We were doing so well in the 1980s.

The first task of antivivisectionists is to target the infiltrators.

Was that march organised by Gill Langley?
====================================================
====================================================
====================================================
CIVIS Bulletin Nr 2, New Year 1988 (Part Three)

Meanwhile, Gill (Langley) 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:


"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 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!


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.


Dr JUDlTH E. HAMPSON, BSC, PHD, CBIOL, MIBIOL, chief animal
experimentation officer, RSPCA and EUROGROUP FOR ANIMAL WELFARE


This lady represents the main link between the RSPCA, Britain's oldest
among the phoney "animal welfare" societies, and its most recent
international outshoot, the Eurogroup for Animal Welfare, founded in
Brussels in 1979 by the British chemical interest, a few months after
Slaughter of the Innocent had been published in Great Britain.


Hampson's role as defender of vivisection in the international
organisation that pretends to protect the animals instead of the
chemical industry in the European Council at Strasbourg is described
in the CIVIS Bulletin Nr 1 (pp 35 & ff), published in November 1983.


Since then, the shameful Convention of the European Community that is
binding on the majority of Europe's industrialized countries and that
Hampson has helped impose in the name of animal welfare has finally
been accepted, in 1985. As a consequence, animal experimentation is
not only guaranteed to continue at an increased rate in number and
cruelty in the traditional venues, but is also assured to expand and
flourish in countries where animal experimentation is still in its
infancy, like Spain. Common Market rules, which new member-State Spain
is bound to comply with, as will future member-States, now impose
these bogus "safety-tests", to the great delight of the chemical
industry, of the medical organisations, and of the animal-breeders'
lobbies, whose activities we personally witnessed in the European
Parliament at Strasbourg.


Dr Judith Hampson, who led the "Team of Experts" of the Eurogroup, the
only official "animal welfare" organisation at the Strasbourg
Hearings, is personally responsible for letting the European
Parliaplentarians accept as genuine the false information issued by
the Research Defence Society, Britain's vivisection lobby, whose
members were palmed off at the Hearings as being honestly concerned
with the animals' instead of the industry's welfare. She wasn't only
an accomplice by omission, by silence, but by commission, because she
sustained to the Parliamentarians the theses of the industry. The
other members of the team sinned by omission: they kept silent. They
were: Ms Sheila Silcock (RSPCA consultant), Dr Henk Smid (Holland),
Madame Denise Pasternak (Switzerland), Dr Stafley (Holland) and Dr G A
MacGregor (UK).


For the first time in the history of anti-visectionism, a rule was
passed that allows the repeated use of the same animal in cruel
experimental surgery.


The second time was soon to come: when the Animals (Scientific
Procedures) Bill was enacted in British Parliament in 1986. The same
people as in Strasbourg pulled the strings there. Very few
parliamentarians realised what went on, or cared to know.


In The Guardian of April 9, 1985 Hampson wrote an article titled "When
animal rights confront human suffering", and signed it 'Dr Judith
Hampson, Chief Animal Experimentation Research Officer, RSPCA'. The
title of the article itself was tendentiously misleading. Judith
Hampson stated further:


"...Since our society has not yet come to accept holistic values,
animals are in our laboratories and seem likely to remain, Therefore
it will not help them merely to argue that their use is immoral, we
must also campaign vigorously for the alleviation of suffering."


There again talk of immorality, but no hint of the futility and
noxiousness to human health. Another gem was her statement that she
does not believe "that the use of animals in research can be
philosophically justified..." So we are back to philosophy, the great
diversionary playground. But the moment she dares speak scientifically
Dr Hampson doesn't hesitate to proclaim a big lie, knowing full well
it is a lie, and knowing equally well that it will remain undetected
by the overwhelming majority of the uninformed lay public. Says she:


"There will always remain a small core of experiments which do
represent a genuine ethical dilemma. I place in this category the
testing of human and animal vaccines, which, as yet, cannot all be
done without the use of animals."


Thus Hampson doesn't neglect to drag in the "religious" question of
vaccines in her article - the most likely to appeal to a thoroughly
brainwashed public. We can't discuss this vast subject in such limited
space, except to remind the reader that many manufacturers have
stopped vaccine production until the government guarantees to come up
for damages in case of further product liability lawsuits from damaged
consumers, or their survivors. Hampson's deliberate misinformation
resides in the fact that vaccines can be made, and are in fact being
made, without animals, using the much safer methods developed by
Hayflick, Nigrelli and Aygun decades ago.


