMISED THROUGH REDEFINITION)

This document further confirms that surely a good number of cruel experiments take place without anybody ever learning about them because they are "not legally defined as vivisection," and thus neither require a licence nor do they figure in the statistics - one more "legal" trick designed to circumvent the law. There is no limit to the inventiveness of vivisectors and their accomplices in the Home Office.



Another interesting point in the circular is that Gill Langley once more demonstrates that she toes the Syndicate's line by objecting to vivisection solely on "ethical" grounds, as if those obscenities involving animals had the slightest medical value, which she once more seems to take for granted. And she tactfully refrains from ever mentioning the CIBA-GEIGY connection of her devoted husband, Chris, during all the years of anguish she allegedly underwent on witnessing the suffering she had to inflict to her victims.



Anyway, Gill Langley will hardly last very long as the spiritual head of AA. An infiltrator, once unmasked, becomes useless to the Syndicate. Mark Gold, who figures as Editor of AA's organ, Outrage, once wrote to a South-African correspondent: "If ever I should discover that AA is infiltrated, I would resign." He discovered it a year ago - unless he knew it all along - and his correspondents are still waiting for his resignation.



However, the real wire-puller at AA is neither Langley nor Gold but one John Bryant, who prefers to remain unobserved and figures only in small print as one of the various Council members, after he managed to get rid of all the honest animal welfarists like Jean Fawcett and her husband, who were once in charge of AA's Ipswich branch.



To whom John Bryant has, in turn, to report, we have not been able to find out. It is obviously someone much higher up than a modest employee of a bungling animal welfare society.





THE LANGLEY MANAGEMENT



Now what is the Langley couple's real motive? Well-meaning, naive animal welfarists assume it is just a matter of ordinary greed, a successful fee-grabbing operation by unscrupulous pseudo-scientists who found it convenient to palm themselves off as animal loving veganists in order to escalate into the lucrative, easy directorship of "humane" societies. Mr Bunting, an honest gentleman, held this view as he investigated the odd couple.



However, long familiarity with the trickeries of the Che-Me-Vi Kombinat, described in Naked Empress, suggested a far more sinister motive, also because a man who is in the employ of Ciba-Geigy, like Chris Langley, would hardly need to supplement his salary by creeping into the directorship of some humane society. So what is the answer?



In Great Britain every active A V must also be a vegetarian, and even a vegan, to retain his credibility in the movement. So whoever controls the Vegan Society of Great Britain can also influence its most dedicated A Vs, and try discouraging and paralyzing them with the kind of misinformation that Gill Langley and Richard Ryder and Angela Walder et al, keep spreading, like "all animal experiments can't be renounced, but if you want to fight vivisection, just keep away from cosmetics and give us money to find alternatives".



But the Langleys play a far more sinister role than to try influencing the waning membership of AA, since both have succeeded in escalating also into the management of the Nature Cure Clinic, Ltd, which was founded in 1928 as "a non profit-making organisation under medical supervision for the promotion of health by natural means." An example shall typify the situation.



In the 1950s, a lady of our acquaintance had been completely cured of a serious liver ailment within two months in the Nature Cure Clinic of London, without any drugs, after her doctor had been unable to cure her with drugs.



Some 30 years later, this lady's daughter was suffering from severe stomach pains, but being pregnant she was afraid of taking the drugs her doctor had prescribed. So on her mother's advice she called the Nature Cure Clinic for an appointment. After stating her case what she got from the other end of the line was not an appointment but a scolding: she was told, by a doctor who didn't even visit her, that it was very dangerous to attempt curing serious ailments with natural remedies - and she should take the drugs her doctor had prescribed!



It seems clear that by now Big Brother has taken over also establishments like the formerly prestigious Nature Cure Clinic, which He directs from the shadows through stooges like the Langleys, who must make sure that the morons' religious faith in the miraculous power of the lucrative chemical poisons shall not die.

For years the former vivisector, Dr Gill Langley, has been running the once AV society Animal Aid, squeezing money out of its members by assuring them that only by contributing generously to her Alternative Fraud Fund could they hope to see vivisection disappear "eventually", as for the time being it was still "saving their children's lives."



Meanwhile Gill and her accomplice, John Bryant, Chairman of Animal Aid, were carefully concealing from their members and the public all the existing evidence that thousands of MDs were disgusted with the fraud of vivisection and were demanding its total abolition by law.



