[back] Vivisection

[This is one document, similar to the book version, with some links to pages on Whale.to.  To use the HTML version, that is in chapters, and with links to the propaganda piece called Animal Research Saves Lives (ARSL) use the NZAVS version here.  A classic book, and more so for being available on-line.]

- Humans and Animals BOTH Suffer

http://www.nzavs.org.nz  in 1993 by BETTE OVERELL, Founder of NZAVS

(Typing of drafts and preparation of Indices Phil Clayton, NZAVS Executive - assisted by Deborah Garrett.)
(HTML version produced between 1998-2000 by Phil Clayton, NZAVS National Secretary.) A generous legacy to NZAVS in May 1990, bequeathed by the late MISS CLARA GRACE GENGE of Levin, New Zealand - made this work financially possible.

A generous legacy to NZAVS in 1997, bequeathed by the late ISLA DIGHT of Australia - makes the electronic version of this work financially possible.

  Critique of The Introduction to Animal Research Saves Lives - Humans and Animals Both Benefit
  The Vivisection Industry
CHAPTER 2: The Farming Industry
  The Pet Industry
  Where Do Laboratory Animals Come From?
  Diseases of Cats and Dogs
  Cats and Dogs and Vaccines
  Endangered Species
  Are Native Birds or Rare Animals Used in Research?
  What If We Halted Research Using Animals Today?
CHAPTER 5:   Vaccinations
    General - The Conspiracy
    Meningococcal Meningitis
    Hepatitis B.
    DPT and SIDS

    Whooping Cough
CHAPTER 6Thalidomide
CHAPTER 7: Development of New Drugs
    Breast Cancer
    Childhood Leukemia
  Heart Surgery
  Blue Babies
  Differences Between Cats, Dogs and Humans
CHAPTER 11:  Diabetes and Insulin
  Multiple Sclerosis
  Cystic Fibrosis
  Alzheimer's Disease
CHAPTER 13: Stroke
CHAPTER 14: Kidney Disease, Organ Transplants and Dialysis
CHAPTER 15: Arthritis and Hip Replacements
CHAPTER 16: Antibiotics
  Artificial Blood
        Blood transfusion: Blood groups and typing
        Blood pressure and heart rate
        Pump oxygenator
        Blood circulation
  High Blood Pressure
  Spinal Cord Injury
CHAPTER 19:  The 'Protection' of Animals Used in Research
  Photos/Videos/Head Injury
  Head Clamps
  Burn Research
  Draize Test/Cosmetics and Consumer Products
CHAPTER 21Drugs and the Law
    Section 1 - The Conspiracy
    Section 2 - Vivisectors condemn "animal research"
    Section 3 - Animal-based medicines: LETHAL - yet legal
    Section 4 - The hypocrisy of The New Zealand Law
CHAPTER 22:  Living 25 Years Longer Than Our Great Grand Parents
Recommended Societies
Recommended Reading

About the Author
 Bette Overell (6k)

Photo: Liz Brooks

Bette Overell, Founder of the New Zealand Anti-Vivisection Society (Inc.)

In 1978 Bette Overell founded the N.Z. Anti-Vivisection Society of which she was President for over 15 years.  Many New Zealanders will remember her Society's spectacular marches through the Capital that took place each consecutive World Day for Laboratory Animals on 24 April during this period.  In 1984 NZAVS took a Petition to Parliament seeking abolition of the notorious Lethal Dose 50 toxicity test where Overell presented evidence that the procedure is not only illogical and unsound, but that it is carried out solely as an alibi for legal and commercial purposes.  In 1989 she led a march to Parliament with a further Petition, signed by 100,640 New Zealanders demanding the abolition of all experiments on animals after obtaining affidavits from doctors all over the world who claim vivisection is medically and scientifically invalid.

Drawing on evidence of which the author says there is an abundance, this book is Bette Overell's answer to Animal Research Saves Lives, a booklet produced and distributed widely throughout New Zealand in 1990 by the Ministry of Agriculture and private organisations.  An eye-opener ANIMAL RESEARCH  T A K E S  LIVES - Humans and Animals BOTH Suffer exposes facts seldom if ever published in the popular press, such as the growing medical movement against animal experimentation, the injustice of the peer review system whereby animal experimenters make their own laws and regulate their own activities, and the colossal profits and academic advantages being made from the industry.

Bette Overell is recognised internationally for her work in the new abolitionist movement.  This startling book, the first of its kind to be published in Australasia, is essential reading for all those who have been brainwashed to believe that health must depend on animal experiments.  It could save your life!





Dr med. Herbert Stiller
Specialist in Neurology and Psychiatry, Psychotherapy

Dr med. Margot Stiller
Psychologist, Specialist in Neurology and Psychiatry, Psychotherapy




In November 1990 the New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture (MAF) (using the taxpayers' money), began a bulk mailing from parliament of the booklet Animal Research Saves Lives (hereafter referred to as ARSL).  MAF's co-producers of this calculated advertising stunt that is aimed at destroying the growing anti-vivisection movement in this country include:  The Cancer Society of New Zealand, the N.Z. Heart Foundation, the Medical Research Council of New Zealand, and the Agricultural Chemical and Animal Remedies Manufacturers Association of N.Z. (AGCARM).

AGCARM is New Zealand's arm of the vivisection industry.  The powerful multinational conglomerate whose individual names occur repeatedly throughout this work.  Its full membership is listed hereunder.

The introductory letter accompanying ARSL was written, say its authors, "after consultation with the appropriate independent experts".  Why are these "experts" not identified?  In what are they "expert" and to what are they "appropriate"?  What is their connection or involvement with the writers of ARSL?  And how "independent" are they?

Without exception the creators of ARSL are linked by a single common denominator, the absolute necessity of maintaining vivisection, euphemistically known as "animal research", acceptable to, unopposed and unchallenged by the public.  For vivisection is the key to their profits.

MEMBERSHIP OF AGCARM (As at August 1992)
(Co-Producers of
Animal Research Saves Lives)

Hans Ruesch (7k)

Hans Ruesch: Leader of the new abolitionist movement



To best understand and appreciate this book the reader should be aware that its contents are constrained to rebutting the claims made in Animal Research Saves LivesThe author therefore recommends that it be read in conjunction with the booklet, which can be viewed by selecting this link.

Animal Research Saves Lives began being distributed widely in New Zealand in November 1990.  It was produced jointly by the New Zealand pro-vivisection community as follows:

New Zealand is not alone in launching its cleverly orchestrated campaign to combat the growing abolitionist movement.  In England on April 27 1991 The Imperial Cancer Research Fund and The Research Defence Society introduced a scheme through which the biomedical community introduces, on a large scale, representatives to speak in schools and colleges to educate children about "the importance of animal experiments".  It is also arranging regional "education" meetings with their teachers.  The Daily Telegraph, London, April 27 1991.

In May 1991 the British Association for the Advancement of Science promoting medical research using animals began distributing a "declaration" compiled to promote animal experimentation.  Signed by over one thousand medical research organisations the declaration is now targeted to scientists and doctors, the latter being pressured to display literature and posters in their waiting-rooms promoting animal research.  The Doctor, Guilford, May 23 1991.

In August 1991 the Wellcome Trust, Imperial Cancer Research Fund, Cancer Research Campaign, British Heart Foundation, Cystic Fibrosis Research Trust, Multiple Sclerosis Society, Muscular Dystrophy Group and Action Research launched the Research for Health Charities Group (RHCG).  According to the Chairman of the Group who is also the Director of the Wellcome Trust, as well as attempting to restore public support for animal experiments, convincing schoolchildren of the need for animal research was high on the Group's agenda. "The anti-vivisectionists have targeted young people so successfully", she declared:

"That students are coming into vet school saying they want nothing to do with experiments on animals". - (Annual Review of Advocates for Animals, 1991.)

In the U.S.A. in order to quell mounting public criticism and anger about the appalling number of animals done to death in vivisection laboratories in that country, a Petition has been launched to the Congress of the United States seeking continued funding for experiments on animals on the grounds that those committed to abolishing vivisection "would put millions of Americans out of work by closing any business or industry that entails the use of animals".

Gigantic pro-vivisection promotion, propaganda and publicity is not the only weapon being used against the growing move to abolish vivisection.  Other intimidating tactics include the blacklisting for jobs of those in any way aligned to the abolitionist movement, threats and physical attacks on those who speak out against the vivisection conspiracy (Hans Ruesch's Civis Foundation Report, Nr 12) and there is widespread suppression of the news... This is particularly obvious in New Zealand where it is now the accepted fact that World Day for Laboratory Animals marches of 400 to 500 people through the country's capital city go unreported, as have other demonstrations and campaigns on a regular basis.  For example on WDLA April 24 1992 approximately 400 people bearing banners condemning General Motors for crash-testing their vehicles on animals, marched to the firm in a strong and extremely visually effective demonstration.  This did not receive a mention in the media and though televised, as was the previous year's march to Parliament which included a spectacular display of simulated victims of drugs being pushed through the city in wheelchairs, and which though filmed in its entirety by T.V.3, was not screened.  It is quite common for the public libraries not to make available to the public, abolitionist material presented to the libraries for students of the subject.

In this situation where blatant censorship against anti-vivisectionists is an unpalatable but accepted fact the news is not only suppressed, but contrived.  For example those curious or concerned about vivisection are inveigled by its profiteers to make their assessment of its worth, or worthlessness, from the growing number of articles in glossy magazines which are the result of interviews between animal experimenters and willing journalists, who, if they wish to get their work published must believe without question, and certainly without a hint of challenge, these respected gods.  Or, from the ongoing daily fix of articles administered to the public in almost all our newspapers, which depending for their survival on advertising revenue from agents of the vivisection industry tranquilise their unsuspecting readers with regular doses of pro-vivisection propaganda, lauding the development of potential life-saving wonder-drugs and vaccines, formulated on rats, mice, rabbits, cats, dogs, monkeys and other unlikely candidates to mimic the ailments of the human race, which are about to cure its every ill.  Or, from works like Animal Research Saves Lives aimed at nipping in the bud the spillage of truth which threatening to break through the fortress of secrecy protecting this most suppressed issue of the last one hundred years, is beginning to focus the attention of the public on the fact that vivisection, far from having the slightest value, is unscientific, medically unsound and unworkable.

Though available to the knowledgeable abolitionist who does not rely on State-controlled information, many of the facts revealed in the following pages are not easily accessible to the public.  It is the writer's wish that this rebuttal of the State-produced Animal Research Saves Lives, which the N.Z. Anti-Vivisection Society hopes will be placed in all educational institutions and public libraries in New Zealand, will be made available through those institutions, to students, many of whom, judging by the number of enquiries which pour into the Society's office, are intensely interested in studying the subject of animal experimentation, or, vivisection.  Since the writer doubts these students will find such illuminating and consolidated evidence so easily at hand elsewhere I trust they will react to this book by applying their capabilities to expanding its theme, thus speeding up the process of public enlightenment.

The information the writer has collated is freely given by doctors expert in every conceivable field of medicine, and from medical historians, who applying their skills to the study of vivisection, conclude, as honest investigators must, not only that it is worthless, but that it is time, after a century of brainwashing, that the public learns the truth.  Because of the tailor-made statements provided by these professionals, medical qualification was not essential when compiling this work.  However once underway diligent application and determination to stick with the enormous task despite a vast array of set-backs, was a prerequisite of critical importance and the writer has applied considerable time, trouble and great effort in consolidating the facts as logically, correctly and truthfully as possible.

Without exception the advocates of abolition quoted in this work, and even the vivisectors themselves, who unwittingly time and time again give a good case for abolition, do so on the grounds that vivisection creates medical catastrophe.  The writer has not discovered a single doctor's comment which condemns animal experiments because they are cruel or infringe the rights of animals. Perhaps like the writer they believe such considerations are self-evident.  In every instance doctors condemning vivisection do so because of their concern about human health and the great dangers arising from basing this most precious of all commodities on the false premise of animal experiments.  Whatever their motives for taking stand fair and square in the anti-vivisection camp I am indebted to these pioneers and forerunners of the truth, who, having the courage to step out of line and speak against commonly-held beliefs based on bigotry and brain-washing, fall into the category of Galileo Galilei and Semmelweiss, the former because he insisted the world was round and not flat and the latter because he ordered doctors to wash their hands before examining women in childbirth.

Because of the courage of present-day doctors defecting from the established school of thought that vivisection brings health, it is now only a matter of time before the institutionalised practice of using animals and people as alibis to camouflage, sanitise and float despicable businesses in order to beget tainted profits, is recognised as the international conspiracy that it is, and overthrown.

In November 1990 the New Zealand pro-vivisection alliance bombarded New Zealand with its publication Animal Research Saves Lives, the lie which postulates the official and institutionalised science of vivisection as a valid foundation for health.  The reader is urged to listen to, and read the facts, which herald the truth louder and clearer than can these authorities which merely echo their established doctrine because it is in their own self-interest to do so.  The astute reader will also bear in mind the rigid alignment between that which ARSL's publishers promote as officially true and that which is in line with their profit-oriented policies.  In the last decade it has been exposed in New Zealand that despite public dissent all official decisions and actions (which included ignoring two legally-submitted Petitions to Abolish Vivisection along with their accompanying Submissions and evidence) run parallel with the official policy that masquerades the trickery of vivisection as science.

The author asks the reader to consider why the 20th Century biomedical establishment which has the precision of modern technology at its fingertips goes to such extremes to defend animal experiments which even the vivisectors criticise as a flawed principle?  Why an obsolete and ugly methodology, which pro and anti-vivisection advocates alike have established can never be conclusive, blocks the use of sophisticated and powerful techniques, which, as is briefly described in the text, were rejected, ignored, even scorned, when presented to the New Zealand medical establishment, including the Minister of Health?  And why precisely, if abolitionists are "paranoid" as declared in the media, and "bizarre" as claimed in Parliament (terms the writer believes more applicable to the vivisectors than to those who oppose the practice) did the bio-medical community consider it necessary to combat their message to the extent of publishing Animal Research Saves Lives?

In conclusion, the reader who may find the work painful to digest can perhaps be drawn back on course by the thought of the desperation and the pain of the animals, which, on a daily basis, without voice, choice or hope must endure agonies we cannot even begin to imagine.  A further thought could be given to the human victims who suffering the backlash of this greatest injustice of our age are so vast and ever-increasing in number that a book could be devoted to their sufferings alone.  A fleeting moment could also be spent musing upon the vast gulf between pro and anti vivisectionists, for unlike the former and their literary accomplices, who hardly neutral, produced Animal Research Saves Lives because they feel challenged and threatened, and having much at stake and more to lose, are motivated entirely and without a single exception by fear and greed, neither the author nor her exceptional colleagues receive research grants, salaries, expense accounts, gratuities or other mercenary incentive.  The fact that around the world innumerable others are simultaneously struggling, striving and sacrificing on a voluntary basis for this cause spotlights the supreme distinction between exponents of vivisection and exponents of abolition.  It is the distinction which the author believes must eventually lead today's fighters in the war against vivisection to the success both they and the animals so richly deserve.

Included throughout ANIMAL RESEARCH  T A K E S  LIVES - Humans and Animals BOTH Suffer the author channels the evidence of two giants who lead today's new abolitionist movement.  For the reader who is glimpsing the subject of vivisection for the first time, or for those bewildered by the baffling amount of reading springing up on the subject, the author unhesitatingly recommends that nothing is comparable to their work and nothing to be learned by reading others when one has been introduced to them.  Without a doubt leaders of anti-vivisection groups who neglect to bring to their members the truth exposed by these men should be immediately investigated for their motives, along with the organisations they represent.  Whilst thousands of members of honest groups will be familiar with their names the author hereunder formally introduces to the reader, those who in the book will be referred to simply as Hans Ruesch and Professor Croce.

Hans Ruesch
Hans Ruesch, Swiss Medical Historian, began his literary career in Italian and German.  By 1940 he was living in the U.S.A. writing short stories in English for Redbook Magazine, Colliers, Saturday Evening Post and Esquire.  Ruesch's magnificently researched novels were later published in ten languages, best-sellers, and some were adapted for films.  With an international reputation and acclaim in literary circles Ruesch turned his attention to the investigation of vivisection to which he applied the same ruthless and exhaustive research that he had given to the polar regions for his classic Top of the World (which sold 3 million copies) and to the Arabian Peninsular for his breathtaking and unforgettable The Great Thirst (or The Arab).

Shocked by what he discovered, in 1974 Ruesch founded his own CENTER FOR SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION ON VIVISECTION, a publishing house dedicated exclusively to the fight against vivisection, from which he despatches regular Foundation Reports in many languages.  In 1979 Ruesch's Slaughter of the Innocent was the breakthrough which altered the whole concept and course of the 'anti-vivisection movement'.  Revealing that vivisection is not merely a question of cruelty to animals, but also the vital international alibi which paves the way, through fraud and conspiracy, to solid-gold profits, in Great Britain Slaughter of the Innocent lasted a few short weeks before being banned from the shelves.  Abandoning his lucrative literary career Ruesch pledged to devote the remainder of his life to this cause.  He has been highly successful, not only in becoming the recognised father of the new abolitionist movement, but for his many subsequent powerful works on the subject.

In 1985 Hans Ruesch was a key figure in the Swiss Referendum Against Vivisection, when on December 18 of that year a third of the Swiss population voted in favour of abolition.  In October 1987 he helped launch the first ever INTERNATIONAL LEAGUE OF DOCTORS AGAINST VIVISECTION of which he was made Honorary President.  The world's most sought after exponent of abolition Ruesch undertakes a gruelling lecture circuit, debates with adversaries at symposia, addresses international congresses and is a well-known figure on European and American radio and television.  He is the draw-card which leads marches and addresses rallies, always dispensing the facts as they are.  Many organisations worldwide have been formed to support Hans Ruesch, whose name and rightly so, since we and future generations are in his debt, is already carved in history.

(In December 1978 the author of ANIMAL RESEARCH  T A K E S  LIVES - Humans and Animals BOTH Suffer founded the N.Z. Anti-Vivisection Society and thus began a long affiliation with Hans Ruesch who became the Society's Patron.)

Professor Pietro Croce
Professor Croce M.D., founder of "scientific anti-vivisectionism", is a luminary of medical science.  Born in Dalmatia in 1920, he graduated at the famed University of Pisa, Italy.  His curriculum includes:

For thirty years, from 1952 to 1982 Professor Croce was head of the laboratory of microbiological-pathological anatomy and chemo-clinical analyses at the research Hospital L. Sacco of Milan, Italy.  A member of the College of American Pathologists, he is a prolific author of medical books, scientific papers and press articles.  Professor Croce is still professionally active in his great contribution to the current movement of doctors against vivisection which now numbers thousands in 29 countries.  Past President of the INTERNATIONAL LEAGUE OF DOCTORS AGAINST VIVISECTION, Professor Croce currently holds the position of Honorary President of DOCTORS IN BRITAIN AGAINST ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS, which was founded on March 22 1990.  Participating on the circuit of international medical congresses with this fast-growing group of like-minded scientists he lectures, debates with opponents and addresses gatherings in Paris, Geneva, Lausanne, Athens, Tel Aviv, Zurich, London, Munich, Frankfurt, Holland, Brussels, Spain and the U.S.A..  Professor Croce campaigns on the urgent need to "abandon the animal model system" in medical research, which he and his medical colleagues say is "the wrong methodology".

A former believer in animal experiments Professor Croce writes in his latest book Vivisection or Science - a choice to make:

"The proposition is made... Let us take the animal as the experimental model for the human being. But here at once comes the first objection:  Which animal?  The mouse?  The dog?  And why not the rhinoceros or the warthog?... There are over three hundred thousand animal species on our planet, not one of which is a model for man.  It only needs the appropriate animal species to produce the desired result."

At a recent conference Professor Croce declared:

"If I still believed in the usefulness of animal experiments, I would say:  Let's do them.  However, I've come to realize that they are not only useless, but moreover highly damaging for medical science, owing to their unreliable results.  So if I advocate the abolition of vivisection it is not because I am concerned about animal suffering, but out of my concern for human health."

Photo: Advocate for Animals

Prof. P. Croce: Promoter of Scientific Anti-Vivisectionism


Throughout the ages man has exploited animals.  In the wild, in zoos, in warfare experiments, on the battlefield, in the pet industry, agriculture and for his entertainment and amusement.  And, in vivisection laboratories.

In today's supposed enlightened and sophisticated times, the era of the greatest aggression against animals in history, three hundred million animals are imprisoned and killed every year in vivisection laboratories, many of which are State funded.  In these places animals are injected with diseases unnatural to their species, driven insane, strapped immobile for years on end, electric shocked, blinded, concussed, burned, frozen, drowned, mechanically raped, dismembered, disembowelled and otherwise violated in the name of human health and well-being.  "Animal lovers" worthy of the name should now be making exhaustive efforts to abolish the institution of vivisection, which we are informed by professional medics, operates for those involved in it, and not for the good of animal or human health as the vivisectors would have us believe from their advertising and propaganda which in many cases is paid for by the taxpayer.

One example of the shattered myth that vivisection is painless and humane was screened on N.Z. television on August 2 1990 when viewers of Foreign Correspondent saw Prof. Willhelm Feldberg, decorated by Her Gracious Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second for his contribution to medicine, vivisecting fully-conscious screaming rabbits at Central London's largest and most prestigious National Institute of Medical Research. Great Britain boasts the most stringent laws in the world to "protect" laboratory animals.  Other countries model their legislation on that of Great Britain.

Classed as "agricultural products" animals used in intensive farming are now exploited to the point where every fundamental instinct is suppressed.  Currently a Petition on the status of animals in the EEC is before the European Parliament seeking recognition of a new status which will reclassify them as "sentient animals".  Manipulation of animals by genetic engineering, patenting and advanced mechanism has reduced farm animals to little more than mass-produced inanimate objects.

Farming "sentient animals" for food as currently practised is becoming increasingly inefficient as they are the victims of unseasonable environmental disasters, pollution, floods, drought, bad-management, miscalculations and carelessness.  As farm animals are the victims of experiments inflicted in order to increase yields and profits, and farmers attempt to shore up their flagging industry with government subsidies (paid for by the taxpayer), carcasses and dairy products stockpile.  In Australia 50 million sheep were destroyed because of overproduction (Dominion, November 1 1990).  Medical experts are now warning us that vivisection performed on animals for the benefit and study of animals, if introducing the disease as distinct from studying spontaneous disease, is "unscientific", which principle also applies to human medicine.

Today there is mounting concern that the Earth's irreplaceable oxygen-producing rain-forests are being destroyed and replaced by cattle.  This causes many problems including erosion.

As thirty million acres of third-world land is devoted to producing animal-feed for European livestock, two children in the third-world die every second from starvation.  Experts claim that to produce one pound of beef ten pounds of grain is necessary for animal feed, grain that could be converted direct to versatile and palatable food for human consumption. Over half the world's grain is fed to animals.  The Earth's diminishing water supply is soon expected to be insufficient to sustain a farming industry which is physically and economically obsolete and morally bankrupt.