That Hampson uses every possible lie to keep the consumption of
animals at a high level would seem to bear out the allegations of long
standing that she and her cronies hold substantial shares in the
animal breeders associations.


That would also help explain why she joined Gill Langley in defining
Slaughter of the Innocent and Naked Empress as totally "unreliable",
as the best way to keep readers away from them. On RSPCA stationery,
she wrote on July 24, 1985 to Mr Henry Turtle:


"Both books are littered with inaccuracies and totally unsubstantiated
statements, I do not have time to list them."


Our friends begged her to list them, but she didn't comply. But
meanwhile she made herself guilty of something far worse than a mere
"inaccuracy", in fact a deliberate scientific lie, by writing to the
same Mr Turtle on June 12, 1985:


Childhood leukaemia, previously incurable, is now cured in the
majority of cases by chemotherapy, developed by animal tests.


Here we have one more example of an official "animal welfarist" who
strives to validate the propaganda of the chemical, medico and animal
breeders combine that declare chemotherapy as actually life-saving
instead of death-dealing, as in fact it is. Her statement isn't simply
misleading but criminal in view of the well-known fact that leukaemia
has been dramatically increasing, especially among children, ever
since the various modern "therapies" have been inflicted upon a
frightened, artfully misinformed public.


Urethane has sometimes an inhibitory effect on human leukaemia, in
contrast to what animal experiments had shown.


Prof. Alexander Haddow wrote in the British Medical Journal, Dec. 2,
1950:


"The characteristic effects in leukaemia were detected solely as a
result of clinical observation. The various leukaemias in the mouse
and rat were relatively refractory to the influence of urethane, and
the remarkable effect in the human might have eluded discovery if
attention had been directed to the animal alone."


So while the properties of urethane might never have been discovered
because of animal experimentation, other much-touted therapies, such
as vaccinations and sulfa drugs, have been recognized as being
directly responsible for the production of leukaemia in humans. So Dr
B Duperrat, physician at the hospital St. Louis, France, wrote in
Presse Medica le as far back as March 12, 1955 (in reference to
smallpox vaccination): "The vaccination causes furthermore an
explosion of leukaemia."


The January 1958 issue of another French medical journal, Revue de
Pathologie Generale et de Physiologie Clinique, related: "The vaccine
modifies the terrain of the vaccinated, driving it towards alkaline
and oxydized terrain - the terrain of cancer. The fact can no longer
be denied."


Professors Julian Aleksandrowickz and Boguslav Halileokowski of the
Medical Academy of Cracow, Poland, had written (as reported by The
Lancet, May 6, 1967): "Already published reports as well as our own
observations indicate that smallpox vaccination sometimes produces
manifestations of leukaemia. In children and adults observed in the
clinics of Cracow, smallpox vaccination has been followed by violent
local and general reactions and by leukaemia."


Further, the July 1957 issue of Medical World, Dr Freda Lucas wrote:
"In England and Wales, total death rates from all forms of leukaemia
have increased more than six time between 1920 and 1952... According
to Wilkinson, sulphonamides (an antibiotic - HR) stand convicted as
one of the contributing factors, even when fairly low dosages were
employed. In cases reported in detail, the tragic path from
agranulocytosis to haemolitic anaemia and acute monolytic leukaemia is
revealed in black and white."


These cases represent just a small sample of the kind of reports by
authoritative medical experts listed in Slaughter of the Innocent. And
this explains why phoney "Animal Welfarists" take such pains trying to
discredit a book that is so embarrassing to their employers.


It is their assignment, in the disguise of concerned animal
welfarists, to persuade the ignorant majority that vivisection "cannot
be entirely dispensed with as yet", but certainly will be some day if
people contribute lavishly to the various fraudulent "funds for
alternatives" which they run partly in their and their colleagues'
own, private interests, and partly as a smokescreen designed to divert
from the central issue: the uselessness and noxiousness of animal
experimentation.
=======================================================
=======================================================
=======================================================
To avoid the FAKE DEBATES on vivisection, see:
 http://groups.google.com/group/The-Voice-of-the-Voiceless/browse_thread/thread/ecfa0106e8c7bbe9
=======================================================

the march was not organised by Jill Langley