Even more talented in deceiving the usually gullible British "animal lovers" is Gill's husband, Dr Christopher K. Langley. Concealing his past as a vivisector, his current employ at ClBA GEIGY, and by foisting himself off as an animal loving vegan, he managed in a short time and with pull from above, to escalate to the presidency of the Vegan Society of Great Britain.



Last August we learned that this Christopher Langley and his wife Gill had one or two more things to hide about themselves: that he had been for some years a member of the Medical Research Council, (which is practically vivisection itself), and that Gill Langley had turned AV money from the Hadwen Trust that she was running, over to the MRC! Thereupon we asked Mr Henry Turtle to make inquiries in London, the den of the Research Defence Society and the British Vivisection Syndicate. Having failed to obtain any answer from Chistopher Langley, Mr Turtle wrote to Gill Langley, on December 14, 1988:



"Dear Dr Gill Langley, as it is believed that your husband, Dr Christopher K. Langley, was once an employee of the Medical Research Council, I wrote in letters dated 14 August, 8 and 20 November 1988 to ask him whether he could confirm this (or not as the case might be) and, if so, when. It is thought that he was with the MRC from 1979 - 82, EMPLOYED IN PROCESSING GRANTS TO VIVISECTORS. As after three enquiries I have still received no response from your husband I find his silence surprising as the MRC is a prestigious body and you will appreciate that I feel obliged to turn to you for an answer. As I am a member of the SSPV one of whose stated aims is the abolition of vivisection and which has links with you as a member of CRAE and your Dr Hadwen Trust which made a donation of £1000 of anti-vivisectionists' money to the MRC, I feel I am entitled to know whether your husband was once employed by the MRC. I would be obliged for a prompt response from you to my enquiry. Yours sincerely, Henry Turtle."

Although Mr Turtle's earlier questions posed to Dr Christopher L. had been ignored for months, this latest letter, addressed to his wife on December 14 and containing precise allegations, elicited from her an immediate, worried response, dated Jan. 17:



"Dear Mr Turtle, with reference to your letter of 14th December 1988, you are not entitled on the grounds you proposed nor, indeed, on any grounds I can think of, to know what my husband did between 1979 and 1982. I should warn you that, if you publish any information contained in material which was stolen from our house in December 1987 by ******* certain questions concerning the legality of your action would have to be investigated. Yours sincerely, Gill Langley (Dr)."

This response tells volumes. Mainly, that the intelligence received by CIVIS was once again correct. Not at all correct was Gill's inference that we received it from ******. Langley and her accomplices within the British leagues had repeatedly claimed that ****** had not found any compromising documents at all when he raided Gill's office at the end of 1988. Contradicting herself, Gill now reveals that embarrassing documents were indeed found. So embarrassing as to try to prevent their publication by using threats.



We openly disavowed ****** and his alleged raid at the time, being convinced that he was an "agent provocateur" placed by the British leagues, when we saw the unanimity with which all of them hastened to blame the incident on the "evil influence" of CIVIS.



We changed our mind about ****** only recently, when we saw a Ietter of thanks Jean Pink had sent him at the time she was still genuine - when we ourselves spent considerable means and energies boosting her newly founded AA, (with our two marches on Cambridge and Oxford Universities and thousands of circulars), helping AA to become the fastest growing AV society ever. That was in 1979/80 - just before Gill Langley moved into AA with her accomplices, and took over.



If we had been apprised of Dr Chris Langley's former involvement with the MRC by ******, following his alleged 1987 raid, as the Langleys evidently suspect, we wouldn't have waited all this time to publicize this very hot bit of news.



The fortunate truth is that while on one hand Britain's official AV organization owes allegiance to the Vivisection Syndicate, on the other CIVIS has a mole of its own within the Home Office, where the thriving fraud of vivisection has its roots. And also in other high places in Britain and abroad.

It always saddens me when animal liberationist organisations start fighting amongst themselves. As if we did not have enough on our plates countering the lies and propaganda of vivisectors.

So what if the Langley's have no medical qualifications? Do MB, ChBs have the monopoly on biological knowledge? If the Langleys have doctorates, they are entitled to be called "Dr". More so than vets and dentists who have started self-aggrandising themselves with the title.

And again so what if they have been vivisectors in the past? Surely anyone is capable of changing their behaviour and misakes by young people who are easily influenced by their peers are the norm. You need to realise that indoctrination of biology students into vivisection is very strong. Ray Greek is another tireless advocate of the anti-vivisectionist cause, and he admits he cut up animals as a medical student. As a biologist myself, it took me a long time before I learned to think for myself, and let my head tell me what my heart knew all along; that vivisection is simply wrong.