"In 1968 the amount of humanly edible protein fed to American livestock and not returned for human consumption approached the whole world's protein deficit!" - (Frances Moore Lappe, Diet for a Small Planet.)

Giving not the slightest acknowledgement or consideration to NZAVS' comprehensive case against vivisection-based animal farming, included in the Society's Submission Supporting NZAVS Petition to Abolish Vivisection 1989, which he also ignored, that case was described, either in ignorance or fear, or both, by Ross Meurant, Chairman of the Parliamentary Select Committee, in Dominion, April 17 1991, as "bizarre and extreme".  The Ministry of Agriculture subsequent to receiving NZAVS' submissions on July 28 1990 became a major contributor to Animal Research Saves Lives, which began circulation in November 1990 in order to bolster the image of the country's questionable primary products and stave off further criticism.

In the following pages the author gives evidence, not only that animal herds of superior quality can be maintained without vivisection-based interferences and tamperings, chemicals and vaccines, but that animal-based farming, whether in the field or in the factory, will inevitably collapse due to its gross inefficiency, its inability to cater for future world population increases,1 the growing incidence of world famine (to which animal farming is a major contributor) and for the lack of resources, especially water, to maintain the industry.  The incomprehensible and outrageous bungling of animal farming, which is dealt with substantially in Chapter 2, The Farming Industry, in this work, is brought to mind once again as this Foreword is written in August 1992, coincidentally as the Government appeals for public donations to shore-up the farmers' tremendous losses of well over one million sheep and lambs, incurred in the current environmental disaster the like of which has never been known in the history of New Zealand farming.  Where, in other areas of the business community is the taxpayer called upon to assist failed enterprises, especially when they are based, like animal-farming, on risk, uncertainties and, in many areas of the business, the inability to make accurate predictions?

As the end product of much of today's vivisection-based farming is harmful, even rejected by the purchaser because of the inherent danger to the consumer, so vivisection-based medicine is constantly being exposed in the media as hazardous to human health.  Fearless dissenters from the established vivisection-based "official medicine" are bound by a unified policy of scientific anti-vivisectionismA chart shows this policy which outlines the methodological error and flaw involved in extrapolating results of vivisection across the species.  Whilst the reader will be anxious therefore to assume that extrapolations between the same species are possible, the chart shows this occurs only where the dis-ease or situation under study is spontaneous and not artificially-induced.  Doctors, including many who are not involved in anti-vivisectionism, agree that a naturally-evolved malady, having no erroneous factors, can be studied and information carried between the same species.  However, in the case of deliberately-induced sickness or injury which is beset with variables, the results are nothing more than hit and miss assumptions, like a lottery, often ending in disaster.  Everyone will agree that there are plenty of models for the study of human sickness in the hospitals and accident casualty wards, this however promises no profits to the vivisectors, whilst there are rich pickings to be made from mutilating animals.

Vivisection directly involves all people in all walks of life.  There can be no exception.  Doctors working for abolition forecast decades ago that experiments on animals inevitably lead to experiments on humans.  This is now happening on large scale, in drug testing, in surgical operations, and in trials of preventative vaccines.  Vivisection undoubtedly now means experimentation on animals and human beings.  Examples of this are revealed in Chapter 21, Drugs and the Law, Section 3.  There are many aspects of vivisection to consider, social, economic, religious, moral and scientific.  This book deals solely with the latter rebutting the statements made in ARSL, using not only the evidence of doctors against vivisection but of fully-fledged vivisectors and others involved in the industry.

The following chart shows the reported number of animals used in vivisection in New Zealand for the period 1987-1990.  NZAVS' concern is not however in numbers, but in the principle that vivisection, in all its forms, is scientifically invalid.  Certainly it will never come to an end by reducing the number of animals, which conversely could increase vivisection.  Neither will it be abolished by imposing regulations or tighter controls on the vivisectors for this merely sanitises, legalises and entrenches a method, which, morally bankrupt, and without logic, other than its inherent profits, should not exist.  (These profits are dealt with under The Vivisection Industry, this Chapter.)

Group Year Hamsters, rats, mice, guinea-pigs, rabbits Sheep, cattle, goats Other domestic animals3 Birds Fish and fish eggs All other species4 Total
Department of Conservation
Group Year Hamsters, rats, mice, guinea-pigs, rabbits Sheep, cattle, goats Other domestic animals3 Birds Fish and fish eggs All other species4 Total

1. "Commercial" embraces those organisations that manipulate animals for testing chemical and biological products, or for the production of such substances for commercial use.

2. "Other" includes such organisations as area health boards, the Ministry of Forestry, the New Zealand Communicable Disease Centre, etc.

3. "Other domestic animals" include alpaca, buffalo, cats, deer, dogs, donkeys, horses and pigs.

4. "All other species" include animals such as axolotls, bats, fitches, fur seals, lizards, possums, toads, wallabies, wetas, etc.

(National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee, August 20 1992.)

"For over a century thousands of medical doctors have opposed animal experimentation.  Doctors in Britain Against Animal Experiments have now taken up the challenge to abolish animal experimentation on medical and scientific grounds.  Our aim is the total, immediate abolition of all animal experiments."
(Written into the agenda of an International Scientific Congress of Doctors, being hosted in London, September 24 1992, by the organisation Doctors in Britain Against Animal Experiments, founded March 22 1990.)
"Vivisection is rooted in error, and when the truth becomes known it will disappear."
(Dr Max Mader, G.P., 1908, published in the Agenda of Doctors in Britain Against Animal Experiments.)
"I cannot name one single case in which experiments on animals may have led to a useful result."
(Dr med. Philippe Grin, G.P., Video Interview with CIVIS, July 1 1986.  Hans Ruesch, One Thousand Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection.)
"I am of the opinion that all experiments on animals should be abolished because they only lead us to error."
(Dr Marie-Louise Griboval, April 1987.  Hans Ruesch, One Thousand Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection.)
"As a physician, I am definitely opposed to animal experiments.  They are totally useless, they don't contribute in any way to progress of medicine."
(Dr med. Jurg Kym, Physicians Have the Word, ATRA, December 1986.  Hans Ruesch, One Thousand Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection.)
"My own conviction is that the study of human physiology by way of experiments on animals is the most grotesque and fantastic error ever committed in the whole range of human intellectual activity."
(Dr G. F. Walker, Medical World, December 1933.)

In New Zealand, and most other countries, vivisection procedures are decided by the peer review system, which means quite simply that the necessity for the experiments to be carried out is decided by the vivisectors who interpret and apply the law according to their requirements.  This is as absurd as giving thieves the authority to decide when thefts are necessary and how they are to be committed.  Corrupt and lopsided this system is the reason for the springing up, in the last two decades, of the active ANIMAL LIBERATION FRONT.  Things as they are, in this unsatisfactory situation where petitions to the Government are meaningless, and legal channels non-existent for anti-vivisectionists, activism is likely to continue, even increase.  Many people, including the writer, agree that when a law is blatantly unethical it merits disobedience.

Medical giants in the abolitionist movement have long forecast that should the vivisection industry be forced, either through successful petitions to abolish vivisection, or by boycott of their products, to come up with valid methods or go out of business, those methods would be surprisingly and quickly be "discovered", approved and put into use.  An example of the truth in this statement is the number of cosmetic companies against which NZAVS organised boycotts, for claiming their products MUST be tested on animals.  Many of these firms, in order to keep up with their competitors who have never tested on animals, now declare that they have "discovered" new methods therefore no longer carry out animal testing - and capitalise from that valuable label.

In section The Vivisection Industry this Chapter, a chart from Doctor R. Kupsinel of U.S.A. reveals the 22 major differences between rats and mice, and human beings.  Rodents are substantially used as models for the human circumstance.  A frightening example is shown in Chapter 5, Vaccination - DPT.  Pertussis vaccine is tested on the brains and abdomens of mice and has been for 40 years in full knowledge of the authorities that the mouse toxicity test is invalid.   Sixty million infants were vaccinated with pertussis vaccine in a twenty-year period.  In U.S.A. alone $US12.7 million has been paid out in claims against vaccine companies for children that have died or are permanently injured by this single vaccine.  Rats and mice are the favourite tool of the vivisectors, not because they give valid results but because they are cheap, easy to produce and not aggressive.  Perhaps more importantly because they are big business to the breeding firms which "manufacture" them.  Refer to section The Vivisection Industry, this Chapter.

The chart provided by Prof. Croce reveals that whatever result sought by the vivisectors can be achieved by selecting the appropriate animal species.  One glance at this chart exposes the fraud of vivisection.

"There is a profound species difference in response to cortisone.  Man, monkey and guinea-pig are resistant, and the rat, mouse, rabbit and ferret are sensitive, to its action.  Clinical and experimental evidence suggest that the concept of the adaption syndrome is based on a false analogy and may BE MISLEADING WHEN APPLIED TO MAN."

(D.A. Long, M.D. from the Institute for Medical Research, Mill Hill, London, Lancet, March 13 1954, page 537.)
"Would not be licensed for use in humans today because it CAUSES birth defects in rats, mice, monkeys, guinea-pigs, cats and dogs... BUT NOT IN HUMANS."

(Tony Ortzen, "From Here to Beyond", Psychic News, London, July 11 1987.)
ATOMIC RADIATION (From atom-bombs)
In Clinical Experts, Vol. XXIII, Nos. 9-10, Sept-Oct 1948, Under "The Effects of Irradiation".
"These depend on the species.  Thus the pigs, goats and guinea-pigs exposed on the vessels of Bikini were not affected in the same way, and different experimental animals tolerate greatly different quantities of radiation without death.  THIS IS UNFORTUNATE FROM THE RESEARCH WORKER'S POINT OF VIEW, SINCE IT PREVENTS THE APPLICATION TO MAN OF CONCLUSIONS FROM ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS... I am also quite sure that the research on mice which our Government proposes to sponsor will not give the answer. The genes of mice may be more or less sensitive to radiation than those of men.  Nobody knows, and nobody will know as the result of this research, which seems to me to be a waste of public money.  The answer could be given by other methods."
(Prof. J.B.S. Haldane, F.R.S., Picture Post, April 23 1955, page 12.)


Do you want to prove that the deadly amanita is a delicacy fit for humans?... Just feed it to a rabbit, morning, noon and night.  They will thrive on it.
Do you want to ruin the citrus fruit growers?  Then feed their lemons to cats, who will die from it.
Do you want 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 you want to stop cooks from using parsley?  Let's give it to the parrot, and you will find him stone dead the next morning.
Do you want Penicillin to disappear from all the chemist shops?  Let's give guinea-pigs a taste of it, and they will promptly die from it.
Do you want to prove opium is harmless?... Then feed it to the porcupine which can swallow in one lump with no trouble at all what 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.
Do you want to prove that botulin is harmless, just add a bit of this poison to your cat's food and he will happily lick its lips.  BUT THE MOUSE WILL DIE FROM IT AS IF STRUCK BY LIGHTNING.
Do you want to test the safety of Methyl Alcohol?... This doesn't affect the eyes of most laboratory animals, but it is responsible for blinding thousands of people owing to the amount moonshiners have put in their booze.
Do you want to prove arsenic is safe?... Then feed it to the sheep who can tolerate a considerable quantity.
Do you want to prove aspirin deadly?... Then give it to your pussycat when she has the sniffle, and it will surely kill her.
Do you want 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 guinea-pigs, primates, or humans.  Deprived of all vitamin C they would eventually all die from scurvy.
Do you want to prove the killer Strychnine safe to humans?... Then feed it to guinea-pigs, chickens and monkeys.
Do you want to prove deadly Hemlock as SAFE?... Then feed it to your goats, sheep and horses.
Do you want to prove Scopolamine SAFE?... One hundred milligrams leaves dogs and cats unaffected... but five milligrams is sufficient to kill a human being.
Amylnitrate 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 bloodpressure.  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, similar 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...

Courtesy: Prof. Croce

For the reader who believes that "alternatives" could replace vivisection it must be emphasised that there are no alternatives.  To an abolitionist there is nothing more erroneous.  What, for instance, would the reader give his child as an "alternative" to a drip-feed of arsenic?  None of course.  Similarly a great proportion of today's populations are being damaged through continuous drip-feeds of pollutants and poisons through their vivisection-based diet and medicaments.

Thousands of non-animal methods are available and have been for years, but never used, and many others are stock-piled.  Meanwhile the Italian Anti-Vivisection Doctors are organising.  The first all-Italian Scientific Anti-Vivisection Committee has been formed for the purpose of reforming medical research to protect the health of human beings.  Prof. Croce is President.  The organisation opposes the subordination of the abolition of animal experimentation whilst awaiting "alternative" methods claiming that "a fallacious scientific method cannot be either regulated or reduced, but must be eradicated".  It also "denounces vivisection as a methodological error leading to experimentation on man and corruption of the culture and behaviour of the physician".
(Civil Abolitionist, Vol. IV, No. 2, Spring 1992.)

In conclusion, most people agree that vivisection is "cruel and immoral", and there is now increasing awareness of the obvious harmful "side-effects" of vivisection-based medicaments.  Not so obvious or recognised however, though critically important, is the incidence of animal tests failing to reveal damage to which human beings are highly susceptible.  For example the reader is asked to consider the terrible dilemma and tragedy, reported in the last few years in the New Zealand media, of the 70-odd electricity workers at this country's thermal and hydro power stations who developed asbestos-related, extremely severe health problems.  The case history of the identification of asbestos as a deadly carcinogen is yet another demonstration of the failure of vivisection.  British clinical studies linked asbestos to lung cancer as far back as 1935.  Despite massive animal testing carried out in many countries the harmful effects of asbestos could not be reproduced in the animals.  Governments therefore did nothing to clean up the asbestos mines or control the use of asbestos until the late 1960s.  The animal tests failed because asbestos-related diseases have latency periods of from 20 to 40 years, far longer than the lifespan of animals used in the trials.  One of the world's leading asbestos researchers, Dr Irving Selikoff of Mt Sinai Hospital, New York estimated that the eventual toll from asbestos, and the failure of animal tests to protect the public, could exceed one million human beings.

(There are those who may also like to consider the sufferings of the hundreds of thousands of animals poisoned and mutilated to death in the brutal and unscientific asbestos experiments, and yet another thought for the animal breeders and others in the industry to whom such phoney "trials" represent a bonanza of profit.)  There are many other examples of set-backs and catastrophes resulting from the inability of vivisection to predict the effect of a substance on human beings.

1. The World News Service, September 14 1992, reported a current world population increase of 92 million per year.



ARSL 2nd Edition Pages 0, 1

 The Introduction to Animal Research Saves Lives fails to address, or acknowledge the fundamental change of direction and attitude now widely recognised as critical for human survival on a planet, which fast becoming uninhabitable through self-pollution and over-population, approaches the 21st Century.

Using out-moded and archaic paraphrases to camouflage animal exploitation taking place under their administration, the publishers of this booklet target their message to the lowest common denominator.  Making false and impertinent assumptions about a knowledgeable cross-section of the public, the authors appear unaware of the growing number of medical professionals world-wide who, campaigning vigorously against vivisection, describe it as a "methodological error".

The following comments made in rebuttal to the introduction of Animal Research Saves Lives will be expanded in the body of this work.

  1. An increasing number of people adopting a non-animal diet on practical as well as moral grounds strongly oppose an export income founded on the outdated slaughterhouse, and envisage tourism taking over as the future principal money-earner for New Zealand.
  2. Animal lovers do not view films featuring animals.  They turn off their sets.  Telephone their displeasure to the T.V. channel concerned.  Never purchase pets.
  3. Most advances in human and animal health this century resulted from the introduction and application of elementary, alimentary and mental hygiene.  And improved social and working conditions.
  4. Epidemics of killer diseases declined prior to the introduction of mass vaccination programmes (see graphs).
  5. Vivisection is invalid.  It gives misleading results, causes chaos, ill health and catastrophe to human beings and animals.  The principle of clinical research and observation successful in bettering the human circumstance similarly applies to veterinary and agricultural research.
  6. Surgical techniques on animals can not be applied to human beings.  The anatomy, reaction, structure and resistance make it impossible.  On the contrary it is a liability since it blunts the sensitivity of the surgeon.
  7. The truth that AIDS is not a virus, not infectious, but the destruction of the immune system through chemical pollution, is resisted by those soliciting funds for finding cures through vivisection.  Hundreds of millions of dollars and armies of vivisectors' jobs are at stake.
  8. Though the authors of the booklet Animal Research Saves Lives are mass exploiters of animals they claim to be "animal lovers".  But "loving animals" is not on the agenda of the new abolitionist movement which wants vivisection abolished because of the danger to human health the false extrapolations represent.
  9. "Protection of laboratory animals" is a contradiction in terms.  It is the vivisector who is protected, by laws which are self-administered, controlled and regulated.

The booklet Animal Research Saves Lives is part of a desperate and calculated surge of propaganda.  As the voices of abolitionists are being raised worldwide those who benefit from vivisection, i.e. the very institutions which promote it, are fighting for their continued existence as the climate of public, medical and scientific opinion strengthens against them and their flawed profession.


"I am fully in agreement with the bills against vivisection, for the abolition of vivisection can only be seen as an advance in public education"
(Dr Josef Drobny, District Physician, Morashitz, Bohemia, October 6 1909.)


The "vivisection industry".  What is this?

Those sufficiently interested or concerned about animal experimentation, animal research or animal trials (all euphemisms for vivisection), should be mindful of the gigantic financial enterprises operating under its name, on the premise that it is bona-fide.  These businesses depend for their very survival on continued public acceptance of the belief that vivisection is authentic and for this reason it is being defended by its protagonists as never before in history.

Ack: Forsogsdyrenes Vaern, Denmark.

A glimpse at some of the fortunes and careers which would topple should the validity of vivisection be successfully challenged and its worthlessness exposed may tempt the diligent student to expand and improve the following example.  That the limited space available in this work has been used to focus on the murky waters underlying this grotesque industry reflects its supreme importance to anyone investigating the subject of vivisection.

The reader is asked to contemplate for a moment the single laboratory mouse.  One of the hundreds of thousands produced off the assembly line for vivisection.  First, its origin, which is the tip of the iceberg of one of the world's biggest businesses.  Charles Rivers, animal breeders in the U.S.A., with branches and subsidiaries all over the world, churns out billions of mice (and other species) and in-so-doing makes approximately twelve million dollars profit every year. Customers are invited to write for free colour brochures of animals of every imaginable species and condition. Seventeen surgical procedures ensure that mutilations are precisely to requirements. Old animals are sold from these animal supermarkets as "specials". Carworth Europe, which is associated with the Huntingdon Toxicological Research Centre advertises laboratory animals thus:

"The laboratory animal is the fundamental tool of the biomedical research worker upon which all his results and conclusions are based. The accuracy of their results of any type of research project can be reduced by the use of low or variable quality animals. If you want quality, reliability and service, contact Carworth Europe."

The Laboratory Animal Breeders Association of Great Britain advertise:

"Whatever species of laboratory animals you require you can, with confidence, deal with breeders with this symbol, which is a guarantee of service and reliability."

(Ack: Forsogsdyrenes Vaern, Copenhagen.)

Other firms specialise in parts and organs of animals.  The American Buyers' Guide, the Central Animals Distributors Ltd of Nottingham, U.K. and Shamrock Farms, U.K., and many other firms, in impressive colour brochures, guarantee to supply the vivisectors with animal parts or organs, of any species, in any condition.

Another international industry is that of the production of pathogen, or germ-free animals which are made by removing the mother's uterus under a hysterectomy hood, placing the newborn in an isolate and shifting it from there to a sterile cubicle.  This necessitates the use of much expensive apparatus supplied by commercial firms which therefore have vested interests in vivisection.  The germ-free animal involves massive profits in the production of hysterectomy hoods, transfer isolaters, rearing isolaters, special weighing apparatus, thermostat-controlled heaters, ventilation systems to guard against electricity cuts and many other items. It also involves cruelty of unprecedented proportions.

Other "specialist " animals breeders turn out animal models into which are induced simulated conditions supposed to mimic conditions in humans.  For example the animal model of human rheumatism involves injecting irritant substances into the joints of animals thus creating a condition which is erroneously said to resemble human rheumatism.  Other animals have artificially-damaged limbs to create simulated arthritis.  These models are used to study health and disease regardless of the inaccuracies due to the differences between species, it being of no consequence to the vivisectors that a disease artificially created in the laboratory never has been and never will be, comparable with conditions arising in human beings from a battery of totally different reasons and origins.

New Scientist, January 12 1991 revealed that scientists at Harvard University in the U.S.A. recently created a mouse susceptible to cancer by "modifying" its genes.  Though Clause 53B of the European Patent Convention prohibits patents on "varieties" of plants and animals it allows the patenting of "microbiological inventions"... and the modified mouse became an "invention".  Consequently, on April 13 1988, patent number 4736866, the first patent ever allowed for a living mammal was granted to the University and Du Pont Chemical Company now has a licence to sell the "Oncomouse" to anyone interested in "cancer research".  And so genetically-altered animals have become patentable as inanimate objects by men in white coats who have taken over from God, in a horrifying industry with spine-chilling potential which is far removed from making people better when they are sick.

But now a brief look at some of the necessities and essentials pertaining to the span of our little mouse's short and wretched existence:
And, at some of the fortunes made from it:

(Vivisection - A Profitable Industry.)
The Frankfurt chemical giant, HOESCHT AG, recently submitted plans to the authorities for a burner installation for the disposal of 240 TONS OF DEAD LABORATORY ANIMALS.  Questioned by the National Association of Animal Liberators as to the numbers and species involved, Hoescht AG refused to give the information, saying it was a "company secret".

(Dennis B. Stuart, Rundbrief, ARK newsletter, U.K., March 1990.)


(Ack: Forsogsdyrenes Vaern, Copenhagen)

All the items incidental to the birth and death of this victim of man's vicious calculations are highly competitively priced, patented, advertised, employing vast armies of people in many trades and professions.  This includes the caps and gowns of the vivisectors who must be "trained" to the vivisection school of thought by way of the interconnected educational system.  The resulting scholarships, exchange visits laboratory to laboratory around the world, the project grants, the international meetings, the prestige as one's work, no matter how trivial or worthless, is published.  Regulatory agencies promote vivisection since they are made up of recipients of research grants and controlled by the top executives of the businesses they are paid to monitor.

The writer merely touches on the power, the profits and the people associated with and benefitting from, vivisection.  And the final test, if you believe, as they would have you believe, that drugs tested on animals and found safe on them will also be safe for you, then you will (in the words of Prof. Croce) unhesitatingly consume prussic acid which is safe for porcupines, arsenic which is safe for sheep, cyanide which is safe for owls and deadly poisonous mushrooms which are safe for rabbits.  And if you believe that drugs tested on animals and found dangerous on them will also be dangerous for you, then you would never take aspirin which kills cats or penicillin which kills guinea pigs.

