"Every single contract Huntingdon looses brings it a step closer to closing forever, they're still in debt, no proper insurance policy, and no commercial bank will deal with them instead they're propped up via tax payers money through the Bank of England. "

So we'll end up paying their stationery bill too now? They'll just keep turning to the government for bigger and bigger subsidies.

How is shutting down HLS going to stop animal testing when it is mandated by law that all new drugs are tested on at least two species of live animal? Some other company will take over instead and, as long as animal testing is a legal requirement, there will be plenty of unscrupulous companies willing to accept the guaranteed work and cushy government subsidies involved.

where lab a.w. standards are laxer.

You then hold the key to be able to close down all other labs. Furthermore, it's not just HLS which are being heavily campaigned against. Oxford, Sequani, Sussex, B&K, Harlan (breeders) and soon more Covance action I hear.

They are all being lined up to fall once HLS does, as the government can't support it forever. They can't keep diverting tax - they have to ask for it back eventually. These things take time, Newchurch, Consort, Highgate, Regal Rabbits etc etc all took a lot of effort but eventually they closed.

Finally, this is only a representation of the UK. Across the globe (particularly in Europe) campaigners are closing HLS as well as targeting nearly all breeders and other labs - some of which have now caved under pressure (this year in Holland, lab halted and Chile lab closed). In the last decade campaigns have been built around the SHAC concept of campaigning - persistance and direct action, another example would be Morini (a vivsection breeder in Italy) that has had hundreds of suppliers stop dealing with them as well as douzens of direct actions causing thousands of pounds worth of damage.

The vivisection industry is vastly "untouchable" by mainstream businesses, it is being pushed underground. Whilst it is also attempting to be pushed elsewhere, resistance is now across the globe. Vivisection will fall when the lies are revealed, this will be down when more businesses collapse.

There is no legal requirement that new drugs must be tested on animals, only that drugs are tested to ensure that they are safe. Animals are used in order to provide a scapegoat when they kill human beings - as they do to some 30,000 plus UK citizens every year, and 100,000 in the USA. Most new drugs would not pass genuine methods of safety testing, thus animal testing is essential to the survival of the multi-billion pound pharmaceutical industry - it has nothing to do with health or genuine assurances of safety.

See Bad Medicine and the other videos at our web site.

Read the books of Hans Ruesch: Slaughter of the Innocent, and Naked Empress, and the book Vivisection or Science by Prof Croce; all available from us.

Regards,

www.vivisectionfraud.com

To ‘MonkeyBot 5000’ - what is the exact bill or legal clause that says ‘all new drugs are tested on at least two species of live animal’ Can you provide a reference for it or post the exact wording please.

To ‘Him Again’ who said ‘overseas’ ‘lab a.w.standards are lower’. Don’t just make a statement without offering some evidence please. Post it here on this thread.

The grass roots campaigns against HLS and others is the only reason the issue of vivisection has remained in the public consciousness even if the main emphasis is ‘animal rights’ rather than medical fraud or human health. The big AV societies do nothing effective.

7/8 years ago I picked up a BW leaflet printed by the BAVA which gave a list of reasons why vivisection was no use to human health. It was from a SHAC stall. A SHAC stall was also the first place I ever saw a copy of a Hans Ruesch book and where I ever heard an AR activist discuss with a member of the public the dangers of vivisection to human health.

The response by the people in SHAC to the footage that came out of HLS is morally correct - close down HLS. On top of that the campaign has been the first effort on behalf of AR people to argue the human health case as well. Though the media ignore this obviously and the AR activists sometimes seem content to ignore it as well.

‘Bad Medicine‘ is dated in presentation style but is an excellent but somewhat depressing film about:

the AR movement who acknowledge one brutal reality - vivisection - and then choose to ignore another - that the ‘animal rights’ argument will never lead to the end of vivisection,

the ignorance of the general public (due to the media, big AV societies)

the malevolence of the pharma industry, the govt and cowardice and complicity of the media

"There is no legal requirement that new drugs must be tested on animals, only that drugs are tested to ensure that they are safe."

"To ‘MonkeyBot 5000’ - what is the exact bill or legal clause that says ‘all new drugs are tested on at least two species of live animal’ Can you provide a reference for it or post the exact wording please."

Everything I've read said it was in the UK Medicines Act 1968 introduced after the thalidomide tragedy - so I thought I'd find it for you...

...but I can't.

 http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=1662209#comref-998456

The only thing I can find about applying for a clinical trial certificate is this:


36. Application for, and issue of, certificate.

(1) Any application for a clinical trial certificate or an animal test certificate shall be made to the licensing authority and shall be made in such form and manner, and shall contain, or be accompanied by, such information, documents, samples and other material, as may be prescribed.

(2) In dealing with any such application, the licensing authority shall have regard in particular to any evidence available to them as to any risks involved in the proposed clinical trial or medicinal test on animals.


and yet the Home Office website says...


"Therefore, it is a legal requirement that every newly developed medicine must undergo a series of safety tests of increasing complexity before it is allowed to be tested in volunteers or prescribed to patients.

The first step is to test the medicine in the laboratory using, for example, computer modelling, bacterial and mammalian cell culture (in vitro) tests. If these tests prove promising, then the next stage is to test the new medicine in a number of animal species:

a) to confirm that the medicine does actually work.
b) to observe any unwanted effects that it may cause.

Rodents (rats and mice) are the main and usually first species to be used in safety studies, but other non-rodent species such as the dog, pig or monkey are also used once initial data has been obtained from the tests in rodents."

 http://scienceandresearch.homeoffice.gov.uk/animal-research/publications-and-reference/001-abstracts/abstracts2-2007/10mch-2007/164-07?view=Html


Either I missed something in the statute (entirely possible) or it's one of those things that everyone believes because everyone else believes it. I stand corrected