I remember in my undergraduate year being asked to cut off the end of a crab's leg to extract the haemolymph. I was not comfortable with this but did it anyway, as did all my peers. Later we were invited to give anonymous feedback on the class, and I must have not been the only student to complain because the lecturer told us he would modify the experiment next year by anaesthetising the crab first.

Exposing people who have,and continue,to internally sabotage the AV movement is not what can be accurately be called "infighting".Look ,and read,the history of this women and her husband;and the proposed Lord Halsbury bill she promoted,while at the BUAV, under the hypocrisy of "animal welfare".

She was also quoted in the Sunday Mirror as ,in refrence to psuedo scientists Blakemore's "work",as "having clinical value".

Call this a "conspiracy theory".

It is always amazing to see that some supposed anti-vivisectionists - after all that has happened over the past 20 plus years - still play the 'infighting' card any time criticism is made of the actions of others SUPPOSEDLY fighting vivisection.

Langley is an ex vivisector.

Her husband works/did work for Ciba Geigy.

She has NEVER lifted a finger to denounce vivisection as the fraud that it is: witness the estimated 300,000 deaths due to animal 'safety-tested' drugs each year. This fact alone should see vivisection consigned to the history books, which is why Langley and her begging trust - the old 'alternatives' racket (there are NO alternatives to vivisection, other than total abolition) - never mentions this 'small' fact. To admit that vivisection is 100% useless would make the existence of her begging trust meaningless.

Remember that by supporting any organisation purportedly finding 'alternatives' to vivisection you are actually keeping the practice alive. BUAV and NAVS both support finding 'alternatives'. Animal Aid has its own version: the Humane Research Donor card, another con.

The BUAV - always with Langley behind the scenes of it - is thoroughly infiltrated: witness their constant and pointless campaigns against cosmetics.

Still, the billion pound pharmaceutical drugs industry has nothing to worry about here - half the AV 'movement' supports the infiltrators, whilst most of the other half simply don't understand the issue - they quaintly believe that vivisection will end on the grounds that it violates the rights of animals!

Essential reading: Slaughter of the Innocent by Hans Ruesch, and Naked Empres by the same author. See the BAVA website for details of these, and the two essential CIVIS Bulletins free to read online, as well as the majority of the CIVIS Foundation reports - see how our supposed AV societies keep vivisection alive. Read this important stuff whilst you still can.

Incidentally, yes, ex vivisectors can become ardent anti-vivisectionists, as did Prof Pietro Croce, author of Vivisection or Science. Such people can however in no way be compared to phonies like Langley, who have slyly plugged vivisection for 20 years or more.

PS Thanks Tim for your posting of the CIVIS stuff here.

Chris

PS In reply to Terry Huxtable, who states that: "Contrary to the writer's understanding, the concept of 'alternatives' to animal experiments was first developed in the 1950’s, 20 years after Dr Hadwen's death, rendering it rather difficult for Dr Hadwen to have had the opportunity to pass a comment upon them."

This is incorrect. Dr Hadwen, as president of the once glorious BUAV (before it was taken over by infiltrators and careerists following his death) was strictly opposed to what we now called 'alternatives', but which then went under different names:

"Now we are expected, by endeavoring to discover new lines of treatment, or by advertising and supporting lines of treatment discovered by others, to compete with these fanatical followers of a faIse and pernicious creed. We wish to insist that we are not concerned...with the thousand and one remedies for the thousand and one ailments of the human race. It is not our job. We are out to smash the whole vile system of those pseudo-scientific debauchees who uselessly torment living animals under the absurd idea of finding remedies for the diseases of human beings." - Dr W Hadwen, THE ABOLITIONIST, October 1, 1925

Imagine Langley or anyone else from the BUAV speaking like this today!

The BAVA site has a few articles by Dr Hadwen, but for further info please contact the following:

The Dr. Hadwen Anti-Vivisection Memorial Unit, established to promote or reassert the anti-vivisection views of Dr. Walter Robert Hadwen that may have been neglected or suppressed or misrepresented or plagiarised. It is entirely voluntary and we are unsalaried in this work. Any money donated to it is most welcome and goes directly into the production of information on vivisection or animal experimentation and the forces that sustain the practice that we believe could contribute to its abolition by law. Cheques and postal orders should be made out to "H.A.V.M.U." Thank you for your support.