But truth will out and our little mouse has the final word as an article comes to hand in Time Magazine, September 17 1990.  This announces that after 35 years of injecting four hundred thousand chemicals into leukemic mice in search of a cancer cure, vivisectors are "giving up on the mice".  Without laughing, David Korn, Chairman of the National Cancer Institute Advisory Board made the following statement:


In future, he says, "they will test potential cancer-fighting drugs on real human cancer cells, grown in laboratories and not on mice".

Vivisection exists solely for financial and academic profit and the alert reader will have already precipitated the discrepancy dividing those who promote it and those who would have it abolished.  For the former stand, were vivisection abolished, to lose salaries, comfortable jobs, lifestyles, academic acclaim and prestige whilst the latter, using their meagre personal resources make no financial gain, betterment or status, and never achieve literary fame since their papers are seldom if ever published.  On the contrary they have everything to lose as they are jeopardised for opposing the accepted school of thought, based on greed and bigotry, to which they are expected, even forced, to adhere.

Significantly, whilst the former claim to "love" the animals they mutilate and poison to death between their bacon and egg breakfasts, meat pie lunches and chicken dinners, the latter seldom if ever claim, or profess to be "animal lovers".  They do however lay strong and legitimate claim to recognition that vivisection constitutes the greatest social and scientific crime of all time, and that its perpetrators, either lawfully or unlawfully must be overthrown.

Were the producers of Animal Research Saves Lives as solicitous and "loving" of animals as they would have us believe they would immediately do the following:

The common denominator which prevents the above from happening is the "love" of profits which the above industries represent.

Photo: Courtesy Animal Liberation, Australia

A lucrative business.  Like inanimate objects cartons of live animals await transportation to experimental labs.


These animals live in closely confined germ-free conditions from conception to vivisection

Photo: Brian Gunn.

Intl. Association Against Painful Experiments on Animals.


Photo: Brian Gunn.

Intl. Association Against Painful Experiments on Animals.





(the most commonly used laboratory animals)


1. Plaque (fatty deposits) are deposited in the liver. Plaque (fatty deposits) are deposited in the blood vessels (leading to stroke and heart disease).
2. 3-year life span requires massive doses for drug/product testing - more than humans will ever use. 72+ life span and consume drugs and chemicals in minute doses over a lifetime.
3. Imuran (Immunosuppressive) causes birth defects in mice. Imuran does not cause birth defects in humans.
4. Manufacture Vitamin C in their bodies. Can only obtain Vitamin C through the diet.
5. Lysodren (cancer chemotherapy) does not cause kidney damage in rodents. Lysodren causes kidney damage in humans.
6. Continual pregnancy healthier for rodents. Continual pregnancy in humans leads to nutritional depletion and disease
7. Hypersensitive to chlorine in minute doses. Can stand chlorine in much larger doses.
8. Manufacture Vitamin B in the appendix. Manufactures Vitamin B in the liver.
9. Myambutol (TB antibiotic) causes birth defects in mice. Myambutol does not cause birth defects in humans.
10. Eliminate drugs from the body in 3 hours (faster elimination reduces drug danger). Eliminate drugs in 72 hours.  Increases danger of drugs in the aged.
11. Thymidine shrinks tumours in mice. Thymidine does not shrink tumours in humans
12. Catapress (anti-hypertensive) causes retinal degeneration in rats. Catapress does not cause retinal degeneration in humans.
13. Can't tolerate more than 15 minutes of direct sunlight Can tolerate direct sunlight for much longer periods.
14. Chloroform toxic to mice in minute doses. Humans can stand Chloroform in much larger doses.
15. Obtain Vitamin D by licking their own fur. Obtain Vitamin D through the diet.
16. Moban (tranquillizer) causes breast tumours in mice. Moban does not cause breast tumours in humans.
17. Specially bred for laboratory studies.  Live in a controlled, sterile environment.  Majority of diseases induced through genetic breeding (tumours and genetic defects), or from parasitic infections. Humans come from a wide variety of genetic, environmental and lifestyle backgrounds, all unpredictable.  Environment, diet and lifestyles responsible for most human diseases.
18. Rats have no gall bladder - digest fats differently Humans have a gall bladder.  Digest fats differently.
19. Require 3 and a half times more protein than humans. Excess protein responsible for kidney damage in humans.
20. Thalidomide (tranquillizer) does not cause birth defects in rats. Thalidomide causes birth defects in humans.
21. Meclazine (for travel sickness) causes birth defects in rats. Meclazine does not cause birth defects in humans.
22. Coumarin (blood thinner) causes liver damage in rodents. Coumarin does not cause liver damage in humans.

(Ack: Roy Kupsinel M.D., Vivisection: Science or Sham.)


March front (95k)D

Photo: Evening Post

The author leads a march of over 400 anti-vivisectionists from Bunny Street to Civic Square, central Wellington to launch NZAVS Petition to Abolish Vivisection.  This Petition quickly achieved 100,640 signatures and was one of the largest in N.Z. history.  The Chairman of the Parliamentary Select Committee did not have time to hear the witnesses and by the time this book was first published in 1993 the author, who was the principal petitioner, had not received the outcome of the Petition.


ARSL PAGES 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 19

ARSL 2nd Edition Pages 0, 1, 2, 4, 10, 20, 21


From birth to premature death it is impossible to eliminate the acute cruelty and suffering inherent in modern farming.  Pigs are kept indoors, forced to exist in the heat and squalor of sweat-boxes, where, restricted by iron bars, unable to move or turn around, they are chained by the neck.  Calves are thrust into crates where they stay for their fourteen weeks of life on slats, unable to turn around.  Battery hens are crowded into cages where it is impossible to move.  In darkness, they see the light of day for the first time as they are bundled into crates to be taken to slaughter.

A quotation from Farm and Home, May 1885 is true today:

"Mercenary motives and mismanagement cause most of the ailments of animals of the farm."

Modern farm animals suffer:  unnatural interference with the breeding rhythm of nature, deprivation of contact between mothers and their offspring, of suckling which is important to health, of their mothers' milk in favour of substitution of chemical imitations, and of exercise.


The crowding of animals into concentration factories results in daily pile-up of their waste-matter creating massive pollution.  Some factory storage facilities use forced air, augers, or pistons to push waste from factory buildings to tanks or holding ponds.  Some farmers dig large pondlike lagoons to hold wastes.  Residues of pesticides and insecticides used to control the insects, flies and rodents attracted to these lagoons cause human health hazards as they seep into the ground water.  Animal wastes and ammonia increase acidity in the soil and cause acid rain.

In 1989 effluent from a pig-farm belonging to one of New Zealand's leading politicians, Roger Douglas, Minister of Finance, (later to become Minister of Police and Immigration), flowed into drains leading to the Manukau Harbour.  The pond which covered half a hectare and was two metres deep, burst flooding a vast area with raw sewage.  For this major damage to the environment Douglas was fined a mere $5000.1  Disposal of farm animal excrement is a major environmental problem.  A Government Committee of experts in the U.K. blamed modern farming methods for pollution of the water supply with the disease-causing parasite Cryptosporidium, which is now reported to be contaminating New Zealand water systems.

1. On September 14 1991 The New Zealand Herald reported that Sunshine Pig Farms Ltd, situated at Old Great South Road, Ramarama, near Drury in South Auckland had gone into receivership the previous day, but that the receiver would continue to trade.  Managed by Roger Douglas Associates the property kept 5,000 pigs in stalls.  The article goes on to report that earlier in the year the company was fined $5,000 in the Otahuhu District Court and ordered to pay $9,419.79 in costs for spilling 30,000 cubic metres of effluent into the Manukau Harbour and surrounding countryside.  The spillage occurred when the largest of a series of oxidation ponds on the farm burst its embankment.  When Sir Roger Douglas was questioned about his pig-farming enterprise he is reported as saying: "There is money in it."

On March 4 1992 the Holmes Programme exposed the horrors of the sow stall in a programme which featured pig-farmer ex-Minister of Finance Roger Douglas, in which criticism was levelled at this former politician for his factory farming activities.  Holmes reported that prior to screening the programme he was contacted by the Managing Director of the Pork Marketing Board, Dave Dobson, who reminded him WHAT THE BOARD SPENDS ADVERTISING ITS PRODUCTS ON TELEVISION!


Farming animals for food as currently practised is becoming increasingly recognised as inefficient and disastrous as they are the victims of unreasonable environmental disasters, pollution, floods, droughts, bad-management and mis-calculations.

As farm animals are used in experiments inflicted in order to increase yields and profits, and farmers attempt to shore up their flagging industry with government subsidies (paid for by the tax-payer), carcasses and dairy products stockpile.  As stated, in Australia 50 million sheep were destroyed because of overproduction.
(Wellington, Dominion, November 1 1990.)

On the Cormo Express, a re-vamped car carrier, which was, according to Elders Pastoral manager Sholto Matthews, "a state of the art vessel which has been designed with animal welfare consideration, functionality, and a fuel economy foremost in mind" (NZ Farmer, May 30 1990), 9,832 sheep died on the way to Saudi Arabia between May 29 and June 25 1990.

The November/December issue of Agscene, magazine of COMPASSION IN WORLD FARMING exposes the war between French and British farmers resulting in blockades, seizures and attacks by French farmers and meat-workers, on consignments of sheep, cattle and calves from Britain, Germany and the Netherlands.  Though the attacks were described as outrageous and barbaric by British Agriculture Minister John Gummer he refused to use his power to end the miserable and sordid live-shipments because he thought it would be contrary to the principle of free trade.

The atrocities carried out by French farmers, who believe imported British meat and lamb are resulting in lower prices for their own animals, included poisoning whole lorry loads with Phosdrin, a powerful insecticide, hijacking consignments of calves and setting them loose in the streets, and setting fire to transporters carrying live animals.  "The sheep screamed in agony as they were burned alive" (Daily Mail, August 24 1990).  Another manoeuvre is to blockade the transporters of animals trans-shipped across the Continent at the Spanish and Italian borders.  As lorries carrying the animals are custom-sealed, injured animals cannot be attended to.  Many suffocate or die of thirst, starvation and stress.

Around the world farm animals are the victims of commercial disagreement, greed and inefficiency, and no matter how far removed, those responsible are those who create the demand.

Of modern farming practices Juliette de Bairacli Levy who spent a lifetime pioneering herbal veterinary medicine and who has many advocates and followers, writes:

"The present-day farmer has been educated to consider disease as inevitable and the only scientific cure as being in the artificial remedies of the modern veterinary surgeon, who, through over-rigid orthodox training, and himself under the influence of advertising, is too often a mere vendor of the products of the vast and powerful chemical and serum manufacturers.  For the vested interests in modern medicine are stupendous.  Science is proving the ruination of true farming; the only thing that I, and countless others, have noted as flourishing alongside science is disease!  Disease of the earth.  Disease of the crops.  Disease of the animals and disease of the people who feed on the diseased produce."

Levy gained fame in 1947 when she cured a flock of over one thousand pedigree Swaledale sheep condemned as incurable by modern medicine.  The Albert Howard Journal Soil and Earth published details of her treatment and the farmers' testimony.  Farmers Weekly said of Levy's The Complete Herbal Handbook for Farm and Stable:

"All farmers and horse-owners interested in safeguarding and restoring their animals' health by natural, safe and inexpensive methods will find it invaluable.  It could help us avoid the mistakes stemming from use of chemical fertilisers, insecticides, tranquillisers, antibiotics and the like."

Abolitionists agree that diseases of farm animals can transmit to human beings thus creating grave occupational hazard and health problems to the consumer.  This should be seen as a warning to change our ways and not as an excuse for vivisection.  Since it is both unnecessary and wasteful of the Earth's resources to rely on the slaughter-house for our food, dietary changes, both for physical betterment and moral elevation are not only essential but long overdue.

In Animal Machines, Ruth Harrison revealed that when the U.S.A. rejected a shipment of New Zealand meat because chemical residues were above the U.S. safety-level the New Zealand Government found 130 brands of pesticides were used on livestock which "tended to leave residues".  The American Journal of Digestive Diseases, (November 1953) reported that the increased use of insecticides in farming "correlates the increase of hepatitis in man and hyperkeratosis in cattle".  The article goes on to say that the incidence of foot and mouth has risen, sheep have developed 'blue tongue' and 'scrapie', chickens 'Newcastle disease' and other ailments, and dogs 'hard-pad' and the highly fatal 'hepatitis X'... which were all traced to poisoning by chlorinated hydrocarbons and other aerosol insecticides, some of which cause epidemics of hepatitis in human beings.  Stilbestrol injected into chickens is known to cause cancer in human beings.


The Farm and Stockbroker Vet says that antibiotics are:

"only a substitute for good husbandry... germs concerned build up a powerful resistance against a particular antibiotic"


"In USA and Ireland farmers and veterinary surgeons have ceased using antibiotics because the bugs defy the lot... we are teetering on the brink of an abyss, surely and gradually the poultry bugs are becoming conditioned to the drugs and disaster cannot be far off."

By continual ingestion of infinitesimal amounts in their food human beings are also developing allergies to drugs and chemicals.  Australia's Dr Franklin Bicknell, in Chemicals in Food and in Farm Products: Their Harmful Effects, wrote:

"A new strain of resistant staphylococci has spread in the general community, causing septicaemia with over a 40 percent mortality.  It seems most probable that the infection has spread from antibiotic-treated animals to farm workers, to everyone.  Fungal infections in man may occur in the brain, lungs, gut, kidneys, skin and are increasingly common since the antibiotics kill the bacteria which normally inhibit the growth of the fungi... Other anti-infective agents routinely fed to poultry often causes dermatitis in man to whom they are also toxic."

All the evidence shows that breast cancer can be caused by the development and growth of oestrogens (growth stimulants), and that beef, mutton and especially poultry are increasingly contaminated with artificial oestrogens which have been injected into the animals in order to fatten them or increase their rate of growth.

In Silent Spring Rachel Carson says that a quarter-century ago, cancer in children was considered a medical rarity.  Today she says more children die of cancer than from any other disease.  M. Berglas, of L'Institute Pasteur, Paris, says that in his opinion everyone will, before long, be threatened with death through cancer.  Whilst subsidies are paid to farmers to help them produce food of doubtful quality, which even contain toxic substances, the medical profession's chief preoccupation is with disease after it has arisen.  Whilst evermore harmful vivisection-based drugs aimed at bringing relief, are in reality the potential for new hitherto unknown diseases, little is spent on purifying the soil, the seed, the plant and the animal.  Meanwhile a race is developing between disease and the scientists creating new drugs to keep mortality in farming down to levels where profit can still be made.

Recently in Britain, Professor Richard Lacy of Leeds University (Agscene, No. 99, the journal of COMPASSION IN WORLD FARMING) suggested avoiding all beef products:  "If you want to be absolutely safe you should not eat beef or foods containing beef products."  He was referring to the deadly brain disease bovine spongiform encephalopathy, (or mad cow disease), which is currently affecting British cattle and threatening to spread to humans.  The disease is said to be caused by feeding the cattle the remains of other disease-ridden animals.  Meanwhile a catalogue of ghastly vivisection is being undertaken in laboratories across Britain on cattle, sheep, pigs, goats, chickens, marmosets, mink, hamsters and mice.  Vivisection designed to ensure that man can safely continue eating other animals.  This is relevant to New Zealand as thousands of heifers are being exported from New Zealand to vivisection laboratories in Britain where they will be implanted with calf embryos from cows with mad cow disease and kept seven years to see if the disease is passed to the offspring.

As Britain incinerates, bulldozes and burns thousands of carcases of headless cows and their infected calves, and refrigerate their heads for experiments, many warnings are being made that... pigs might be next in line for tragedy of major proportions.


The U.S. National Institute of Health is a major funding body of the N.Z. Veterinary School, Palmerston North.  It was therefore not surprising in 1986 when an animal vaccine, genetically engineered in the U.S. where federal agricultural, health and environment agencies withheld permission for its use, was tested in New Zealand though no official guidelines had been obtained.  Scientists from the Oregon State University College of Veterinary Medicine undertook the experiments on calves, sheep and chickens under the supervision of the N.Z. Ministry of Agriculture regardless of concern being voiced in both the U.S.A. and Britain.  Newspaper reports, (Dominion, January and February 1986) claimed the Oregon scientists were attracted to New Zealand as an experimental laboratory for their products because they experienced fewer problems with red tape.  In a recent issue of the New Internationalist magazine (as reported in the N.Z. Listener, June 17 1991), journalist Carol Grunewald reintroduced the issue intimating that:

"Lack of public awareness and Government regulation of biotechnology in New Zealand made this country an ideal open-air laboratory."


Such is the title of the written veterinary policy of the INTERNATIONAL LEAGUE OF DOCTORS AGAINST VIVISECTION.  It was written by veterinarian Andrew Menache, Co-founder of Israel's first anti-vivisection league, who helped organise the International Medical Congress held in Tel-Aviv on May 15-16 1990, on behalf of the ISRAEL SOCIETY OF PHYSICIANS FOR RESPONSIBLE MEDICINE, of which he is President.

This comprehensive paper outlines veterinary therapies, none of which are dependent on vivisection and all of which are virtually free of side-effects.  It was not considered by the Primary Production Committee at the Hearing of NZAVS Petition to Abolish Vivisection on March 20 1991 as NZAVS was not granted the time or the opportunity to address the issue.  Conversely, orthodox veterinarians, as practising under the auspices of the Ministry of Agriculture (the co-publishers of Animal Research Saves Lives - Humans and Animals Both Benefit) were invited to make written submissions and to present oral evidence upholding the ongoing system!



by F. NEWMAN TURNER, Editor of "The Farmer."
  SEVENTY-FIVE per cent. of my cattle were suffering from so-called "contagious" abortion and sterility when I decided to give nature a chance in the elimination of disease from my herd.  Over a period of two years I had spent nearly 100 pounds sterling in vaccination and the orthodox treatment of sterility, and the only result was more disease of all kinds, particularly the disease that was being treated.  Some animals aborted as often as three times after being vaccinated against abortion, and one cow after another was declared by the orthodox veterinary practitioner to be of no further use for breeding after he had used a succession of different treatments and failed.  I was advised to get some fat on the sterile animals, and sell them for slaughter to help meet the insatiable public demand for beef; and as a policy for the future to admit no animal to the herd until she was vaccinated.  But I had had enough of vaccination, and decided that no treatment at all was better than throwing my limited capital down the drain, and getting deeper than ever into disease in the process.
  My faith in the germ theory had already been severely shaken by experiences of nature cure in my own family, and when 25 per cent. of my cows continued their normal and healthy lives amidst millions of brucella abortus, I was satisfied that the germ was not the primary factor in the cause of disease.  After four or five years' working on that assumption, with the gradual elimination of so-called contagious diseases from my farm, I have come to the conclusion that bacteria are not only not the main cause of disease, but they are in fact one of nature's chief means of combating disease.
  For years now my farm has been manured exclusively in a natural way and the animals on the farm fed almost exclusively on crops grown on the farm.  Cows and young stock have been allowed to live their lives as nearly as possible under natural conditions.
  After a period of time under this regime, when I found that sterile animals began to breed again, I advertised in the farming press for pedigree animals that had been declared by veterinary surgeons to be sterile and incapable of breeding; and also for animals suffering from mastitis, a disease of the udder.  I was able to buy at ridiculously low prices a number of cows that would otherwise
have been sold for slaughter.  They were given a period of treatment based on fasting, resting and then a diet of naturally-grown foods.  With the exception of one animal, which had a psychological defect, I have cured them and brought them into production of both calves and milk.  Animals that I have bought for 15 pounds sterling returned to their normal pedigree value of 100-150 pounds sterling, and are, of course, producing calves into the bargain.
  Tuberculosis has also been treated effectively, and animals rejected by the Ministry of Agriculture as tubercular have, after natural treatment, subsequently been re-admitted to the herd by the same Ministry, as sound, and have continued to pass the tuberculin test regularly.
  I have even taken the discharges of cows badly suffering from mastitis and applied the virulent bacteria to the udders of healthy cows, with no ill-effect whatever to the healthy cow.  This is a disease which is said to be spread from one cow to another by invasion of the udder with bacilli, and strict germicidal measures are claimed to be the most effective preventive.  My cows suffered seriously from this trouble in the days when everything to do with milking was almost continuously submerged in disinfectant.  The fact is that this disease is merely a catarrhal condition of the udder brought about by feeding for high milk yields, or by feeding cows of catarrhal predisposition with foods deficient in the natural vitamins which are essential to proper functioning of the endocrine glands in the region of the udder.
  It is not possible, here, to go into details about the natural treatment of animal diseases, but encouraged by experiences on my own farm I started, early in 1946, the publication of The Farmer (Journal of Natural Farming and Living), which is devoted to natural methods of management and treatment of animals and the soil, as well as human living which has its basis on proper farming methods.
  No farmer, or small livestock owner, need fear animal diseases of any kind if he makes friends with the germs which we are taught to dread, and allows them to take their rightful place in nature's scheme of things.  It is only when we persist in unnatural methods of feeding and management that these bacteria are made to combat the conditions such methods engender."

The Abolitionist (Newsletter of the BRITISH UNION FOR THE ABOLITION OF VIVISECTION, May-June 1947, page 21.)


Lead article in The Farm Report, magazine of the FARM ANIMAL REFORM MOVEMENT (FARM), Summer 1990 gave details of a massive study of the diet and disease patterns of 6,500 Chinese, conducted by a biomedical team headed by Dr T. Colin Campbell at the Division of Nutritional Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.  Investigators revealed the merits of a diet free of all animal ingredients in preventing heart disease, stroke, cancer, diabetes, osteoporosis, and even calcium and iron deficiency!  Results of the study were published in The New York Times on May 8 1990.

In addition to confirming the results of earlier studies of the link between consumption of animal fat and meat and the incidence of the chronic "killer" diseases, this study exploded the meat and dairy industries' claim about the "superiority" of protein, calcium and iron from animal sources.  Whilst it is not possible to give details in the limited space available it is significant that Dr Campbell concluded his investigation with the following comments:

"The unprecedented number of subjects involved in the study validated the team's conclusion that we are basically a vegetarian species."

The following extracts are taken from Brave New Farm by Jim Mason.

The reader is able to effect change by demanding meatless meals and non-factory-farm products from - restaurants, hotels, airlines, caterers, school lunch services... and ALL OTHER PUBLIC FOOD OUTLETS.

"The cannibal goes out and hunts, pursues and kills another man and proceeds to cook and eat him precisely as he would any other game.  There is not a single argument or a single fact that can be offered in favour of flesh eating that cannot be offered, with equal strength, in favour of cannibalism."
(John Wynne-Tyson, "Superior Nutrition", The Extended Circle.)

The following facts are taken from the Pulitzer Prize nominated Diet for a New America by John Robbins.

How many acres of tropical rainforests are destroyed every minute for livestock farming? 150 acres
How many trees spared per year by each individual who switches to a pure vegetarian diet? 1 acre
What is the cause of demise of many great civilisations? topsoil depletion
How frequently a child dies of starvation? every two seconds
How many children starve to death every day? 40,000
How many people will starve to death this year? 60,000,000
How many people could be adequately fed by the grain saved if Americans reduced their intake of meat by 20%? 60,000,000
How many pounds of beef can be produced on one acre of land? 165
How many pounds of potatoes can be grown on one acre of land? 20,000
How much water needed to produce one pound of wheat? 25 Gallons
How much water needed to produce one pound of meat? 2,500 Gallons
How long will the world's petroleum reserves last if all human beings eat meat? 13 years
How long will the world's petroleum reserves last if all humans adapt to vegetarian diet? 260 years

For the complete documentation and whole exciting story of how your food choices affect your health, happiness and the future of life on Earth order:

DIET FOR A NEW AMERICA, by John Robbins.

Distributed by M. Fox, PO Box 623, Spit Junction, NSW 2088, AUSTRALIA.  $A24.95 plus $4 Postage and Handling. (Multiple copies available at discount - write for details.)

How many people travelling behind a crowded cattle or sheep-truck have been sickened by the degrading spectacle of the victims of this hideous industry being carted to their deaths, which, in addition to being unnecessary and a handicap to human progress, causes so much misery and suffering to the animals and has the potential to damage the health of the consumer?

Those who oppose vivisection and strive for its abolition are not against scientific research, but against "animal" research.  We consider, rightly, that research and technology should focus on phasing out the farming of animals and replacing it with more efficient, more civilised and more acceptable production of alternative and superior foods more fitting to our transition to the 21st Century.

Fortunately vegetarianism is on the increase worldwide.  Great Britain expects a vegetarian population of 10% by the year 2000.  As populations acknowledge the merits of the health, economic and ethical change to vegetarianism, producers, food companies, restaurants, hospitals, the rest of the food establishment and particularly the farming and scientific community should now be catering for this fast-growing section of the community.

"He that will not apply new remedies must expect new evils."
(Francis Bacon.)

Refer also to Chapters 9 AIDS and 16 Antibiotics.



ARSL PAGES 1, 3, 8, 19

ARSL 2nd Edition Pages 0, 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 20

 "The pet industry is directly responsible for animal suffering of gargantum proportions and should be phased out of existence."
Says John Bryant in Fettered Kingdoms.

Whilst breeders have unlimited licence to produce animals by the thousand to sell to "animal lovers", hundreds of thousands of unwanted, old, lost, or dumped animals find their way to pounds and animal shelters which have the ghastly job of putting them to death.  Though the public is led to believe that homeless animals are "put to sleep" in a painless procedure in reality their wholesale massacre is a degrading and sordid affair.  Many pounds in New Zealand send homeless down-and-outs and unclaimed strays to vivisection laboratories, as do breeders of surplus animals and 'owners' of "finished" greyhounds.  In some countries pound seizure is prohibited by law1 but animals down on their luck in New Zealand have no such protection.  Whilst statistics show that in most so-called civilised countries hundreds of thousands of cats and dogs exist by scavenging on scrapheaps, eventually dying from disease, infections, accidents or starvation, animal shelters shoot, chloroform and fatally inject others with barbiturates.  These are buried on tips, incinerated or rendered down for fertiliser.  Meanwhile the breeders ensure the ongoing supply of kittens, puppies and deliberately deformed but fashionable freaks.  Millions of exotic pets, the world over some with longer natural lifespans than their 'owners' endure stunted, tortuous, lonely and totally unnatural existences.  Many suffer lingering and premature death through loneliness, neglect and mismanagement.

"This is the age of the disposable animal"
says Auckland SPCA Director, Bob Kerridge. (N.Z. Listener and TV Times, April 29 1991.)

Of these, he estimates that at least half were simply no longer wanted by their 'owners' - impulse purchases that had outgrown their appeal.

"And when times are tough, animals are the first to go."2

Former pets with their wide variety of unknown hereditary and lineage, background and characteristics, ages, temperaments, and health problems make poor models in the laboratory and for this reason their use is being discontinued in some countries.  In New Zealand where the rationale behind using them for vivisection is rarely questioned by a public which is encouraged to believe that:-

"Since the animals are being put to sleep anyway they may as well be usefully put to medical research"... there is little hope for the animals which fall on hard times.

Large numbers of dogs which were former pets are shuttled to vivisection laboratories behind the scenes in this country to be used in procedures which are criticised by a growing number of doctors as erroneous and useless.  Useless, that is, to all but the animal dealer, the vivisector who receives his "research grant" and his buddies on the various Foundations and Health Research Council.

Under the erroneous illusion of philanthropy generated by carefully contrived but phoney advertising the petfood industry is responsible for the indiscriminate slaughter of whales, dolphins, wild and farmed animals, and millions of victims of intensive poultry and rabbit farms.  These are processed and packed into gay, brightly labelled tins which the producer exploits other "cute" animals to advertise.  Whilst the pharmaceutical industry in all its inherent horrors is among the most cruel and ruthless of animal exploiters, the horseracing and greyhound racing industries, pet-shops and animal health companies are also responsible for suffering of great magnitude being motivated not by sentiment but by profit.

"Animal-lovers" never purchase animals but give sanctuary to the abandoned or homeless animal of which there is an endless supply.  And then, for its sake and not for his own, and always thinking what he can do for the animal and not vice-versa.  The claim that vivisection exists to administer the health and well-being of pet cats, dogs and farm animals is emotional blackmail and far from the truth.  The vivisection industry and its affiliates promote the pet industry solely for the source of income and availability of animals it represents.


1. Refer to Where Do Laboratory Animals Come From?, this Chapter.

2. In 1990, 10,269 animals were voluntarily surrendered to the Auckland SPCA.




ARSL 2nd Edition Pages 9, 10

 Animal Research Saves Lives takes the trouble to point out that most animals used in this country's vivisection laboratories are "specifically-bred" rats, mice, hamsters and guinea-pigs.  This indicates that ARSL believes the purpose-bred rodent is less worthy, or of less importance, than the valued pedigree cat or dog or the loved family mongrel and therein the glaring derelict intellectual and moral inadequacies and deficiencies of the publishers are exposed.  The astute reader will have instantly recognised that ARSL is not merely failing to keep pace with the enlightened progress and attitudes of other world communities, but that in both word and deed its producers are stagnant.

These days no modern community would admit to sending to vivisection laboratories the abandoned animals which find themselves in shelters and pounds.  Such institutions, they state, were designed as sanctuaries to protect animals, return them safely to their guardians, find them homes, or as a last resort put them to sleep humanely.  It, the modern community, is aware that city pounds were not set up as clearing houses, or warehouses for vivisection laboratories.

Pound seizure is now prohibited in England, Denmark, Holland, Sweden, Switzerland.  It is against the law in 14 of the American States and illegal in 54 out of 58 counties in California.
(Fur' n Feathers, U.S.A., February 1991.)

In Great Britain the National Greyhound Racing Club said that "Anyone supplying animals for experiments will be banned from racing."
(News of the World, October 28 1990)

The publishers of ARSL glorify and advocate the use of greyhounds and NZAVS has evidence about the sale to laboratories of greyhounds who can no longer run fast enough to win money for their owners and breeders.

It is re-affirmed that NZAVS, as part of the new abolitionist movement, bases its objection to vivisection on the ground that it is wrong methodology and a scientific error, and that the origin of the animals, or the numbers used, is not on the agenda of the Society's campaign to introduce the abolition of vivisection in New Zealand.

That official New Zealand attitudes are obsolete and outdated was confirmed on Radio New Zealand News, February 19 1991, when startled listeners learned that European purchasers are turning against New Zealand products because of this country's failure to keep abreast of modern animal welfare requirements.  Amongst other issues the speaker mentioned the live sheep shipment tragedies and the British and European consumers' increasing intolerance of New Zealand's agricultural practices.  Interestingly the message came not from an anti-vivisectionist or a member of the animal rights movement but from Professor Don Broom, a respected visiting scientist to Ruakura Agricultural Laboratory.  "In Great Britain, many people", said Professor Broom, "are becoming vegetarian in protest at New Zealand's inability, or reluctance to keep abreast of the times."

(Similarly, though an increasing number of countries have banned circuses which include animal acts, this archaic and brutal form of "entertainment" is still upheld by law in New Zealand.)



In The Complete Guide To Natural Health For Dogs And Cats Richard H. Pitcairn, DVM, PhD and Susan Hubble Pitcairn, agree with Juliette de Bairacli Levy that feline penleukopenia (or feline enteritis) is so similar to the canine parvovirus that veterinarians are commonly using the same treatment.  In the Complete Herbal Handbook For The Dog And Cat Levy blames the ailments of modern cats and kittens on the result of man's mismanagement.  Canned and packaged food, curtailed exercise, and air and water pollution, she says, causes feline distemper, hepatitis, feline infectious peritonitis, salmonella, feline leukemia.  Outlining her herbal treatments she says they can be applied to cats using smaller dosages than those used for dogs.

The refusal of Levy, to vaccinate or administer unnatural chemicals is shared by Dr Pierluigi Castelli, Director of an animal clinic in Italy, who says:

"Infectious enteritis in cats is also now a serious disease in dogs (known as parvovirus).  It is suspected that this is a mutation of enteritis in cats and that the virus escaped from laboratories producing vaccines and became pathogenic for dogs.  This demonstrates how experimental research deviates from the proper practice of medicine."

Refer also to Chapter 16 Antibiotics.


Strong and substantial evidence is available criticising the premise upon which vaccination is said to prevent feline leukemia.  Dr Wendel Belfield, U.S. Orthomolecular Veterinary Physician wrote a widely acclaimed paper stating the necessity of nutrition and ascorbate in combating the growth of micro-organisms.1  His investigations and findings are borne out by many other veterinarians.  Dr Fukumi Morischige published a paper in Tokyo, Japan, in 1975 agreeing with Dr Belfield that the anti-body production occurs only when the immune system is depleted as a result of lack of ascorbate.  Similarly it follows that feline enteritis is now rarely seen in veterinary clinics as claimed in ARSL because:

  1. the kittens are of healthier stock, and
  2. that they are falling on better times in nutrition, housing, hygiene etc than the kittens of former days.
Vaccination, with its inherent dangers, cannot serve as a substitute for health.  But given the easy pickings and profits available for the asking in the vaccination industry by using scare-tactics displayed in ARSL, the pharma-chemi-vivi brigade falsely attribute the health that results from natural prevention, to the lucrative vaccination.  There is money in vaccination, but none in natural prevention.
(W. Belfield, Feline Leukemia - A Preventable Disease.)


1. Similarly Dr Frederick Klenner successfully prevented polio in human beings by using ascorbate (vitamin C).  Refer Chapter 5 Vaccination, Polio.  Refer also to Chapter 5 Vaccination, Measles.



Both diabetes and cancer are now common in dogs.  Experts in natural diet and healing say this is a warning against the folly of artificial diet, canned processed meat and the fancy carton of highly processed dog biscuit.  Diabetes can also be caused by shock.  This can be insidiously formed by the shock inflicted upon dogs by repeated vaccinations of all kinds common to the modern dog.  Indeed Banting's experimental dogs are said to have succumbed to shock and not diabetes.  "Avoid the use of insulin" advise these experts who recommend that correcting the diet is a far safer way of controlling, and, in many cases curing the disease. 


Canine distemper, say world experts on the rearing of dogs, results from incorrect diet, and unnatural orthodox treatment of the animals by drugs and vaccines.  In Switzerland many leading veterinary surgeons oppose distemper vaccination on the grounds that it gives no protection and undermines health.  In Israel popular veterinary opinion is that it is useless and often gives the disease to animals who may otherwise never have contracted it.

Distemper, hard-pad, parvovirus, mange and many other diseases destroy hundreds of pets every year because the vet called in by the trusting 'owner' frequently says that nothing can be done, for he will not try herbal remedies that have stood the test of countless centuries in many countries.  Juliette de Bairacli Levy, world renowned specialist, consultant and author of herbal and natural care, rearing and cure of animals, has demonstrated that though many breeders have had their entire kennels wiped out through canine distemper, and many 'owners' lost their pets repeatedly from the disease, there is a proven herbal treatment which can be easily administered.  With this herbal formula top kennels in the U.S.A., Switzerland, Germany and Holland, and kennels belonging to the British aristocracy, have reported curing distemper speedily and completely.  Similarly, top breeders whose names and addresses can be supplied are agreed that animals can be snatched from the brink of death from this hitherto fatal disease by applying the same natural and herbal treatment, the fundamental concept of which is practised by many veterinarians who espouse its guiding principles.

Juliette de Bairacli Levy has proven that veterinary herbal treatments are applicable to all animals without exception.  She says it is ironical, that basing their findings on unnatural, unscientific and illogical laboratory tests on rats during which massive amounts of herbs are forced upon them, the ruling veterinary body of the United Kingdom is attempting to ban the use of many long-proven herbs, such as comfrey, sage and poppy.


Juliette de Bairacli Levy considers parvovirus, a gastro-intestinal virus which affects dogs, "the worst canine ailment of all time".  She is not alone in advising against the use of vaccination which she says is:

"A totally unnatural treatment since it can well be a root cause of cancer and diabetes, formerly unknown in the canine world but now commonplace."

Many breeders and a growing number of veterinarians agree that if vaccination money were instead spent on the provision of natural foods, from whole-grain cereal products to fresh raw meat, the health decline seen among modern dogs would be halted.  In her long experience she says she has never known a death from parvo from those thousands world-wide who follow strict natural rearing for their dogs.

It would be inappropriate in a work of this nature, and neither is there room, to give in details symptoms of parvo, or the natural care which Levy claims is successful if given quickly to the stricken animal.  However as parvovirus is presented on page 8 of Animal Research Saves Lives as an excuse for vivisection the following extract from Breeders and Kennel Owners, of a report of dramatic recovery from the disease through application of Levy's herbal treatment speaks for itself:
(Name and Address Supplied.)

"Parvo virus was rife in this area (Newcastle).  Hundreds of dogs died.  Pups under three months were the worst hit.  The vets were almost begging dog-owners to have the inoculation against parvo though many reports flooded in saying that it did not work.  When dogs in our kennels showed symptoms we fasted them and used the herbal compound tablets and cayenne pepper, and castor-oil and then gruel (tree bark, roots, etc) and liquid diet.  We took the most drastic action as quickly as possible.  My friend, who breeds German shepherds, had dogs worse than mine, with profuse bleeding in stools and dehydration, and the glazed and blood-shot eyes peculiarity."

Going on to describe their many animals and methods, (both kennels practised strict natural rearing, refusing to consider inoculation) she continues:

"All our dogs recovered within four days of the cure, with improved health and vitality.  The bitches now have beautiful litters, are all strong and healthy and a credit to our kennels and to natural rearing."

Says Levy of parvo vaccine:

"I am of the opinion that Pasteur-inspired vaccine therapy makes misleading promises.  Promises are given that if vaccines are used against this and that disease there will be total immunity.  The countless vaccine failures have proved that this is not a reliable contract."

A renowned breeder of Afghan hounds Levy says she concentrates on natural foods, medicines and hygienic rearing.  P.R. Moxon writing in Shooting Times said:

"Countless kennels and dog-owners worldwide have proved her right in her methods, treatment and theory."

Juliette de Bairacli Levy has the following to say about vivisection:

"One of my greatest inspirations has always been my detestation of vivisection.  I am tired of the arguments in favour of this unnatural branch of unnatural chemical medicine, arguments sponsored by the vast sera manufacturing firms.  There was need to demonstrate conclusively that medicinal herbs are far superior in results to vaccines and chemo-therapy based on experiments on animals."

Dr Elliott Katz, Veterinarian (U.S.) in CIVIS Foundation Report, Nr. 2, Summer 1998:

"You and I are being lied to by the animal research establishment when they tell us all this cruelty is "necessary" for scientific research.  We are being fed this lie by people who make a living of their practices behind closed doors at universities and scientific institutes: by people who are deeply interested in keeping things in this six-billion-a-year business just the way they are."


ARSL PAGES 3, 8, 9

ARSL 2nd Edition Pages 2, 3, 10, 11

 That vaccination has an insidious effect on general canine health has been documented by many observant dog-breeders, with dozens of reports from as many countries.  The evidence that the disease rate among modern dogs is on the increase despite, or because of, vaccination, is also well-documented, as are the claims that vaccination has actually produced carriers of virulent diseases.  As with the plagues of human diseases of former times, animal diseases also owe their decline to improved conditions like sanitation and housing.

Vaccination is an extremely profitable business, both to the manufacturers of vaccine and to the distributors.  Clifford Hubbard, international canine authority and author, contributor to Our Dogs, Dog World, The Field Dogs in Britain, The Observer Book of Dogs and many others wrote about Juliette de Bairacli Levy's book The Cure of Canine Distemper:

"I am completely in agreement with you on your views against the so-called immunisation of dogs against distemper by the injection of various potent vaccines the exact micro-organism content of which must always remain unknown."

Evidence also abounds from other equally illustrious sources which claim that the orthodox prevention of canine distemper by vaccination is more dangerous than the disease.  Many say they would not accept a dog that had been inoculated against distemper.  In Israel popular veterinary opinion is that canine vaccination not only undermines health but that it causes many chronic diseases and life-long evils.

Mr James Baldwin, greyhound authority and breeder of German shepherd dogs wrote in Dog World concerning a failed anti-distemper vaccination movement among Irish and English greyhound breeders:

"Vaccination has an insidious effect on general canine health and it is noted by many observant dog-breeders that it is one of the causes of chronic skin disease, especially in the form of mange."

Breeders of racing dogs claim vaccination has a substantial adverse effect on the speed of their animals.

Dorothy Shepherd, M.D., Ch.B. (Edin), famed homeopathic doctor wrote:

"Vaccines, serums, and immunisation are extremely crude methods of prevention of disease.  They are based on the wrong conception that germs are the cause of disease, while the truth is that germs are but the result of disordered states in the body.  It is only by correcting the soil that you can remove the predisposition to any disease: and this can only be done by natural methods on nature-cure line assisted by homeopathy.  The modern methods of injecting huge doses of germs and their products into the body are disastrous and long-lasting in their effects."

"The more I follow-up clinical histories, the more I am inclined to agree with opponents of vaccination, that vaccination, instead of being a blessing, has proved to be a wolf in sheep's clothing.  It has produced more misery, more ill-health, in its wake than almost any other method of treatment."

Refer also to Chapter 16 Antibiotics.

Dr J.E.R. McDonagh, F.R.C.S., bacteriologist, wrote in The Nature of Disease, Vol. 1, pages 75-76:

"Immunization with an attenuated virus cannot prevent distemper.  The author has treated many dogs, which have developed distemper despite two or three injections of the preventative agent.  He is of the opinion that fits, chorea, hysteria, etc, in dogs have become more frequent since the use of distemper vaccine.  Successful prevention will never be achieved by inoculation."

Mr G. Messenger, 10 Hunter's Road, Hockley, Birmingham, U.K. wrote:

"I have been breeding for 47 years and exhibiting for 37 years.  You could not give me a dog if I knew it had been inoculated.  The remedy is worse than the disease."


"Politicians Need to Know - Vivisection Has To Go"

WDLA March to present Petition, 24 April 1989 (52k)

Photo: Dominic Hammond

WDLA March to present Petition, 24 April 1989.



ARSL PAGES 1, 2, 11, 18

ARSL 2nd Edition Page 2

 "Between half a million and two million species - 15 to 20 percent of all species on earth - could be extinguished by the year 2000.  Extinction of species on this scale is without precedent in human history."
(From The Global 2000 Report to the President of the United States of America, 1980.)

With the advent of vivisection all species, being contingent says man to the human species, became endangered as their steady flow into the laboratories became a torrent.  Today we inhabit the Earth as one species over many, instead of one species among many.  No species of animals, fish, bird or reptile is safe from domination by false and erroneous pseudo science.

Animal farming, as currently practised spells doom for much of the planet.  It has turned good land into deserts, weed patches and dustbowls.  Water pollution, destruction of the rainforests, the greenhouse effect and acid rain is our legacy to the 21st century.  As this work is being prepared Wellingtonians (Dominion, November 6 1990) are being told that the parasites giardia and cryptosporidium are present in high levels in the waterways below all the region's effluent stations and that higher levels of chemicals will be put in the city's water supply.

As we destroy ecosystems with tree-felling, bulldozers and pesticides, other beings, their habitats destroyed, are doomed.  The finding of cures for man's self-inflicted problems and the saving of the species which he himself has endangered will not be found through vivisection.  If we are to maintain a habitable planet, ethical, political, economic and social changes must be made, and quickly, for man himself has long joined the kakapo and kokako as an endangered species.

"O mystic bell-bird of the heavenly race of the swallow and dove, the quetzal and the nightingale.  When the brutish savage and the brutish white man that slay thee, one for food, the other for the benefit of science, shall have passed away, live still, live to tell thy message to the blameless spiritualised race that shall come after us to possess the Earth, not for a thousand years, but for ever."
(W. H. Hudson, Green Mansions.)



ARSL 2nd Edition Pages 12, 13

 The author does not believe that one species is less worthy, or of less consequence than another.  Today's objection to vivisection rests on the grounds that it is wrong methodology, regardless of species or the numbers of animals used.  That the publishers of ARSL attempt to justify spending the taxpayers' money on vivisection on the grounds that it is "helping save... native birds from extinction" (ARSL, page 11) reveals the abysmal calibre of the vivisector and his promoters.  Readers of the propaganda booklet will surely question the credentials of those who promote the vivisection of "domestic fowl" to save birds from extinction on the one hand, while there is wholesale decimation of their habitat on the other.

The vivisectors' hypocritical solicitude for vanishing birdlife is false and fraudulent, otherwise it would be directed to saving the forests by calling for an immediate halt to habitat destruction, which heralds the end of many more species, including flightless birds which are doomed.

A Dominion report of January 24 1991 claims that the N.Z. Government has decided to resume woodchipping of Southland's native beech forests.  This will result in the deaths of more than 16,000 pigeons, tuis, robins and threatened kakas and parakeets.  This systematic carnage and destruction is planned to the year 2002 even though decimation of the Earth's rainforests is a major factor in both the impending climate change and the highest species-extinction rate since the disappearance of the dodo.  It has been established that it is already too late to save the planet as irreversible catastrophe results from the annihilation of its foliage.  Nero, the story goes, fiddled while Rome burned.  History now repeats itself as the biomedical research community fiddles its sordid funeral march to the beat of short-term gain for long-term oblivion.  Vivisection is a fraud and Animal Research Saves Lives is a lie.  It is however true that the vivisection community is fighting, not for vanishing birdlife or endangered species, but for its own survival, as it recognises in this time of awakening hearts and souls, and of changing lifestyles and values... that its demise is drawing closer day by day.