DR. HADWEN ANTI-VIVISECTION MEMORIAL UNIT 25 Bexhill Road London SW14 7NF

Whilst the word “alternative” does imply vivisection is a credible scientific option, not to have a group working within the system to limit the deaths of the individuals in the lab, is surely abandoning the animals being killed.

We should put forward the case for an end to animal testing on scientific grounds but until we get a ban we must limit the number of tests. One way to do this is to find so-called “alternatives”.

ALTERNATIVE METHODS - TO WHAT? by Prof Pietro Croce (Author Of :Vivisection Or Science:A Choice To Make)



Are there methods that offer an alternative to vivisection or animal experimentation? Certainly not! Then why this book? And why the public outcry against the vivisectors? And the refusal, by a growing number of students and researchers, to carry out animal experiments? And the indictments and court sentences against the researchers?*



This argument, like all intellectual forms of expression, requires a semantic premise. The precise reason why we say that there is no 'alternative' to vivisection is that a method which aims at replacing another should have the same characteristics. But it would be difficult to find, in the field of biomedical research, anything equally bogus, deceitful and misleading as vivisection has been in the past and continues to be in the present. That's why the methods proposed to biomedical research should be called 'scientific methods' and not 'alternative methods'.



The vivisectors ask us: 'What do you offer to Science in the place of vivisection?' - 'In the place of vivisection, nothing: for vivisection is a festering sore which makes Science sick and gives it a bad name, even among the general public'. Actually, the vivisectors should not ask us, 'What are you offering to Science?', but, more honestly, 'What are you offering to us?'



'To be sure, without animal experimentation the vivisectors would lose the opportunity of reaping, with no talent and little effort, academic titles and honors, of publishing papers, making money and pursuing a glittering career. They would also have to waive the chance to curry the favors of the Powers-that-be by supporting one thesis one day and the opposite thesis the next, with the same persuasiveness - all this on the strength of allegedly 'irrefutable' animal experiments, and according to what result has been requested by whoever foots the bill.



There are endless possibilities for producing irrefutable evidence in support of any theory, through the use of various animal species; all one has to do is to select the appropriate species.



Do you want to prove that the amanita is by no means a deadly mushroom by much rather a delicay fit for humans? Just feed it to a rabbit, morning, noon and night. He will thrive on it. Do you want to ruin the citrus fruit growers? Then feed their lemons to cats, who will die from them.



Do we wish to prove that prussic acid, the mere smell of which can kill a human being, makes a fine aperitif? Then let's feed it to toads and sheep.



Do we want to stop cooks from using parsley? Let's give it to the parrot, and you will find him stone dead the next morning.



Or do we want penicillin to disappear from all drugstore counters? Let's give guinea-pigs a taste of it, and they will promptly die from it.



The amount of opium a porcupine can actually swallow in one lump with no trouble at all would keep a human addict groggy for two weeks if he just smoked it, let alone what it would do to him if he swallowed it.



To convince the consumers that botulin is harmless, just add a bit of this poison to some cat food; the cat will happily lick its lips. But the cat's traditional game, the mouse, will die from it as if struck by lightning.



Moonshiners are responsible for blinding thousands of people, owing to the methyl alcohol in their booze. But this same methyl alcohol doesn't affect the eyes of most laboratory animals.



Arsenic is supposed to be poisonous? That is a pure invention of the crime writers. The proof? Sheep can tolerate a considerable quantity of arsenic.



Does your pussycat have the sniffles? Be sure not to give her any aspirin - unless, of course, you want to kill her.



Are you asked to demonstrate the uselessness of vitamin C? Then remove it entirely from the diet of some animal that's close at hand - a dog, cat, rat, mouse, hamster. They will nevertheless stay healthy, because their organisms produce their own vitamin C. But we may not withold it from ginea-pigs, primates, or humans. Deprived of all vitamin C they would eventually all die from scurvy.



One hundred milligrams of scopolamine leave dogs and cats unaffected; but five milligrams are sufficient to kill a human being.



Strychnine, as popular among the murderers in detective stories as arsenic, has no effect at all on guinea pigs, chickens or monkeys, not even in a dosage which would be enough to put a whole human family into convulsions.



Hemlock, well-known through the death of Socrates, is dangerous because of its similarity to parsley, but it is eaten with great relish by goats, sheep and horses.



Amyl nitrate dangerously raises the internal pressure of the eyes of a dog, but lowers the pressure within the human eye.



The foxglove (digitalis) was formerly considered to be dangerous for the heart because, when tested on dogs, it raised their blood-pressure. For this reason the use of this medicament, which is of undisputed value for the human heart, was delayed by many years.