ARSL 2nd Edition Page 20

 The broader answer to the tragedy of vanishing wildlife, and ARSL's claim that vivisection can rectify or alleviate the critical environmental situation, is dealt with under the rebuttals to pages 2 and 11 of ARSLOn page 18 ARSL insists that if vivisection was halted it would be impossible to save endangered species "like the kakapo and the kokako".

The author repeats that habitat pollution and destruction is placing the continued existence of an alarming number of species in jeopardy.  For many it is already too late.  ARSL, in advocating vivisection instead of planet recovery programmes as the solution, accepts the ongoing carnage of the environment, spurred on no doubt by the anticipation of grant money.  The author counters that saving species by nurturing the few pathetic remnants of once-thriving populations will not be achieved through the allocation of vivisection funds but by a drastic change of attitude toward irresponsible habitat destruction.

Were the publishers of ARSL sincere they would advocate the ploughing of funds into campaigns to stop discharge of chemical waste into the rivers, call a halt to logging, and pioneer re-planting strategies.  But a glimpse at the credentials of the publishers of ARSL reveal that they are not in the business of healing for love, but vivisecting for money.

Cages of Despair

Primates in cages (41k)D

Photo: Brian Gunn, Intl Assn Against Painful Experiments on Animals

The number of primates used in experimentation is increasing so rapidly that at least ten Asian and nine African primate species are threatened with extinction.  More than 250,000 primates a year are transported in this evil trade.  Decimated populations threaten the survival of the great apes and is merely one result of wildlife trafficking to vivisection laboratories.  Note that the animal in the bottom left-hand corner does not even have room to stand upright.


General - The Conspiracy  

ARSL PAGES 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 17, 19

ARSL 2nd Edition Pages 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 21

(Dr J. Shannon of the National Institute of Health, U.S.A., June 23 1955.)

"The first task of every carefully planned conspiracy is to convince the world that no conspiracy exists.  That's why very few people know, or believe, that the chemo-medical combine, whose economic and political clout is comparable to that of the war industry, has long since placed special trained agents into the mass media, government, the judicial system, humane societies, liberal churches, unions and businesses.  Through them the combine can control everything."
(Hans Ruesch, Bullet-in, Nr. 1.)

It is not surprising that the publishers of Animal Research Saves Lives promote vaccines.  Vaccination is big business, the success of which depends on sales.  The research and administration of vaccines employs tens of thousands of people in drug companies, private research laboratories and foundations, universities, State health departments and hospitals.  Like all other businesses it is geared to profit.

On a regular basis advertisements appear in the daily papers and in popular magazines urging the populace to line-up for their life-saving "jabs".  Nowhere in these glossy advertisements is there a hint that they are inserted by the pharmaceutical companies producing the vaccines.  The same applies to television programmes which exhorting the benefits of mass immunisation programmes neglect to say that they are produced by the pharmaceutical giants and presented from carefully memorised scripts by t.v. personalities of the day.

Apparently in New Zealand doctors get approximately $8 from the State for each child vaccinated.  Throughout history the rationale for vaccinating against all the diseases, fictitious and otherwise is based on profit.

(Dr W.S. Rankin, Secretary of the North Carolina State Board of Health, in the Journal of the American Medical Association, November 4 1922.): -

"Last year we inoculated 70,000 persons against typhoid fever and 1,000 children between six and twelve years of age against diphtheria.  The County Commissioner paid the local practitioners 25 cents for each complete inoculation and that was $20,000 which went to the profession last year which otherwise would not have been received.  The work of the medical profession with the State Board of Health does not stop when the $20,000 is paid.  It goes on.  In the dispensaries which were conducted in Union County, North Carolina, with 35,000 people, the physicians vaccinated 10,000 people in a campaign of five weeks.  That was $2,500 paid to twenty physicians, only $125 each, but think of the effect on the business of the profession in keeping up that work."

Guy L. Kiever, M.D., Commissioner of Health of Michigan in an article in the Journal of the Michigan State Medical Society, August 1928 wrote:-

"In this State there are 100,000 babies born annually... If all these infants were immunised, and for this service the physicians receive from $5.00 to $10.00 per case, the net income would be from $500,000 to $1,000,000... The increase in physicians' income from diphtheria would be from one-quarter to three-quarters of a million dollars if we would immunize all children against this disease soon after they are six months of age... Some maternity hospitals are vaccinating with vaccine virus all babies born in their institutions... It is estimated that one-third of all births in this State occur in hospitals.  If all hospitals were to establish this rule as part of their regular procedure, it would mean an addition of 30,000 immunised people in the State each year."

"When the 100,000 people born each year in Michigan are vaccinated against smallpox at birth... the physicians, by adopting the practice of vaccination at birth would increase their income by nearly $200,000."

In the Journal of the Medical Society of New Jersey U.S.A., September 1929, Mr Osborne, Health Officer of East Orange County says that physicians receive several times more from inoculating children than by treating cases of the disease.

In the American Journal of Public Health, January 1930, the editorial states how much money physicians would receive from inoculating babies - adding:

"There are four times as many preschool children as babies, and ten times as many school-children.  The opportunity for increasing practice by carrying on immunisation among the pre-school and school populations in the physician's clientele offers an almost unlimited field."

In an article in the Cincinatti Times Star, headed "Health Work Aid", that same year, Dr Peters pointed out that when the city purified its water there was an almost entire elimination of thousands of cases of typhoid fever and other water-carried diseases, treatment of which gave an immense revenue in the way of vaccinations.

"The public drives for the immunisation of children against diphtheria brought a great revenue to private practitioners.  There were about 25,000 children treated and of this number about fiftyfour percent by private practitioners, or about 19,000.  At $5 a treatment the revenue would be $95,000.  Annually there are about 7,500 children to be so treated... This work gives a revenue far in excess of what the treatment of the disease yielded."

Almost sixty years later this obsession with profits from immunisation programmes rather than natural prevention is still evident:

"Before long 15-month-old infants will get nine different vaccines - All on one visit to the doctor."
(Democrat and Chronicle, New York, April 1987.)

"A dramatic leap in income from one quarter to the next proved the result when GPs in one Cheshire practice set up an immunisation clinic."

"We should be able to get 100 percent for rubella.  We intend to contact people who don't turn up and find out the reason: whether they have had it done elsewhere or whether they just haven't bothered.  Certain areas within Warrington can be difficult and we can get the health visitor to go round and follow up."
(Financial Pulse, October 10 1987.)

The Liberator (BUAV, March 1988) contained an article outlining over 80 different AIDS drugs and 25 vaccines currently under development by rival drug companies.  Wellcome's Retrovir claims to "hold the virus at bay, although with the risk of serious side-effects".  The Independent, U.K. wrote:

"At a treatment cost of 4,500 Pounds Sterling per patient each year, the arithmetic begins to look exciting... By 1991 the drug should be contributing 750 million pounds sterling per year to Wellcome's sales and 250 million pounds sterling to profits."

Meanwhile - on March 23 1987 the Wellington Evening Post, in an article by Dr Kenneth Warren, Director of Health Sciences at the Rockefeller Foundation promises "a volcanic eruption of vaccines within the next 15 years... even a vaccine against tooth decay"!

"Animal derived and 'safety-tested' vaccines are the greatest threat to human health the world has ever known, war, pestilence, famine, and pollution included.  As immune strength declines due to other dangerous medical measures, faulty nutrition, old age etc, the ever-worsening epidemic of vaccine-induced cancer, leukaemia, lymphoma, birth defects, asthma, eczema, convulsions, personality changes, multiple sclerosis, AIDS, arthritis, cot-death etc... will eventually bring the health services to a halt."
(Patrick Rattigan of the CAMPAIGN TO END FRAUDULENT MEDICAL RESEARCH in the book Blood Poison.)

Rattigan goes on:-

"Although antibiotics, antipyretics, steroids, analgesics, x-rays, water fluoridation, cigarettes etc, can all claim credit for the out of control world-wide epidemic of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS)... nothing is in the same class as vaccination."


"While we offer children immunisation we also offer parents Tetanus and Polio Boosters."
(Dr Brendan O'Colmain, Financial Pulse, October 10 1987.)

In Vaccines: Vital or Vulnerable by Archie Kalokerinos and Glenn Dettman the writers claim that the situation arising from vaccination catastrophes is far worse than those of drugs like Thalidomide or chemicals like Agent Orange, or indeed any other cause of misery the reader cares to name.  They are backed by an increasing number of scientists of high calibre whose deliberations are founded on observation, reason, knowledge, experience, and wisdom, who claim that the holy cow of vaccination is wounded, even dying, and that no amount of injection of phoney publicity can save it.  Similarly, the beneficiaries of vaccination, their cases resting on speculation, self-conceit, pre-conceived opinions, prejudice and greed, in order to maintain their specific interests, are attempting to breath life into the corpse by writing shallow, emotive and unevidenced papers like Animal Research Saves Lives.  They do so in desperation as ever more medics disengage themselves from stands once accepted without challenge.

Why did ARSL not direct its readers to the article in the prestigious Lancet of November 24 1979, which detailed cases of 2,525 compensations for brain damaged children who had been turned into vegetables from vaccinations?  The article emphasised that the figure did not include the thousands who had only been part damaged, or those suffering from cot death as a result of vaccination.
("Compensation for Vaccine Damage", The Lancet, November 24 1979.)

Vaccines are made from: mucus of infected children (whooping cough), excrement from typhoid victims (typhoid), belly-scabs and pus from festering wounds on calves (smallpox) and until recently the diseased kidneys of monkeys (polio).  Small wonder medics warn that vaccines cause leukemia, encephalitis, multiple sclerosis, cancer and AIDS.

In the Northern Territories of Australia, according to Drs Archie Kalokerinos and Glenn Dettman, vaccination was killing 500 out of 1,000 aboriginal children.  In a two year period without vaccination the death rate was nil.

R. Moskowitz, writing in the Journal of the American Institute of Homeopaths, said that vaccination can cause latent, cell-bound, antibody-immune viruses, leading, through stress or shock, to "autonomous multiplication of cells i.e. cancer".

Since the founding of the National Health Service, vaccines and all, cancer deaths have risen by over 70% in the 1-9 age group and by over 90% in the 10-19 age group.  Twelve-hundred and rising, new childhood cases are diagnosed each year.

(O.P.C.S. MBI Series (HMSO).)


Authors B. Frank Polk, M.D., MSc; Julie A. White, R.N.; Paola C. DeGirolami, M.D.; and John F. Modlin, M.D. writing in The New England Journal of Medicine, September 4 1980...

"Fully supports the evidence presented by A. KALOKERINOS and G. DETTMAN in Vaccines: Vital or Vulnerable."


From The Dangers of Compulsory Immunisations How to Avoid Them Legally by Attorney Tom Finn:

Tom Finn is a nationally-known trial attorney.  He is licenced to practice in the highest state courts in U.S.A..  He has litigated cases dealing with health freedom issues including medical malpractice, compulsory immunisations, and personal injuries due to immunisations throughout U.S.A..  He says in the above book:

  • "Immunisations by their very nature are an assault on the body.  The immunisations are toxic and there is always a risk of dangerous side effects."
  • "Vaccinations are dangerous."
  • "Injuries and deaths have resulted in the past from their use."
  • "Monetary damages have been awarded in court to victims of injuries from immunisations."
  • "There is a controversy raging in the scientific and medical community as to the need, the effectiveness and the side-effects of immunisations.  Parents opposed to compulsory immunisations are being forced to have their children vaccinated against their wills due to the pressures exerted upon them by local health departments, schools, nurses, and in some cases a court of law.  Many parents are unaware of the history of these drugs, the causal connection which has linked them to the very disease they are given to prevent and the large volume of court cases awarding damages to persons injured as a result of some of these immunisations."

 "No doctor who vaccinates patients can afford not to read Tom Finn."1
(Robert S. Mendelsohn, M.D., Author of Confessions of a Medical Heretic.)


In the U.S.A. it is compulsory for children to be immunised against diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, measles, mumps and rubella before they can be enrolled in school.  For years there have been rumblings in the N.Z. medical journals and popular press to introduce the same measures in this country.  In an article in Christchurch's The Press, October 1988, entitled "School Ban Idea Over Immunisation" the then National President of the Pediatric Society, Dr Tony Cull said pediatricians "overwhelmingly supported" the idea of pre-school compulsory vaccination.


Refer also to Chapter 12 Multiple Sclerosis

1. Dangers of Compulsory Immunisations How to Avoid Them Legally can be obtained from: Family Fitness Press, PO Box 1658, New Port Richley, Florida 33552, United States of America.




ARSL 2nd Edition Pages 0, 5

Many New Zealanders will remember the major polio vaccination scandal which broke in 1983 making headlines around the world, New Zealand dailies screaming the following front-page headlines: "Disease Time Bomb", "Mass Pollution of Population" and "Future of the Nation at Risk".  As a shocked public learned that in the 1960s two and a half million New Zealanders (many infants and school-children) had been vaccinated with highly-dangerous contaminated monkey-based polio vaccine, which left many crippled for life and others faced with the threat of developing brain, kidney, breast and other tumours, multiple sclerosis and other catastrophes, the then Minister of Health, Dr A. Malcome stated:

"It cannot be ruled out that two million New Zealanders could not be suffering in thirty years' time from cancerous brain tumours as a result of the vaccinations."

The history of vaccination is fraught with tragedy, which, said the front page of the N.Z. Truth on February 2 1983, places: "The health of the entire nation at risk".

Ten years earlier, in 1973, Prof. Clausen, Director of the Institute of Preventative Medicine at the University of Odense, Denmark, warned the medical establishment:

"Millions of people have been inoculated with anti-polio vaccine contaminated with tumoral SV40 virus."  (Present in the green monkey cells ground to produce the vaccine.)  "It is possible that it will take 20 or more years before the eventual harmful effects of the vaccine will manifest itself."

"All the major medical historians of our century agree that the decline of the epidemics which had wrought havoc in the Middle Ages was not due to the introduction of vaccination, but of hygiene, for they had diminished long before large-scale inoculations had begun.  And hygiene, in the broadest sense of the word, physical, mental and alimentary, is the only key to health.  The overwhelming majority of people vaccinated all over the world against polio have been inoculated with potentially carcinogenic substances. i.e. theoretically capable of producing cancer."
(Hans Ruesch, Slaughter of the Innocent.)

And in Naked Empress by the same author:

The late Dr Robert Mendelsohn, Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Illinois wrote that the great polio epidemics in the U.S.A. in the 1940s and 1950s were caused by: the previous almost total disappearance of breast-feeding, the national change to junk-food diet and the widespread use over the preceding decades of pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine (see relevant section on DPT vaccine).  Many medical professionals are concerned that as we pollute our environment with man-made chemicals, so we pollute our children with injections from a Pandora's box of chemicals the consequences of which could spell disaster by destroying the immunity of mankind itself.

Just before the introduction of the first polio vaccine (1954-55), Dr Herbert Ratner of Oak Park, Illinois, witnessed that the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis was paying physicians $25 for every paralytic polio diagnosis.

According to Dr M. Beddow Bayly, in 1952, the year polio vaccine went into effect in Great Britain the incidence of polio had reduced to 15 cases.  Since then the British Public Health Laboratories have admitted that over half the cases of polio in Britain have been caused by the vaccine itself.

This coincides with the results of an investigation by Los Angeles Times staff-writer Bill Curry, who, in an article "Polio War Renewed Controversy", Los Angeles Times, July 1 1985 wrote:

"In USA today the only cause of polio is the oral polio vaccine routinely administered to infants in society's drive to rid the nation of the disease."

It has been the writer's experience, that many of today's "investigative journalists" (who have nothing to gain from agreeing with medical historians and everything to lose by voicing opinions contrary to the interests of the institutions with which they are connected) seldom if ever put their careers in jeopardy by proclaiming vaccination, or vivisection useless.  It is their job to re-establish and re-affirm institutionalised opinion.  However Peter Radetsky, on page 98 of the N.Z. Listener, October 29 1990, in an article titled "The Polio Problem" let slip:

"Every one of the handful of polio cases each year in the United States is caused by the vaccine itself."

The following quote comes from A Speaker's Guide to the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research:

"Avoid the use of too many statistics.  Stories of lives saved and health improved are more effective."

Apparently they are, even when those stories, like the stories written in ARSL, are fiction.  In contrast, records, statistics and facts don't lie, nor do they play upon the public's emotions or insult its intelligence.

Disregarding the above advice the following statistics are given from Eleanor McBean's book Vaccination Condemned, which provides horrifying information on the rate of polio before and after compulsory vaccination in the U.S.A. - It comes from People for Reason in Science and Medicine (PRISM), PO Box 1305, Woodland Hills, California, U.S.A.:

(From U.S. Public Health Reports)

Statistics for four states are listed, showing the number of cases of polio during 1958 before compulsory vaccination, and during 1959, after the polio shots became compulsory.

1958: 119 cases of polio before compulsory shots
1959: 386 cases of polio after compulsory shots

1958: 17 cases of polio before compulsory shots
1959: 52 cases of polio after compulsory shots

1958: 45 cases of polio before compulsory shots
1959: 123 cases of polio after compulsory shots

1958: 78 cases of polio before compulsory shots
1959: 313 cases of polio after compulsory shots

And more statistics, as according to the British Government's Communicable Disease Centre, 41% of cases of polio are now found in people who have either just been vaccinated, or their immediate contacts.
(NAVS, Campaigner, March 1988.)

Certainly the chemi-medi-vivi alliance, aided and abetted by their accomplices in governments and in the media are willing and eager to strike terror into the hearts of the populace about the diseases waiting in the wings to pounce upon the unvaccinated.  Dr Frederick Klenner earns his niche in the medical history books for successfully preventing polio with treatment of ascorbate (vitamin C) (as Australian Doctors Archie Kalokerinos and Glenn Dettman (Hon. Advisor for Aboriginal Health) advocated the use of ascorbate to prevent SIDS in Aboriginal children who were killed in large numbers by vaccination).

The writer can do no better than commend Klenner's published works knowing that the reader will be shocked by his revelations about the gross dishonesty of the promoters of vaccines and their real motives for pushing their wares.  Reading Klenner instead of accepting on face value the lies of ARSL may also save your child or grandchild the trauma of polio and other viral diseases:

F. Klenner, Southern Medicine and Surgery, Vol. 3, No. 7, July 1949.

F. Klenner, Tri State Medical Journal

Around the world honest investigators are discovering that on massive scale people are being poisoned with... vaccines... medicines... and... LIES!

"The abolition of vivisection has been chosen as a primary goal because it is scientifically and medically invalid, harmful to consumers, taxpayers and the environment, and morally unjustifiable.  The misleading and confusing data obtained through live animal experimentation makes humans the real guinea pigs, contributes to the toxic overload that threatens the existence of life on the planet, leads to vivisection of humans, and inevitably, to vivisection of the planet."
(PRISM, Vivisection: Science or Science Fiction.)

Rachel Carson in Silent Spring wrote:

"We should no longer accept the counsel of those who tell us we must fill our world with poisonous chemicals: we should look about and see what other course is open to us."

One course is to refuse vaccination!... Author.

Refer also to Chapter 3 (Diseases of Cats and Dogs, Feline Leukemia), Chapter 12 (Multiple Sclerosis), and Measles later this Chapter.

Meningococcal Meningitis  

If New Zealanders had a fright with the 1960s polio vaccine catastrophe when, centre stage under the world's spotlight, the N.Z. Health Department looked silly for allowing the bungle to take place, they were due for another fright in 1987 when the meningococcal meningitis mass immunisation campaign had to be called off mid-stream as it left some children suffering "alarming neurological effects"1 and others were given the meningitis they had been vaccinated against.

The papers of the time were full of it... refer to the headlines of Dominion, July 27 1987.

Despite the debacle caused by this vaccine-gone-wrong and the long aftermath as distressed parents of damaged children picked up the pieces, the New Zealand Government with a persistence that could only be described as fanatical proceeded with Hepatitis B. immunisations that same year as if nothing had happened.

"It would be a shame if people didn't get their children vaccinated"
... said the New Zealand Medical Association, July 29 1987.

A shame indeed for Connaught, Wellcome, Wyeth, Lederle and other vaccine producers, whose "safe" vaccines are dubbed "unreasonably dangerous" by Allen McDowell, U.S. lawyer, who according to New Scientist, February 26 1987 has won millions of dollars in out-of-court settlements from damages ensuing from vaccinations. 

1. Evening Post, July 24 1987. (Reported children fainting, debilitated and suffering from nausea after vaccination.)

Dominion, July 29 1987.  Headline article says that "some children are now suffering from viral meningitis since having the vaccine".  That the Health Dept has an assurance from the producers of the vaccine, Connaught Laboratories (U.S.A.), that "they did not have any information to suggest there was a problem with the vaccine".

AUTHOR'S NOTE: The polio vaccine which "put the health of the entire nation at risk" also came from Connaught Laboratories U.S.A..

N.Z. Listener, August 29 1987.  Headlines entitled "Meningitis: A Campaign Goes Astray", by Finlay MacDonald.

"Meningococcal meningitis hit the headlines recently when the Health Dept conducted its first mass vaccination campaign for 25 years.  Some children suffered side-effects that have still not been explained.  The department has been accused of using bribery instead of informative publicity to get its message across.  And a large question remains: why is a killer disease associated with poverty posing such a threat to our children?"


Hepatitis B.  

A lead article in Dominion, May 13 1988 reported a warning about the impending Hepatitis B. immunisation programme, published in the N.Z. Medical Journal, from Waiuku doctor Jonathan Kuttner, who had written:

"The risks involved with the vaccine did not equate with the benefit."
wrote Dr Kuttner "the avowed purpose of this campaign is to wipe out Hepatitis B. in this country... but to succeed one would need to stop the 800,000 tourists that visit New Zealand annually".

Dr Kuttner also expressed concern about the blood-plasma based vaccine being used in the programme, "coming mainly from the American homosexual community".  This brave and outspoken doctor went on to say:

"I shudder to contemplate the effects of a bad batch of this vaccine on our newborn population.  There has not been one major vaccine which has not had a purity breakdown somewhere in its history"

The tragedies arising from Hepatitis B. vaccine are given more fully in NZAVS Submission in Support of its Petition to Abolish Vivisection (1989) but briefly: In January 1983 Dr John Findbeiner, writing in Medical World News, warned that the Hepatitis B. vaccine "might be contaminated with a pathogen responsible for the AIDS epidemic".  Alan Cantwell, a Los Angeles doctor, confirms in his book AIDS the Mystery and the Solution that investigations revealed the first 26 cases of AIDS in the U.S. were from New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, the three cities that carried out the most extensive early Hepatitis B. vaccine trialsDr Cladd Stevens of the New York Blood Centre assembled 212 men out of the 1083 who had taken part in the Hepatitis B. vaccine trials and found 85 of them with AIDS.

In an article "Hepatitis B. Side Effects in New-Born Babies", April 1989 by Hilary Butler comes the following:

"Over the last few months, I have had a lot of letters from both the North and South Islands of New Zealand detailing new-born babies who have had serious illnesses following the Hepatitis B. injections."

It should be obvious that the money wasted on phoney vaccinations produced to keep the chemi-medi-vivi alliance in clover should be spent on cleaning up the polluted environment, and investigating industrial plants in districts where outbreaks of Hepatitis occur.

All the evidence shows that the relation between the soaring rate of liver disease and the prevalence of liver poisons is no coincidence.  Insecticides, chlorinated hydrocarbons, organic phosphates.  To this could be added lack of hygiene, lack of nutrition and lack of interest as people are bulldozed by scare tactics like those used in ARSL into lining up like sheep for their easy fix which fixes nothing but the profits of the vaccine producers whilst at the same time imperilling the health of the trusting populace.

"As long ago as the mid-1930s a special group of hydro-carbons the chlorinated naphthalenes, was found to cause hepatitis, and also a rare and almost invariably fatal liver disease in persons subject to occupational exposure"...

"Our line of defence against invading poisons from within is now weakened and crumbling."
(Rachel Carson, Silent Spring.)




ARSL 2nd Edition Page 5

 ARSL's claim that leprosy in the Pacific Islands is likely to be eradicated thanks to a vaccine developed on armadillos demonstrates yet again, with the aid of phoney illustrations that the booklet is intended to lure the naive reader to swallow at face value text which is shallow, flimsy, unsubstantiated.  Those skilled in reading material on the subject of vivisection will see at a glance that ARSL is designed for the express purpose of protecting the individual interests of its publishers.

The material unearthed on this subject reveals that the treatment of leprosy has throughout history been based solely upon clinical observation, experience and hygiene.  The reason for this may be given in the words of J.A. Kinnear Brown, B.Sc., M.D., M.R.C.S., D.T.M., specialist leprologist, Uganda.  In an article in the Bulletin of the National Association for the Prevention of Tuberculosis, October 1958, page 135, Dr Kinnear Brown writes:

"Leprosy is a disease caused by a bacillus which morphologically resembles that of tuberculosis.  It has not been cultured and the disease has not been reproduced experimentally in animals or man.  The treatment of leprosy has throughout the ages been based solely upon clinical observation and experience."

Six years earlier Sir George Pickering, M.D., University of London, had obviously been of the same mind for he wrote the following in Lancet, November 8 1952, page 895:

"Any work which seeks to elucidate the cause of disease, the mechanism of disease, the cure of disease, or the prevention of disease, must begin and end with observations on man, whatever the intermediate steps may be.  Man is a species that in many respects is quite unlike any species kept in cages and subject to the kinds of experiments that can be made by any discipline other than clinical science."

In Slaughter of the Innocent Hans Ruesch wrote that the Swiss medical historian Ackerknecht claimed that the bubonic plague which caused millions of deaths during the Middle Ages disappeared without vaccination.  And that leprosy disappeared from Europe without any specific therapy.  "He knew", says Ruesch, "what Hippocrates knew: that the most effective and at the same time harmless prevention of contagion is hygiene".

A recent contribution worth citing comes from Dr Robert Sharpe for 20 years active in the U.K. National Anti-Vivisection Society who shares the views of the other prestigious experts quoted thus:

"Strains of M. scrofulaceum group mycobacteria, isolated from human leprous tissue, can be used to screen drugs against this disease."
(L. Kato, Experientia, 1978, Vol. 34, pages 1322-1323.)

"The localised disease in the foot-pads of mice has been used for this purpose, but some drugs whilst showing anti-leprosy activity in the mouse foot-pad have no therapeutic effect in human leprosy.  The only reliable subject for screening drugs against leprosy is the human lepromatous leprosy patient... the in-vitro model is relatively inexpensive and can process a larger number of compounds."
(Dr. R. Sharpe, NAVS, London.)

Unfortunately, mainly due to public complacency brought about by cleverly contrived brainwashing by publications like ARSL, the good advice of acclaimed medical practitioners is lost on the vivisectors from whom no species is safe.  Setting their sights on the harmless and peaceful nine-banded armadillo, an animal whose teeth are set so far back in its mouth it cannot even bite, existing on termites and insects deep in the forests of Central America and Mexico, it too has fallen victim to the modern barbarism of vivisection.  It too is doomed by the quackery and fraud, the crime and the conspiracy, which, spawned by the medical faculties, who instead of educating their pupils corrupt them, aided and abetted by government agencies and a willing media, is palmed off to a gullible public as science.

Interestingly, and in tune with the foregone, the Guizhou Branch of the CHINA ANTI-LEPROSY SOCIETY announced recently that it has severed itself from the American Leprosy Mission and its associated vaccines and founded its own regime based on the principles of total hygiene, prevention and observation.  Setting up its own hospitals and rehabilitation villages it has reduced the incidence of leprosy by two thirds saying it predicts the total elimination of leprosy in China by 1992.

DPT and SIDS  


ARSL 2nd Edition Pages 0, 4, 21

DPT: Diphtheria, Pertussis (Whooping Cough), Tetanus.  (Three in one vaccine.)

SIDS: Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.  (Cot death.)

In 1986 Jennifer Hyman, reporter on the Rochester, U.S.A. Democrat and Chronicle (who had previously carried out medical investigations in South Africa, Australia and New Zealand's psychiatric hospitals), headed a team of researchers into hundreds of authoritative scientific studies of the many anguished parents whose children had died or were permanently injured after receiving DPT (diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus) vaccinations.  $US12.7 million had been paid out in claims against vaccine companies.  For five months Hyman and her team of investigators interviewed leading doctors and experts in the field, both in the U.S.A. and other countries.

The result was a five-part series of stories which were presented in five sixteen page full-size newspapers entitled "Children at Risk: the DPT Dilemma" published by the Democrat and Chronicle, Rochester, New York, April 1987.  It is chilling and terrifying reading.

"Parents need to be educated so that they don't just accept these vaccines as innocuous substances."

said Barbara Loe Fisher, mother of a vaccine-damaged child, founder of the support group DISSASTISFIED PARENTS TOGETHER and co-author of DPT: A Shot in the Dark.

"Children at Risk: DPT Dilemma.  Vaccine - The Protection That Can Be Poisonous."

The above headlines the front page of Democrat and Chronicle dated April 1987.  And on page 3:

"Because serious vaccine reactions are grossly under-reported the true incidence is probably considerably higher than public health officials and the medical community are generally willing to acknowledge."... "Before the sun goes down in New York State, a baby will be rushed to the emergency room in convulsions and will end up with a needle in its spinal cord because of this goddamn vaccine."

Says Dr Kevin Geraghty, pediatric immunologist who criticises the method of testing the vaccine which is thus:

Each batch of pertussis vaccine is tested on mice which are injected with the vaccine then 'challenged' with pertussis bacteria directly into the brain.  The vaccine's potency is judged on the basis of how many mice die and how many survive.  To determine the safety of the vaccine for children, it is injected into the abdomens of young mice, which are observed to see if they continue to gain weight.  If they gain a specific amount of weight the vaccine is said to be safe!  In DPT: A Shot in the Dark the mouse toxicity test is dismissed outright:

"The sad fact is that after more than 40 years of subjecting pertussis vaccine to the mouse toxicity test, children are still dying and being brain-damaged after the vaccine has passed this test."

"Drug manufacturers and the FDA have known since at least the early 1960s that the mouse toxicity test bears little relation to adverse reactions in children.  Knowing that the vaccine was not being properly evaluated for toxicity, they continued to inject it into more than sixty million children during the following twenty years..." say the authors of DPT: A Shot in the Dark.

"Every week 67,000 children in the USA receive a shot of DPT vaccine.  It's about as routine as getting a dental checkup.  Most states, except New York, require it.  Parents don't question it.  Few of them are aware of the potentially toxic side-effects of pertussis vaccine.  Doctors don't tell them that in addition to pain, swelling and high fever, it can cause shock, convulsions, brain-damage and death.  Some doctors regard the vaccine as so dangerous they will not give it to their own children.  Public health officials warn of whooping cough epidemics if parents fail to vaccinate their children.  But the disease is not the virulent killer it once was.  Nor does the vaccine guarantee a child won't get it."
(Dr Kevin Geraghty, Democrat and Chronicle, April 1987.)

"If your baby dies it will be your fault"... a Blenheim doctor told an NZAVS member who said "No" to vaccination.  The excessive pressure brought to bear on parents by the pharmaceutical giants to have their babies vaccinated places many of them in a dilemma, tearing families apart, mothers and fathers often disagreeing on the issue.  Before succumbing to the cleverly orchestrated, profit motivated propaganda to have their babies 'jabbed' New Zealand parents are advised to read the October 1989, Vol. 2, Issue No. 1, of The Immunisation Awareness Society in which Hilary Butler presents an article about pertussis (whooping cough) vaccination entitled "Facing The Facts" which gives a staggering amount of information.

Reporting results of investigation on the dangers involved in the pertussis part of the three-in-one vaccine the above article is impressive for the weight of research involved, terrifying for those who still have faith in vivisection-based medicine, and unlike ARSL its claims are meticulously sourced.  "Facing The Facts" explodes the myth of the validity of animal-based and tested vaccines, lists the horror of the numerous catastrophes which include thousands of deaths, reveals the lawsuits, the graft and the shifty dealings of advisers and consultants on the payrolls of the producers of the vaccine who promote the product in full knowledge of the dangers involved.

"Facing The Facts" can be obtained from:

The Immunisation Awareness Society
PO Box 56-048


"Pertussis vaccine is not accidentally or occasionally toxic.  It is intrinsically toxic."
(Prof. Gordon Stewart, Pertussis Vaccine: The United Kingdom's Experience, International Symposium on Pertussis, U.S. Dept H.E.W., November 1-3 1978.)

DPT: A Shot in the Dark is essential reading exposing the deceit and cover-ups taking place in the behind-the-scenes vivisection/vaccination fraud.  No parent should vaccinate their child before reading: DPT: A Shot in the Dark by Barbara Loe Fisher and Harris Coulter.

(This expose of the DPT vaccine scandal which resulted from legitimate and lengthy media investigations of the families of damaged and dead babies and children was presented to the N.Z. Government at the Hearing of NZAVS Petition to Abolish Vivisection on March 20 1991, and is included in NZAVS Submission in Support of Petition to Abolish Vivisection.  The Government did not acknowledge the information.)

The informative NZAVS Submission is available from:

New Zealand Anti-Vivisection Society (Inc.)
PO Box 9387

(Price in New Zealand dollars, includes GST (within New Zealand) and postage and packaging.)

New Zealand $3.00
Australia $4.50
South Pacific $4.50
U.S.A., Canada, East Asia $5.00
Europe $5.00
Rest of the World $5.00

(Refer also to the section on whooping cough vaccine.)

As this work is completed more vaccine tragedies are being revealed:

  1. N.Z. Listener, October 28 1991 runs a story about Sophie O'Brien who is blind and cannot even sit.  Her brain damage is the result of triple vaccine.  (TVNZ, Tuesday Documentary, October 29 1991.)
  2. The Civil Abolitionist (U.S.A.), Spring/Summer 1991 tells of Thomas James Motta (Seattle/Canada) who died 33 hours after receiving DPT vaccine.  He was 20 months old.  The death certificate read "atypical sudden infant death syndrome".  Refusing to accept this his parents demanded a review of the autopsy which concluded that the pertussis element of the vaccine had "sensitized" the child's vital organs and they had ceased to function.  In a letter to the Seattle Times Thomas's mother revealed that the articles in scientific reviews claiming there is no link between DPT immunisations and deaths or injuries, failed to mention that the studies they referred to were funded by the manufacturer of the vaccine... Lederle Pharmaceuticals.
  3. The same batch of vaccine brain-damaged a child in Alaska.
  4. Taiwanese health officials have halted the use of DPT vaccine because three infants who received the inoculation "died soon after receiving the vaccine".
    (Extract from the article titled "Taiwan Stops Vaccines", Evening Post, March 13 1992.)
Damages from DPT vaccine are so numerous that the U.S. Government and the three pharmaceutical companies concerned established a compensation fund for the victims.



The following chart reveals how in England and Wales deaths from measles began to decline rapidly around 1918, fifty years before the highly lucrative vaccination campaign.  Currently 800 parents have already entered into litigation against the U.K. Health Department for measles vaccines-damage compensation.  "Side effects" of the vaccine may be convulsions, hyperactivity, arthritis, multiple sclerosis, encephalitis (brain damage) and paralysis.


(HMSO) Measles: death rates of children under 15 for England and Wales

"Here an intensive measles vaccine onslaught boosted the incidence of measles from 22,230 cases in 1968 to 75,000 cases in 1971.  Compulsory vaccination means that the vaccination level is around 96%, consequently provisional figures for 1986 show a four-fold increase in cases from 1983 to 1986."
(NAVS, The Campaigner, March 1988.) 

New Zealand

From the N.Z. Official Yearbooks and Appendices to Parliamentary Journals

Measles: Deaths per million (N.Z.)

"Here the vaccine syndicate holds great sway, cases were 20 times higher in January-April 1986 than in January-April 1985."
(NAVS, The Campaigner, March 1988)

"The geographical spread of multiple sclerosis also suggests that it is most common in populations which have been extensively vaccinated against measles... we expect to see an increase of multiple sclerosis in the third world, in view of the United Nations' claim that some 40 percent of the children there are now being vaccinated against measles."
(Source as above)

"Here a study showed that people who had measles vaccine-induced antibodies in their bloodstreams later developed more arthritis, bone problems, skin diseases and cancer than those who had measles.  The vaccine is also coming under scrutiny as a cause of multiple sclerosis."
(Vegan magazine.)

"A report by a staff physician at a children's hospital in Australia states that up to 15% of measles vaccine develop a fever starting 6 to 8 days after vaccination, sometimes lasting several days.  Other immediate reactions include vomiting, rash and cyanosis (extremities like lips, fingernails turning blue)."
("Vaccines - Vital Statistics", More Magazine, October 1987.)

Australian doctors Archie Kalokerinos and Glenn Dettman say yet again (in Vaccines: Vital or Vulnerable) that ascorbate (vitamin C) will modify the action of the measles virus, as other specialists claim that it modifies the virus in other diseases, both human and animal, for example refer to Chapter 3 Diseases of Cats and Dogs, Feline Leukemia.  Also refer section on Polio vaccination this Chapter.

Dr Boris Kurlyandsky writing about measles in the Soviet Union says that the rise in living standards, and the radical change in housing conditions are responsible for making the infectious diseases a thing of the past.  He goes on to say:

"But the trouble is that from birth to the age of 17 or 18, along with medicines, which are prescribed to him when he falls ill, man is administered more than 20 prophylactic inoculations... in other words has alien proteins introduced into his body.  All this occurs at that period of his life, when according to biological laws his body's protective powers have not fully matured.  More, the inoculative and medicinal assortment has been expanding with every passing decade."
(Dr B. Kurlyandsky, "What's Worse, the Illness or the Cure?", Sputnik, February 1980.) 


 As stated more than eight hundred parents have already entered into litigation against the U.K. Health Department for vaccine-damage compensation.  Perhaps this is why (as on the front page of The Evening Post, July 5 1991) the New Zealand Health Department is always ready to maintain that the vaccine is safe and effective - despite a history of vaccine catastrophes both overseas and in New Zealand.

In the Third World malnutrition-complicated measles kills around two million children.  Vitamins A and C are said by many medical men to be the key nutritional factors in the prevention of this situation.  Unfortunately for the children, carrots and other vitamin A supplements, unlike vaccines, cannot be patented and so don't produce profit, therefore they are of little interest to the Third World wing of the chemi-medi-vivi cartel. 

"Among infected children (measles) under 10, vaccination failure rates are said to have risen to nearly 30 percent." and "Figures gathered in Auckland and Wellington suggest that, in the 10-14 age-group, about half the children with measles were vaccinated as babies."
(Evening Post, September 9 1991.)

 On September 14 1992 two measles vaccines (Pluserix and Immravax) were banned in the United Kingdom after it was revealed that children taking them had developed meningitis.  The Daily Express, September 15 1992, reported that "in some cases the vaccines caused distorted vision, partial deafness and paralysis".  The ban brought an immediate call for a full inquiry into the vaccine and compensation for the families affected.  Whereas the Health Department puppets claimed the "risk to children was small" Rosemary Fox, Secretary of the British Association of Parents of Vaccine Damaged Children, said:

"A little girl in Scotland died within three days after receiving the vaccine.  A number of people have written to us with cases where children have been very upset and hospitalised with a form of mumps meningitis after receiving the vaccine... The fact that the Department has withdrawn the vaccine indicates there is more wrong than it is prepared to admit."

The vaccine, Pluserix, made by SmithKline Beecham (refer Chapter 21 Drugs and the Law, Section 3) is widely used in most countries.  Radio New Zealand, September 16 1992, announced that the N.Z. Government has banned the use of measles, mumps and rubella vaccine Pluserix "because of its known side-effects" and "some parents of vaccine damaged children are making claims to the government because the vaccine caused meningitis".  The Dominion, September 17 1992, reported that the vaccine "had been introduced in New Zealand three months after its use was stopped in Australia".  As expected, similar to Great Britain, the Health Department flunkeys faithfully fulfilling their roles as agents of the pharmaceutical empire played down the danger and risk of vaccine-related damage, even using the ban as a means of embarking on a further massive spate of free advertising in the papers, on radio and T.V. on behalf of the pro-vaccination lobby claiming that "in order to be effective 95 percent of children must be vaccinated".

The Minister of Social Welfare, one Jenny Shipley, makes repeated threats to parents who have the brains not to have their children vaccinated by saying she will stop their family benefit and, though not perceived to be qualified in medical matters, intimidates young mothers with bullies and blusters about "compulsory vaccinations".  Meanwhile NZAVS' letters to the press gather cobwebs in the Society's overflowing files of "letters not published".


At this point readers are reminded that Ross Meurant, Chairman of the Primary Production Select Committee at the phoney "Hearing" of NZAVS Petition to Abolish Vivisection (of which vaccination is the cornerstone), said he could not hear NZAVS' comprehensive and well-evidenced case about the dangers of vaccination because he had... "MATTERS MORE PRESSING"!!


Text of newspaper article

The Evening Post.  Friday July 5 1991.  Measles vaccine fails for boy.  A 12-year-old boy, admitted to Keneperu Hospital with encephalitis after contracting measles, was immunised against the disease as a baby.  Wellington Area Health Board medical officer of health Gillian Durham confirmed the case today.  A hospital official said the boy recovered after three days in hospital and had gone home.  The boy's immunity declined in the decade after the measles vaccine was administered, Dr Durham said.  The vaccine was, however, considered 95% effective in preventing the disease in young children.  The board would survey the failure rate once the epidemic waned.  The communicable diseases control advisory committee had called for New Zealand to follow other countries in giving a booster dose of the recently introduced measles mumps rubella (MMR) vaccine, Dr Durham said.  It was normally given to children aged about 15 months and should be repeated about 10 years later when children were in Form one.  Other immunisations such as polio and tetanus required booster doses.  Vaccines were also less effective when children were in their first year of life.  The 12-year-old had been immunised with a measles vaccine (not MMR) before the age of 12 months.  Parents whose young babies were being injected with the special measles vaccine during the current epidemic should also be aware their children still required the MMR vaccine, Dr Durham said.  The measles epidemic in the Wellington region had eased slightly with only 12 new cases notified yesterday, bringing the total to 289.  Dr Durham warned parents to make sure their children were immunised to prevent the epidemic "taking off" again.  An education campaign spurred by the epidemic reached so many people that doctors and clinics were inundated with immunisation requests.  Effectiveness of vaccines was also reduced if they were not kept at the required temperature, Dr Durham said.  A survey following the recent whooping cough epidemic resulted in the area health board ordering special thermometers for general practitioners.
Back to clipping



In his last newsletter the late Dr R. Mendelsohn wrote the following:

"RUBELLA VACCINE LINKED TO EPSTEIN-BARR VIRUS.  Many people now know about the dangers of DPT shots in babies, and they are rejecting those particular shots.  Yet, they still accept other vaccines for their children.  So for those trusting souls, here is the evidence on the dangers of the German measles vaccine.

A study of 200 patients with Epstein-Barr Virus (often called yuppie disease) is scheduled for publication this spring in the journal Medical Hypothesis.  In an advance report in the San Diego Tribune, September 30 1987, the study's researchers have linked EBV syndrome to exposure to the weakened, but live, rubella virus found in the vaccine.  Given to young children, the vaccine can linger in their system for years and can be passed to adults through casual contact.

Biomedical researcher Allen D. Allen of Algorithms Inc. of Northridge, California, blames EBV syndrome on Merck Sharp and Dohme's Biavax and Meruvax vaccines which were introduced in the late 1970's.  Allen says:

'I can say all this attention to the Epstein-Barr syndrome, the public awareness, started in the early 1980's, right after these vaccines came out.  Young adults, the ones most likely to be in contact with the young children, are the primary targets.  It's too much of a coincidence to ignore.'

In a similar study, Dr Hugh Fedenberg, professor of immunology at the Medical University in Charleston, South Carolina, found the same linkage in 24 patients."

Unlike the face-less ghost-writers of ARSL, who lacked the courage, or, as courage is the off-spring of qualification, the qualification, to append their names to the booklet's claims, the late Dr Mendelsohn was an international giant in medical circles.  Chairman of the Medical Licensing Committee for the State of Illinois, Associate Professor of Preventative Medicine and Community Health in the School of Medicine of the University of Illinois, the recipient of numerous awards for excellence in medicine and medical instruction.  He was for 25 years a practising physician.

If the German measles vaccine contains live rubella virus which causes EBV syndrome - so the rubella vaccine can cause chronic arthritis as seen from an article in the New England Journal of Medicine, October 31 1985.

"Persistent rubella virus infection was associated with chronic arthritis in children... infection or immunisation with rubella virus has been recognised as producing an acute synovitis, which although normally self-limited has been reported to occur in certain persons for months or years after the acute stage.  Many people with severe arthritis are found to have live viral particles in their bloodstream up to eight years after immunisation."

Australian Dr Glen Dettman reports that the failure rate of the vaccine alone would be grounds for concern, but the evidence of damage done by the vaccine is much more worrying as "one third of individuals suffering from rheumatoid arthritis have live rubella viruses in their joints".

An article in J.I.D., Vol. 151, 1985, pages 330-336 reads:

"If there has been an inadequate immune response after vaccination, as often happens, there is a pronounced danger that the person will become a carrier of rubella as well as developing arthritis and an enlarged thyroid."

Of the link between rubella vaccine and arthritis Dr Mendelsohn wrote in Confessions of a Medical Heretic:

"Vaccination for rubella may do more harm than good, since there is a risk of arthritis arising from the drug..."