Novalgin is an anaesthetic for humans, but in cats it causes excitement and salivation, similarly to what occurs in an animal suffering from rabies.



Cycloserin is used for tuberculous patients, but has no effect on guinea pigs and rats which have been made tuberculous artificially.



The anti-inflammatory Phenylbutazone can be administered to dogs and other animals in high doses, for it quickly loses its effect in their bodies. But if similar doses were given to humans, poisoning would soon set in, because this medicament needs 100 to 150 times longer to become inactive and checked in its effects.



Chloramphenicol often seriously damages the blood-producing bone marrow of humans, but not the marrow of animals.



Acidum oroticum has a healing influence on the human liver, but causes fattiness in the liver of rats.



Chlorpromazine damages the human liver, but not the livers of laboratory animals. Methyl fluoracetate has a toxic effect on mammals, but the rat can tolerate a dosage forty times higher than the dose that kills a dog. And man? Will he react like a rat, or like a dog?



In a nutshell, one only needs to find the appropriate animal species to obtain the desired answer: black or white, positive or negative. You name it, they will get it. That is a kind of elastic, malleable Science, like the dough we mould in the kitchen. But it is tragic that some want to have us believe that they can manufacture human health in this way.



Even if you are no expert, no specialist, it should not be difficult for you to draw a conclusion of fundamental importance from the examples we just quoted. If animals react in such a different way from human beings, how can one test on them medications that are intended for us?



This leaflet is part of ClVIS INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION REPORT NR 2, distributed in the Summer of 1988.



* The author refers to events in Italy, where in recent years several vivisectors have been heavily fined by the courts and upheld to public contempt by the press for transgressing even the few regulations existing in defence of laboratory animals.





And in the same vein:



Alternative Research by Dr Christopher Anderegg MD PhD



"Are there alternatives to vivisection? Of course not.?...There are no alternatives to vivisection because any method intended to replace it should have the same qualities, but it is hard to find anything in biomedical research that is, and always was, more deceptive and misleading than vivisection. So the methods we propose for medical research should be called "scientific methods" rather than "alternative methods." - Prof Pietro Croce MD



Anti-vivisectionists must, therefore, reject alternative methods... Most alternative methods are based not on truly scientific methods like human cell and tissue cultures and clinical investigations of human patients, but rather on animal cell and tissue cultures and computer models, which are of (more or less) equal value to the worthless and fraudulent animal experiments they are supposed to replace.



For the so-called validation of alternative methods - a process which takes years, if ever, to complete - the researchers compare not only the data from their alternative methods with the data from animal experiments, but they also repeat the very animal experiments their alternative methods are supposed to replace in order to obtain additional data for the purpose of further comparisons!



This endless and absolutely senseless repetition of animal experiments over a period of years - despite masses of data from decades of previous animal experimentation - leads to neither the reduction nor the replacement but rather the perpetuation of animal experiments.



The authorities responsible for the validation and assessment of alternative methods will acknowledge and officially accept an alternative method only if it produces the same results as the animal experiment it is supposed to replace! Although such methods are clearly detrimental both to the abolition of animal experiments on medical and scientific grounds and to animal protection in general , it is astounding that an ever-increasing number of animal rights, animal protection and even antivivisection organisations are not only endorsing the three 'Rs' but also promoting and financing the research and development of alternative methods."



"Alternative research" and the "3 Rs" "Reduction, refinement, replacement " are scams dreamed up by, financed by and fully supported by the petro-pharmaceutical mafia and its political and media agents , with the view to keeping vivisection going indefinitely.

.. of the 'cut and paste' world. do you actually know anything or do you spend all day on Google?

Do i know anything? This comes from a man/women who's limited intellect,in derogotising shac,can only come up with the inane "Shac is gay".It seems from your juvenile psychology,while i'm "cutting and pasting" articles from certified scientists like Professor Croce,your colouring in colouring books! Is that the requirement for a job at HLS?

" seems from your juvenile psychology,while i'm "cutting and pasting" articles from certified scientists like Professor Croce,your colouring in colouring books! Is that the requirement for a job at HLS? "

Wrong form of "You're", I'm afraid. You've used the possessive, but I'll let you off as you've used the word 'psychology' which, at four syllables, must have been quite difficult for you.

Colouring books? You're not even trying any more, are you?

Did i sign in at your school internet register,vivisectionist?

You cannot refute my statements,or the articles(which i 've posted) written by genuine scientists because like all the "animal research community":your psuedo scientists.