Any reasonably diligent investigator will find it easy to turn up evidence opposing ARSL's claims.  All one requires is time and a little patience.  All vaccines and modern drugs are developed on laboratory animals... therefore on fraud.  Small wonder that the end result is heavy with catastrophe.  The following comments are from a battery of prestigious sources, all impeccably qualified to make them:

In Vaccines: Vital or Vulnerable, Australian Doctors Archie Kalokerinos and Glenn Dettman write:

"We recently had a lady request our help with a brain-damaged child.  The Children's Hospital conceded the brain damage occurred as the result of triple antigen1, but when she asked about compensation she was told there could be none as she volunteered to have her child immunised!  In the name of all that's sacred, how does a responsible mother resist the pressures of those so-called custodians of our health to have her child immunologically insulted... sorry... immunised?" 

As can be seen ARSL is without question, based shamefully and unabashedly on emotional blackmail and exploitation of those who wish to do the best for their health and the health of their children.  One could also add brainwashing, a technique which is based on repeated impressions made on the mind of a person until it is accepted as the truth.

1. Whether this was the DPT or the more recent three-in-one MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine is not known, Author.




ARSL 2nd Edition Pages 3, 21

 Dr George Wilson, President of the British Medical Society said at the Society's AGM in 1899:

"I accuse my profession of misleading the public.  Pasteur's anti-rabies vaccination is - I believe, and others with me - a piece of deception.  The much-praised serum treatment does not even have the general approval of the doctors in the hospital in our capital city.  The whole of bacteriological theory and practice is closely tied up with commercial interests."
(British Medical Journal.)

In the German medical news Selecta of May 16 1977, a German virologists' convention described Pasteur's rabies vaccine as "an archaic monster".

Hans Ruesch says in One Thousand Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection:

"Medical students are taught that Pasteur produced a vaccine to cure rabies since he was a vivisector and vivisection is the foundation of modern medicine.  Journalists also keep the public on the right track by perpetuating the myth.  They keep public opinion shaped to the right pattern which rests on bigotry."

Hans Ruesch in Slaughter of the Innocent reveals that Pasteur's vaccine for rabies never saved one single human life, but that several deaths resulted from it.

The World Health Organisation Expert Committee on Rabies, 1973, claimed that evidence is accumulating that parenteral injection of anti-rabies vaccine causes human deaths "under certain conditions" and goes on:

"The Committee recommends that production of fermi-type vaccines, since they contain residual living virus, should be discontinued."

On page 27 of the report it says:

"The Committee emphasises that the most valuable procedure in post-exposure treatment is the local treatment of wounds.  This should be done by thoroughly washing with soap and water."

On page 28:

"Immediate first-aid procedures recommended is the flushing and washing of the wound with soap and water."

This coincides with the advice of many homeopathic doctors and experts in animal diseases who claim that all-round protection of good health results from strict hygiene, a careful daily diet of natural foods, mostly eaten raw, and the use of disinfectant herbs.

Interestingly, Hans Ruesch reports in Slaughter of the Innocent that since Pasteur developed his vaccine for rabies the death rate from the disease has increased, not decreased.  This is borne out in the article in the German Medical News weekly Selecta, May 16 1977 which goes on to say:

"The problems of rabies vaccine solved."

The article reported a conference of German virologists who disclaimed and contradicted Pasteur's alleged vaccine.  Apparently Pasteur could not even keep his own body or the bodies of his own family healthy since historians reveal that he suffered from paralysis of the mouth in his later years and members of his immediate family died from various diseases.

In Vaccines: Vital or Vulnerable, Archie Kalokerinos and Glenn Dettman say of rabies vaccine:

"In 1885 Louis Pasteur was proclaimed to be a hero for introducing a cure for rabies, alas the problem is just as great as it was then.  We now know that most mammals 'carry' the virus associated with rabies and recent reports from H.E.W. (United States) support the endogenous seeding (microzymian) thesis of Bechamp.  Note the case histories from Oklahoma and Kentucky, Epidemiologic notes and reports: Human Rabies.


It is further disturbing to read how the wife of a U.S. diplomat became paralysed after being routinely vaccinated against rabies.  She was not warned of any possible side effects from the vaccine.  The article describes her condition as similar to multiple sclerosis, the patient is permanently and totally disabled.  The federal judge awarded her $469,051 and her husband $50,000.  The article concludes by stating:

"This court decision serves as a reminder that a judicious assessment of risk factors must be made when deciding whether or not to vaccinate against rabies."
("Compensation for Vaccine Damage", The Lancet, November 24 1979.)

Doctors say that Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch did not deal with natural events, but with experimental artifacts.  The experimenter does not produce nature in the laboratory.  He could not if he tried, for the experiment imposes limiting conditions on nature: its aim is to force nature to give answers to questions devised by man.

The investigator, who dares to question the official brainwashing that human or animal health was in the past, or currently, or will, in the future be based on vivisection, can quickly and easily arrive at the truth, which is increasingly well-documented.  If vivisection is to survive, the public must be kept ignorant of the truth.  There is no money in hygiene or prevention.  The unscientific and obscene institution of vivisection is protected and promoted solely by those in big business who make fortunes from it at the expense of true medicine.

(Refer also to the section on smallpox vaccinations in which evidence is given that smallpox (and other vaccinations including polio, tetanus, typhoid fever and tuberculosis) form the onset of multiple sclerosis.)

"Zintchenko (1965) has reported 12 patients in whom multiple sclerosis first became evident after a course of anti-rabies vaccination."
(British Medical Journal, 2:210-213, 1967.)


Though medical "progress" has not yet produced a cure for the common cold at least eight pages of ARSL are devoted to listing the deadly diseases its publishers purport were eradicated through vaccination.  Influenza is strangely absent.  Investigating the efficiency or otherwise of the 'flu vaccine has revealed the same pattern of shifty dealings, graft, cover-ups and lies as heretobefore.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration vaccines expert Dr J.A. Morris, specialising in 'flu vaccine with the FDA's Bureau of Biologics, is acclaimed as the world's most knowledgeable person on 'flu vaccine.  In the 1970s Dr Morris fell from grace for refusing to endorse the mass vaccination programme against swine 'flu, asserting that there would be no epidemic and warning that the vaccine could result in serious neurological damage.  Fired from his job for this diplomatic blunder he was however later proved correct, the predicted swine 'flu epidemic never materialised, the vaccination campaign took place and it caused Guillain-Barre syndrome - a type of paralysis that resulted in a federal compensation system being set up for the victims in which over four hundred million U.S. dollars were reportedly paid out in lawsuits.

Bitterly criticising the "close relationship which exists between the drug companies and government agency scientists" and "the large number of FDA officials who have left to join the pharmaceutical companies they used to regulate", Dr Morris went on:

"You have a situation in which scientists working on vaccine research are also Government regulators."1

Dr Morris made many studies of 'flu vaccine always concluding that it was useless.  Reporting a survey carried out in a home for the elderly he reported that those who received the vaccine were worse off on contracting the relevant virus.  This is borne out in Lancet, January 6 1979, pages 33-36 which gives the results of a survey of Australian schoolboys given the 'flu shot which concluded that those who were vaccinated with the new variant after receiving the previous year's vaccine were no better off after their post vaccination encounter with the strain concerned.  That they were in fact slightly worse of, as there were twice as many cases as those who did not have the updated version.

Similarly in Great Britain the 'flu vaccine was disastrous.  In Birmingham where GPs reported it could be harmful, the vaccine caused twice as much respiratory illness and visits to the doctor among 600 aged patients given the vaccine, compared with a control group who were not.  Reports criticised the medical profession for continuing to administer the vaccine when the evidence showed it did more harm than good.

In Australia the following extract from a letter criticising 'flu vaccine was published in the Australian, June 23 1979:

"No successful product exists and trials of those available have not disclosed any advantage in use."

It was authored by the Medical Superintendent of Toowoomba General Hospital, Toowoomba, Queensland, Dr D.A. O'Rourke.  This letter is extremely interesting as it exposes that the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories (CSL) which advocates the use of the 'flu vaccine is a government QANGODr O'Rourke goes on:

"The Commonwealth Serum Laboratories is a QANGO.  In it the Government mixes business with pleasure.  Like so many government institutions purified by their incorporation as a financial enterprise, it is not only unimpeachable, but avuncular and oracular.  The press obviously regards the CSL as an unbiased government spokesman on health matters.  Yet it commercially manufactures, for profit, many products - including 'flu vaccine."

Despite this letter, and despite the death, illness and tragedy that ensued from the mass swine 'flu vaccinations in the U.S.A., the CSL still advised people to have their 'flu shots.  In Australia various doctors criticised the justification for continuing the vaccinations, calling instead for a totally new type of research to acquire the knowledge needed for mitigating the vast amount of illness resulting annually as a result of the vaccination.

"In the course of a vaccination trial that took place in France on October 1st, 1981, Professor Mercie, former director of the glamorous Pasteur Institute, was asked why the Institute kept producing and selling its anti-'flu vaccine despite its recognized worthlessness.  Professor Mercie's candid reply: 'Because it helps financing the Institute's research'."
(Hans Ruesch, Naked Empress.)

"The mad vehemence of modern medicine is nowhere more evident than in the yearly influenza vaccine farce..."
(Robert S. Mendelsohn, M.D., Confessions of a Medical Heretic.)

(References: Democrat and Chronicle, New York, April 1987.; Doctors Archie Kalokerinos and Glenn Dettman, Vaccines Vital or Vulnerable.; P. Rattigan, Blood Poison (Vaccination Explained).  And other freely available material.)

"The risk of suffering serious complications from the 'flu vaccines is far greater than the 'flu."
(Dr William Frosehauer, Scripps Howard News Service, November 5 1986.

1. This shady state of affairs was brought under the spotlight recently by Professor Bill Inman who heads the Drug Safety Research Unit at Southampton University, U.K. who criticised the Committee for the Safety of Medicines (which advises the government on the granting of licences to new drugs):

"The committee relies heavily on the drug companies for safety information and most of its members are linked to the industry as consultants or receivers of research grants.  In a move to make the Committee independent - that is without links with the industry... THERE WOULD BE NO-ONE TO SIT ON THE COMMITTEE."



ARSL 2nd Edition Page 19

In Britain the decline of T.B. was continuous for over 100 years before the introduction of the vaccine.  The Dept of Health has, surprisingly, decided that routine BCG vaccination will be phased out in the 1990s.  As T.B. deaths are now around 400 per year, the Dept may have a problem with claiming that the climb down is due to eradication.


McKeown, T., 1979. The Role of Medicine.

The following graph taken from the N.Z. Official Yearbooks and Appendices to Parliamentary Journals paints an identical picture: i.e. that tuberculosis in New Zealand had all-but disappeared before the advent of the BCG vaccine.


One Hundred Years of T.B. in New Zealand

Factors cited in medical journals as being the root cause of tuberculosis are overcrowding, malnutrition, lack of hygiene and bad social conditions.  This is borne out in an article in N.Z. Herald, September 19 1988, entitled "Tuberculosis Strikes Ten Patients", which reported the investigation by the Department of Health of an outbreak of tuberculosis at Tokanui Psychiatric Hospital.  Dr Harry Nichols, Waikato Hospital chest physician said "he did not know what caused the outbreak" but the (then) Medical Officer of Health Mr Mark MacDonald said "it could be expected from time to time in institutions... but this did not imply overcrowding or bad conditions".(!)

That "overcrowding and bad conditions" were in fact the reason for the outbreak would appear to be obvious from the following:

In November 1979 the New Scientist published the result of a World Health Organisation trial of the BCG "anti-tubercular" vaccine in India thus:

"The world's biggest trial, conducted in Southern India, to assess the value of BCG tuberculosis vaccine has made the startling revelation that - the vaccine does not give any protection against bacilliary forms of tuberculosis."

Further reports of the trial were reported in Lancet, January 12 1980, in an article entitled "BCG, Bad News from India, Result = Negative".

"... in fact slightly more T.B. cases have appeared in vaccinated than in equal-sized placebo control groups."

In 1980, the World Health Organisation made its report:

"For many years, research has been directed almost entirely towards improving the quality of BCG.  The fact that the expected benefit of this research has not been shown by the disappointing results of the trial may mean, of course, that the vaccines used lacked immunogenic potency.  This would imply that all the experimental models by means of which the vaccine strains were selected are invalid."

The author agrees... for the "experimental models" are... laboratory animals, which include guinea-pigs of which Dr Doyan of Paris, France, has this to say -

"The tuberculosis of the guinea-pig is not the tuberculosis of man, anymore than the cancer of the mouse is the cancer of man.  Sacrificing hundreds of guinea-pigs, I also, like so many other scientists, have demonstrated one thing only: that results on animals are not remotely applicable to man."
(Roy Kupsinel, M.D., Vivisection : Science or Sham.)

In Blood Poison (Vaccination Explained) Patrick Rattigan states that though Holland had the lowest death-rate from tuberculosis in Europe due to the fact that it rejected any BCG programme, in France, after a long battle against honest doctors the Government forced by law, BCG vaccination on all French school-children.  (What a bonanza for the Pasteur Institute who produced the serum.)

"Within a short period of time it (BCG vaccine) further suppresses the immune system and causes an excess of lymphosarcoma and Hodgkins Disease."
(Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 60, 1978.)

"The BCG has notable side-effects - lymphade, mitis, lymphangitis and chronic meningitis of unknown origin - as well as other complications."
(Hilary Butler, Immunisation Awareness Society.)



ARSL 2nd Edition Pages 0, 21

 "Where they have done the most immunising they are getting the most diphtheria."
(The Medical Officer for Health for Wath-on-Dearne - in a letter published in the South Yorkshire Times, March 2 1938.)

In Blood Poison (Vaccination Explained) investigator Patrick Rattigan states that diphtheria vaccinations became centered on the practice of re-diagnosis which, he says, became essential as diphtheria cases occurred in an alarming number of vaccinated people.

Prior to the introduction of antitoxin in 1895, diagnosis, says Rattigan, was based on clinical symptoms only, i.e. only those who actually had diphtheria were classed as diphtheria cases.  After 1895 the diagnosis was based on throat swabs.  Since many diphtheria patients do not exhibit the relevant bacteria, they were adjudged to have died of something else, and so the vaccine was fraudulently claimed effective.  Conversely the many otherwise healthy people who often had diphtheria in their throats were said to have survived diphtheria.

As a result of re-diagnosis where cases of mild sore throats were classed as diphtheria the total of recorded cases of diphtheria increased whilst the recorded mortality rate automatically fell.  Thus falsification of the facts resulted in the vaccine being incorrectly heralded as effective.

In contrast to ARSL's claims (page 19 ARSL) the following graph shows how the incidence of diphtheria in Britain showed a dramatic decline prior to the mass immunisation programmes of the 1930s.

"In the late 1940s it was noticed in Britain and Australia that diphtheria vaccination was leading to paralytic polio.  A Government inquiry found that over one third of cases of paralytic polio in children under the age of two occurred within three months of diphtheria vaccination."
(NAVS, UK, Campaigner, March 1988.)

"During a 1969 outbreak of diphtheria in Chicago, four of the sixteen victims had been fully immunized against the disease."
(Dr Robert S. Mendelsohn, Confessions of a Medical Heretic, page 232.)

ARSL's unsubstantiated and emotional assertions in referring to diphtheria, that "thousands of British children died unnecessarily in the agony which is part of this horrific disease" reveals that the publishers of the booklet are deliberately suppressing the evidence.  For instance in One Thousand Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection Hans Ruesch writes:

"Reports on the crushing failures which one has in fact had most recently with diphtheria serum and vaccination have been provided by, among others, Prof. W. Stoelzner, Director of the University Hospital in Koenigsberg (DMW, 1929) and Prof. Dr Friedberger, Head of the Institute of Public Health and Immunity Studies in Dahlem.  Friedberger stressed to the Pediatrics Association the total uncertainty about the scientific justification for diphtheria inoculation, the unreliability of the figures produced in support of inoculation, and quoted in evidence of the failure of inoculation and the fact that out of 100 inoculated children who nevertheless contracted the disease, precisely as many died as did from 100 children who contracted the disease without being inoculated.  An accusation made by Prof. Czerny at the Association for Internal Medicine and Pediatrics in Berlin also casts a revealing light on the question of diphtheria inoculation: 'All doctors have been dragged into diphtheria inoculation, because a pressure was applied which was almost a compulsion'."
(One Thousand Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection, page 189.)

Dr George Wilson, President of the British Medical Society is quoted in the British Medical Journal as saying the following at the Annual General Meeting of that Society in 1899 proving yet again how vivisection is carried out for the advancement of commercial interests - despite its potential hazard to human health.

"The much-praised serum treatment for diphtheria does not even enjoy the general approval of the doctors in the hospital in our Capital city.  The whole of bacteriological theory and practice is closely tied up with commercial interests. Behring has had his diphtheria serum patented on the Continent, Kock has made a princely income from his Tuberkulin..."
(Hans Ruesch, One Thousand Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection, page 234.)


"I consider that vivisection is unscientific... May the day hasten when vivisection will be looked upon as a great tragedy enacted principally by an unillumined medical profession upon whose shoulders such great responsibilities and sacred privileges rest."
(Gordon Latto, M.B., Ch. B.)





 Although the notion of inoculation against smallpox had been around for over 1000 years, it was Edward Jenner who revived the idea in the late 18th century.  Smallpox inoculation was allowed until a fierce outbreak of the disease occurred in 1838, when the practice was banned under threat of imprisonment.

Smallpox then declined steadily until, in 1867, vaccination was enforced by law, on all children.  Then began the largest epidemic ever in Britain, with a peak of 42,000 deaths per year.

Leicester and Dewsbury rejected the serum and relied on effective measures, hygiene and sanitation.  Consequently these towns had the lowest death rate in the country.

Walter R. Hadwen, a vegetarian doctor became First Prizeman in Physiology, Operative Surgery, Pathology, Forensic Medicine and in 1891 won the Clark Scholarship for "distinguished medical student of the year".  He became famous nationwide when he eradicated an epidemic of smallpox in Gloucester by ruling out all vaccination and introducing strict measures of hygiene and isolation of the infected.  In 1910 he accepted the Presidency of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, a position he retained until his death.  Of vivisection Walter Hadwen said:

"To oppose vivisection, when every year seems to establish it more as a state-supported, press-advertised 'boon to humanity', requires courage.  So does every advance that humanity has made.  Those who uphold this practice thoughtlessly, because it is the 'proper thing' to do so, would equally, had they been born earlier, have supported the tortures of the inquisition or negro slavery, and would of course, have agreed with every dogma of medicine, however absurd or revolting, that belonged to the age in which they lived.  We call for pioneers.  Our appeal is to those who have a more alert intelligence, greater courage and daring, and a higher ideal than the rank and file."
(Dr W. Hadwen, April 18 1932.) 

In the 21 years ended December 1958, only a little more than one-third of the children born in England and Wales were vaccinated for smallpox, yet only two children aged under five years died of smallpox but of the one-third vaccinated, 91 were killed by vaccination.
(Replies of Minister of Health in Parliament and Ministry of Health Reports.)

 In the Philippines between 1918 and 1919, 112,549 cases of smallpox were notified with 60,855 deaths.  Vaccination programmes had been introduced in 1905 after which deaths from the disease increased alarmingly.  Their records comment that:

"The mortality is hardly explainable."
(Hume, 1963.)

Authorities in the western countries then began making vociferous protests about third-world countries continuing the use of smallpox vaccination, because (a) it was suddenly recognised as an extremely dangerous procedure and (b) because smallpox "has now been conquered".

("The Natural History of Smallpox", New Scientist, November 30 1978.  "Smallpox Eradication", The Lancet, January 12 1980.)

In the same year, 1967, the British Medical Journal linked multiple sclerosis to vaccinations including smallpox as follows:


"Opinions on matters held by the public to be 'obvious', long considered natural and necessary, are only so because they are shared widely without question."
(Maria Chiara Giardini.)

 The Abolitionist of November 1 1932 printed an article on the sequel of smallpox vaccination:

"The patients were middle-aged persons between 50 and 65, the subjects of leukemia or subleukemia, who had been vaccinated or revaccinated against smallpox during their stay in hospital.  The symptoms were both local and general - namely, a violent inflammatory reaction at the vaccination site, considerable enlargement of the lymphatic glands, both in the axilla and elsewhere, and aggravation of the general condition, as shown by anorexia, more or less considerable rise of temperature, progressive emaciation, and changes in the blood picture consisting in the very pronounced anaemia and intense leucocytosis.  Four of the five cases proved fatal, between two and seven weeks after vaccination.  In the only case which survived, which was one of pure Hodgkin's disease, there was a considerable aggravation of the general condition."

Prof. Theodor Lessing, Dr med., Dr Phil., Hannover, in an article in One Thousand Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection, pages 153-154:

"In Germany 9,972 children contracted smallpox last year as a result of vaccinations, and several hundred died from it."

Refer also to section on Rabies Vaccination.




ARSL 2nd Edition Page 0


"Mortality from whooping cough dropped ten years prior to vaccination programme."

Dr Griffin's report is confirmed in the following graph from HM Stationery Office, Great Britain.


Whooping cough: death rates of children under 15 for England and Wales.


Similarly the following graph taken from Health Reports (Appendices to Parliamentary Journals) and Official Year Book shows the same pattern in New Zealand... By 1962 whooping cough was wiped out prior to the introduction of vaccine.


Whooping Cough: Deaths per million (N.Z.)


Parents under pressure to have their babies vaccinated have plenty of evidence that vaccinations are beneficial ONLY to the balance sheets of the pharmaceutical companies producing it.

"The leap in earnings results from the new immunisation clinic and call-up system.  The immunisation programme starts at birth.  As soon as the practice receives notification of the birth from the local hospital, it sends out a 'congratulations' letter to the mother, also inviting her to bring the baby's registration card to the surgery."
(Financial Pulse, October 10 1987.)

In the United States the courts have made multi-million dollar awards against whooping cough vaccine manufacturers where twenty medical and scientific experts from Britain, Europe and America gave evidence on the link between the vaccine and brain damage.  In Great Britain more than two hundred brain-damaged children and young adults heard on March 29 1988 that whooping cough vaccine was "probably not" to blame for permanent brain damage which occurred after vaccination.

"There is no doubt in my mind that in the UK alone some hundreds, if not thousands, of well infants have suffered irreparable brain damage needlessly, and that their lives and those of their parents have been wrecked in consequence."
(Gordon Stewart, Professor of Public Health at the University of Glasgow, 1980, commenting on the deadly effects of whooping cough vaccine.)

The following is an extract from Professor Gordon Stewart's major contribution from his paper presented two years earlier at the International Symposium on Pertussis, November 1978:


Pertussis vaccine is not accidentally or occasionally toxic.  It is intrinsically toxic..."

Prof. Stewart goes on to talk about his findings from a scrutiny of hospital records and from reports from colleagues, parents and organisations caring for backward children.

In 1974 Doctors Archie Kalokerinos and Glenn Dettman submitted an article to the editor of the Medical Journal which gave:

"Positive and disturbing facts about routine immunisations."

These were not published and the papers returned to them with the comment that:

"Most doctors were aware of the dangers of vaccination."

Kalokerinos and Dettman rightly criticised this decision, aggrieved because in their own words:



"Whooping Cough Vaccine Linked to Brain Damage" was the headline in The Guardian, March 18 1986 in an article illuminating "the causal link between a vaccine that gives immunisation against whooping cough, diphtheria and tetanus and... brain damage."

"Vaccination levels fell to 32% in 1978 due to the vaccine combine being no longer able to hide the cases of vaccine-induced brain damage.  A patient campaign has pushed this up to over 65%; consequently we now face the biggest epidemic since 1957."
(NAVS, Campaigner, March 1988.)

"The DHSS has consistently lied about the risks and problems associated with the vaccine... the truth... is that it has always been a disaster."
(Dr Vernon Coleman, F.R.S.M., The Health Scandal, 1988.)

By coincidence as the writer concludes this article on September 18 1991, T.V. 3, Nightline is taking viewers behind the scenes to see the progress of a three-year-old Auckland boy crippled with cerebral-palsy after receiving his whooping cough shots.  (It is noticeable that ARSL conveniently omits to draw attention to the ever-increasing reports of such tragedies.)

(Refer also to section on DPT Vaccination and SIDS.)


March (51k)D

Photo: Melanie Bromley

NZAVS marches through central Wellington.




ARSL 2nd Edition Page 9

 On page 7 of ARSL it is claimed that: Animal research can not give any guarantee of absolute safety for any medicine, but that by testing medicines designed for human beings on a wide range of laboratory animals for several generations, the risks are reduced to very low levels.  Also, that: The Thalidomide tragedy resulted from insufficient animal-testing.

Animal research can not give any guarantee of absolute safety for any medicine as is amply demonstrated by the increasing number of drugs withdrawn from the market due to their ill-effects.  Further, it creates a state of uncertainty and confusion, and reliance upon it has inherent dangers of which we are bluntly reminded from time to time when medicines like Thalidomide instead of curing patients have the reverse effect.

ARSL's statements rest on the assumption that the principle of testing on animals, medicines designed for human beings, is authentic or bona fide.  However more and more doctors are advising, some with extreme vehemence, that this principle is erroneous, incorrect, flawed.  They argue vociferously and consistently that more tests on rats, mice, guinea-pigs, monkeys, cats and dogs are not merely useless and superfluous as extrapolations of information cannot be made to fit the human circumstance, but that they should be immediately abolished and a change to the principle of scientific anti-vivisectionism implemented.  The Thalidomide tragedy arose from reliance on a faulty system which results, not as ARSL suggests in risks of "very low levels" but in risks of extremely high levels - enough to pale the tragedy of Thalidomide into insignificance as reliance on this faulty method causes increasing drug-failures promising future disasters of even greater magnitude.


The end of the Second World War heralded an era in which factories involved in churning out chemicals for mass destruction of human beings switched to the development of wonder-drugs to cure their every ill.  In the rubble of war-torn Germany in 1946 a factory employing 1,500 workers engaged in producing soap and detergents formed a subsidiary company called Chemie Grunenthal which began operations in an abandoned copper foundry near Hamburg.  For several years it produced antibiotics, some for the American drug company Lederle with whom it had close links.  Then, in the early 1950s came a series of failures as a number of its drugs produced severe adverse reactions including deaths.  Though these were well reported and documented by several doctors Chemie Grunenthal ignored the serious risks involved with its dangerous preparations and moved into the profitable field of sedatives and hypnotics - which included Thalidomide.

The vital factor for the marketing of these modern-day medicaments was the investigation of how they react and interact with the human living organism.  Though drugs produce different reactions in different animal species (and even between the same species), and though through the ages experiments on animals had been carried out for curiosity and were never intended to be used as confirmation of reactions experienced in human beings, this very inconclusiveness was the key factor in the choice of test method for it facilitated the marketing of hundreds of thousands of pills and potions for sickness, some of which never existed, much of which is self-inflicted and preventable, and an increasing amount of which is caused by previous drugs.  The principle of animal testing however enabled the drug manufacturers to claim that the drug had undergone the usual safety tests.  Thus animal tests were designed as legal protection for the company producing the medicine should this be required in a court of law, and not as protection for the patient.  It is the solid-gold alibi for were conclusive methods of assessing medicines adopted, most would be exposed as worthless, if not dangerous, and consequently would never be marketed.  For example:

The first Thalidomide prescribed by Chemie Grunenthal was produced at the beginning of November 1956 under the name of Grippex and prescribed for the treatment of respiratory infections.  It was next marketed in West Germany on October 1 1957 under the name of Contergan as a sedative.  The early symptoms of the ill effects of Thalidomide is a prickling feeling of the extremities followed by a numbness and coldness.  This usually begins in the toes and is not initially noticed or obvious to the patient.  The numbness slowly spreads to the ball of the foot, then to the ankles and finally to the calves.  It is months before numbness appears in the tips of the fingers, and much more time elapses before toxic polyneutitis develops bringing severe muscular cramps and weakness of the limbs.  All these symptoms take place before damage to the central nervous system is visually noticeable.  After a further lapse of time the patient loses coordination, and, unable to judge the position of his legs becomes unbalanced, suffers twitchings of the facial muscles, trembling of the muscles of the entire body, speech difficulty, double vision, and, in some cases, epileptic seizures.  How, we ask the producers of ARSL, could the use of more animals reveal the early symptoms of nerve damage which is not even noticeable to the HUMAN patient?  Further the human being is capable of communicating his dis-ease and distress, but how are laboratory animals supposed to report tingling in the limbs and tail, inability to concentrate, onset of double vision, slurred speech etc, bearing in mind that before the onset of visual problems have time to eventuate the animals' short life-span is finished?

Though it is illogical to blame medical tragedies like the Thalidomide disaster on insufficient animal-testing, it is extremely logical and understandable that the publishers of ARSL who are all involved in vivisection do so, for to do otherwise would be to advocate the necessity for a change of direction to conclusive methods of drug testing which would expose their various institutions as redundant - if not downright fraudulent.

The decision to use animals to test the new wave of wonder-drugs was a fortuitous one for the drug manufacturers with its water-tight alibi of inconclusiveness, and hingeing upon this factor a battery of new businesses mushroomed as animal-breeders and other ancillary industries thrived.  Others basking in the rich pickings were (and are - even more so today) holders of shares in these companies, and they, like the producers of ARSL, are unlikely to kill the horse that carries them to the bank by admitting it's heading in the direction of profit, not health.  Whilst the dividends pour in it is extremely unlikely that the financial beneficiaries of vivisection lose sleep because vivisection is a fundamental error which kills animals and people, for it represents a source of income which would cease immediately should animal experiments be abolished.

Thus the machinery was set up to support the quick development of drugs for all our problems.  Drugs to give us freedom from stress, to make us sleep, to wake us up, to prolong our youth and, in the case of Thalidomide, to sedate, tranquillise and give us serene pregnancies without nausea.  The only dark cloud on the sunny sea of profits being when they are interrupted with irritating set-backs as tragedies strike, as they do, from time to time, with increasing regularity.
(Further details refer to Chapter 21, Section 3 - Drugs and the Law.)

Whilst on the subject of the new era of pharmaceuticals and instant health without responsibility, two further important factors must be taken into account.

  1. The development of modern pharmacological science within the privately-owned industrial and pharmacological industries could never have flourished without the involvement of governmental and academic institutions.  Throughout the world, the universities, hot-beds of vivisection are supported by pharmaceutical companies and by government funds.  Most big hospitals have their underground vivisection hell-holes which are paid for by the taxpayer, as are the huge government grants given to the vivisectors.  Conversely some drug companies receive aid from the State.  The writer believes that it is fair to assume that this web of inter-connected interests accounts for the blank looks, stony silence and hostility which betrays the politicians when they are approached on the subject of vivisection.  It is significant that the results of these partnerships inevitably focus on the lucrative chemical and artificial treatment of disease and its associated profits rather than on prevention and education.
  2. The recent development of batteries of new pharmaceuticals has not been uncriticised.  In fact there are many recorded warnings, for example:

Though three decades have elapsed we should be heeding the words of these and a new generation of doctors who are warning that the erroneous reliance on animal studies is responsible for drug damage which is now causing more problems to the human race than any other single factor - with the exception of its annihilation by nuclear war.  Dr Robert Sharpe, Medical Adviser, NAVS, London now puts the figure of people in hospitals directly due to the toxic effects of drugs at 16 percent and this is confirmed by other doctors.

But animal testing was the chosen method of testing the drug Thalidomide prior to prescribing it to pregnant women!

"Thalidomide... Was this just an innocent case of a tranquilliser turning out to have monstrous side-effects on children to be born?  Or was something uglier at work in its destructive career?"

So reads the preface of the Penguin Special titled : Thalidomide and the Power of the Drug Companies.  Published in 1972.  Written by two Swedes:

These investigators claim that Thalidomide was KNOWN to be dangerous for the damage it could do to the nervous system before it was put on the market.  Similarly, that the threat the drug represented to unborn babies was KNOWN before it was withdrawn.

Recalling the legal battles which were fought around Thalidomide in Western Europe, the U.S.A., Japan and Australia, the authors quote from their findings and memoranda.  They strongly suggest that the mysteries of science may place too much power in the hands of those who are out for profits.  The following information is taken from the evidence exposed during the Thalidomide trials:

In the 1950s at the University Clinic at Bonn, Thalidomide had been tested on 140 children, seven of whom were less than a year old.  Forty children, most of whom had brain damage, had been given the drug for up to nine weeks.  The parents were not asked for their permission, nor were they informed that their children were being treated with an entirely new sedative.  Doses used were 11 to 20 times higher than the recommended dose for adults.  Half the children were mentally disturbed or had brain damage.  Other children also received Thalidomide in the same high dosage.  One child had a circulatory collapse, one died from a congenital heart defect, a three-month-old baby died from heart failure, a twentyone-month-old baby temporarily lost her vision.  The doctor responsible stopped using the drug when he heard that his medical colleagues had similar experiences with Thalidomide.  (Twelve years were to elapse before Thalidomide was withdrawn from the market.)

In 1955, one year before the commencement of the marketing of Thalidomide in its various formulae, three physicians, along with a Professor Kloos, took part in a symposium arranged by Chemie Grunenthal at which they reported to the company unsatisfactory experiences with Thalidomide.  These were ignored!

In 1956 the drug giants (then) SmithKline and French (now SmithKline Beecham) revealed that even when used in very high doses Thalidomide could not induce sleep in mice.  When administered at doses 50 times larger than that claimed by Chemie Grunenthal to be "sleep inducing" this company could still not achieve the hypnotic effect in animals that it had on man.  Nor when given 650 times the dose effective in man.  This was substantiated and confirmed at the trial by drug companies Richardson-Merrel and Ciba.

In November 1956 and October 1957 Thalidomide was marketed in Germany by Chemie Grunenthal.  Sales rocketed as many pharmaceutical companies produced the drug under license to Chemie Grunenthal from as early as 1955 and 1957.  Simultaneously through these years a succession of clinical investigators, through observation of their patients, reported adverse effects of Thalidomide.  The pharmaceutical company (then) SmithKline and French reported ill-effects from the drug and the same problems were confirmed by doctors observing their patients through to 1959.  Chemie Grunenthal minimised the reports by ascribing them to overdosage and prolonged usage.  Then followed a surge of universal medical agreement that severe nervous damage was being caused by Thalidomide.

In 1958 Chemie Grunenthal sent the following letter to 40,000 doctors:

"In pregnancy and during the lactation period the female organism is under great strain.  Sleeplessness, unrest and tension are constant complaints.  The administration of a sedative and a hypnotic that will hurt neither mother nor child is often necessary."

(This was to encourage gynaecologists and obstetricians to prescribe Contergan and Contergan Forte (Thalidomide) to patients.)

On August 27 1959 one of the Chemie Grunenthal partners in Basel gave the following report on the situation in Switzerland:

"Twenty well-known physicians have now informed our public relations men that they themselves, or their patients, have still had severe side-effects the morning after taking one whole tablet of Softenon Forte (Thalidomide) in the form of extreme tiredness, tremor (shaking) of the hands etc.  Professor Ludwig, head doctor of the second medical section of Burgerspital, Basel, added: 'Once and never again.  This is a horrible drug.'"

In September 1959 the use of Contergan (Thalidomide) was stopped in a German Hospital because of severe reactions.

On November 3 1959 a written report was received by Chemie Grunenthal from a neurologist Dr Ralf Voss of Dusseldorf reporting more adverse effects.  Dr Voss asked if Thalidomide could cause damage to the peripheral nervous system.  Chemie Grunenthal replied that such effects had never been observed before.  At the trial this statement was proved false.

In December 1959 Dr Somers, a scientist in Distillers laboratory (Chemie Grunenthal's licensee in England), reported grave doubts about the safety of Thalidomide which was being widely advertised as a very safe drug.  In an internal report Dr Somers wrote:

"Hitherto thalidomide has shown no demonstrable toxicity and mice have survived oral doses as high as 5g/kg... The observations that our formulated suspension is toxic is disturbing for it means that if we market in this form our claims are no longer justified and it is suggested that the formulation is amended to avoid this situation."

On January 2 1960 Dr Somers again expresses alarm:

"The fact that it [Thalidomide] can be toxic is the worry.  You will appreciate that our claim for non-toxicity would not be valid with this preparation."

In reply Chemie Grunenthal informed Distillers that they had repeated Dr Somers' experiments and had arrived at the conclusion that the preparation was completely non-toxic to the mice used at Chemie Grunenthal, and that the British mice they had used must belong to some particularly sensitive strain.

At the trial it was acknowledged that animals reacted quite differently from man, that the apparent safety observed in animals would be absolutely no guarantee that this would be applicable to man, as was indeed proved correct.  It was also disclosed at the trial by Dr Muckter, the director of the scientific laboratory of Chemie Grunenthal, that all the company's records were destroyed - or had "disappeared" during 1959!

By 1960 sales of Thalidomide were stepped up, despite reports of malformations caused by the drug which now poured in from all over the world.  It was now being marketed by 14 firms in many countries under 37 different trade names and sold without prescription.  It was combined with other drugs like aspirin and prescribed widely for headaches, migraine, coughs, colds, flu, asthma, neuralgia, nervous debility, to quieten frisky babies and to give pregnant women a good night's sleep.  Globally Thalidomide was the big winner which dominated prescriptions.  The British pharmaceutical company Distillers produced Thalidomide for morning sickness where it was distributed throughout the British Isles, Australia and New Zealand under the trade name of Distavel, the advertisement reading:

"Distavel can be given with complete safety to pregnant women and nursing mothers without adverse effect on mother or child... Outstandingly safe Distavel [Thalidomide] has been prescribed for nearly three years in this country."

Throughout Britain, Australia and New Zealand it was also prescribed as a tranquilliser under the trade names: Valgis, Tensival, Valgraine and Asmavel.

In April 1961 Australian Dr W.G. McBride at Crown Street Women's Hospital, Sydney, notified the representatives of Distillers in Australia about his suspicions of the link between Distavel (Thalidomide) and malformations.  Distillers in England claim they never received the written report.  Sales promotion of the drug was stepped up and a quarter of a million leaflets distributed saying Thalidomide is "Harmless even over a long period of use" and "completely harmless even for infants".

May 4 1961 Dr McBride reported further malformations due to Thalidomide and succeeded in convincing his superiors that the drug must be withdrawn from use in the hospital.  In October and November Dr McBride reported further malformed babies.

November 27 1961 Thalidomide was withdrawn from the British market.

December 16 1961 Dr McBride's observations were published in the Lancet, and in the Australian Medical Journal on December 23.

On January 6 and February 3 1962 Prof. Widijung Lenz who had warned against Thalidomide in Germany published evidence of deformities in LancetChemie Grunenthal continued prescribing Thalidomide, stepping up its advertising and intensive marketing despite criticism of doctors.

March 4 1962 Thalidomide was removed from the shelves in Germany because of public opinion and against the wishes of Chemie Grunenthal.  News of the dangers of Thalidomide was played down by the media.  In many cases malformed births occurred after the drug was withdrawn as, in possession of the drug mothers took it never realising the risks involved.  At the time of withdrawl of Thalidomide in Germany thousands of malformed babies had been born, thousands of women required extensive psychiatric treatment and there were many suicides.  (In some countries Thalidomide continued to be prescribed and was doled out to pregnant women in Canada until August 1962.)

It is not the writer's intention to dwell on the hideous and hitherto unknown malformations that Thalidomide caused to babies, or the vast number of victims which in their thousands can never be precisely assessed in the official casualty figures as in many of the poorer countries "monster babies" and "freaks" were locked from view or destroyed by distraught parents who accepted the terrible afflictions as visitations from the devil.  Rather, she attempts to bring the readers' attention to the pharmaceutical industry's callous attention to profit and its complete indifference to suffering which is spot-lighted as one researches the records of the Thalidomide trials.  Before continuing it is important that the following points are recapitulated:

  1. Clinical investigators who had closely monitored their patients for years were ignored as they reported Thalidomide damage to Chemie Grunenthal.  Clinical investigators tabulated adverse effects from the early 1950s.  The drug was not withdrawn until 1962.
  2. The fault of doctors cannot be over-emphasised for the Thalidomide tragedy and lessons should have been learned from their negligence as they blindly accepted the assurance of the drug company that the product was safe.  Thus they were exposed as mere pill-pushers.  (When one considers the incentives offered to doctors by drug companies in exchange for prescribing their products this is hardly surprising.)
  3. Doctors again must be hauled up for censorship for in prescribing Thalidomide to pregnant women they flouted the cardinal rule of medicine that drugs are dangerous to pregnant women and should not be prescribed.  For example:

But a more critical and greater universally-recognised fact had been ignored in the production of Thalidomide - of which the serious anti-vivisectionists will not need to be reminded:

The safety of the drug had been based on the assumption that the principle of testing on animals is bona fide.  A fact known to be incorrect as we are constantly reminded by the increasing number of honest doctors who are speaking out as follows:

More evidence of the avarice of drug companies came up at the Thalidomide trial when clinical investigator Dr Jung who had received regular monthly payments for testing Grunenthal drugs stated that Contergan had proved to be an excellent sedative.  When questioned at the trials about a report in which he had written that he had "stopped administration" of the drug in three cases because of side-effects, Jung declared that the expression "stopped administration" was badly chosen.  In fact he had merely reduced the dose.  During an hour-long interrogation of Jung the latter declared: "I think you are under the impression that medicine is an exact science.  You are quite wrong.  A doctor has to take many decisions on the basis of experience and intuition."  (And on the basis of financial encouragement received from the drug companies - Author.)


On June 22 1971 Australian Dr William McBride, internationally respected scientist and gynaecologist was invited to Paris by the Institut de la Vie where 18 Nobel Prize winners gathered to pay tribute to the man who alerted the world to the dangers of Thalidomide.  In a ceremony which he described as "the most shimmering moment of glory never to be forgotten" he was presented with a gold medal and cash prize of $40,000 (with which he established an institute for study of the first 41 weeks of life).  In 1969 he was made a Commander of the British Empire and in 1977 awarded the Order of Australia.  (By the time Thalidomide was withdrawn thousands of babies had been born with terrible malformations, including 27 in Australia.)

In 1972 after being named Father of the Year, Dr McBride created another international furore by announcing that Imipramine, a widely-used anti-depressant, caused birth deformities.  (The Australian Drug Evaluation Committee rejected the evidence.)  In 1980 turning his attention to the Debendox anti-nausea drug produced by Merrel Dow he appeared as an expert witness for the U.S. women who had children with birth defects and were sueing the manufacturer.  The drug was subsequently removed from the market.  There were many Debendox victims in Australia and New Zealand.  Then McBride said his research showed that Debendox was also responsible for causing mental retardation.  On December 12 1987 McBride was accused of scientific fraud, of manoeuvring the results of the Debendox experiments.  In November 1988 he was found guilty by a committee of inquiry and appealed against the decision.  Dr McBride says that everyone will eventually realise that he is innocent of the charges against him.  In an interview with Jane Cadzow, senior writer for the Australian Good Weekend he accused the N.S.W. Health Department of being a "Gestapo State".  "There's big money behind this", he said: "You know, big business is just as vicious as the CIA.  Because I've given evidence for the kids in America... The drug companies have been known to resort to drastic methods to discredit those who appear in court against them."  Dr McBride launched a Supreme Court action in an attempt to overturn the findings brought against him.  (Little wonder doctors are hesitant to swim against the tide of conventional established thought by asking for the abolition of vivisection, the cause of drug failures - Author.)
(Good Weekend, The Sydney Morning Herald Magazine, July 15 1989.)


The frequency of the epidemiologically occurring malformations in Germany followed the absolute sales of Thalidomide with a time-lag of a little less than one year (see the figure below).  Eight to nine months after the withdrawal of Thalidomide from the market the wave of typical malformations disappeared as suddenly as they had appeared, after the same time-lag as followed the introduction of the drug.
(Hennina Sjostrom and Robert Nilsson, Thalidomide and the Power of the Drug Companies, page 156.)

As written in a footnote in Chapter 21 Drugs and the Law, Dr McBride, though opposing his colleagues, had no anti-vivisection tendencies.  Rather he was a fully-fledged vivisector.  At its peak his Foundation 41 employed 16 researchers.  The laboratories are now empty, the meeting rooms closed, and for his insistence that drugs are dangerous to the unborn child, a fact that abolitionist doctors warn without recourse to animal experiments, Dr McBride is isolated and persecuted.


Another twist to the story took place on Tuesday April 27 1992 when a consignment of 200 marmosets, monkeys which are highly social animals prone to multiple births and therefore favoured by the vivisectors researching reproductive biology, left Australia on board a British Airways flight bound for London.  Purchased from Foundation 41 by Charles Rivers Ltd, the world's largest laboratory animal breeder and supplier, the animals were transported in wooden crates 1'x1'x 3', this small space being subdivided into four sections each containing two monkeys.  After suffering 40 hours of indescribably stressful travel, witnesses when lifting the cage covers saw there was no water provided and say they could hear the monkeys uttering clearly distinguishable distress calls.  On arrival in London they were switched from a British Airways lorry to the vehicle of the Charles Rivers company and transferred to Margate.  Here they await sale to British or European vivisection laboratories where horrific experiments await them - or alternatively could be sold to the Dutch Ministry of Defence which has previously requested Charles Rivers to supply them with marmosets for use in chemical warfare research.
(Outrage, August/September 1992.)

In August 1992 due to pressure from anti-vivisectionists British Airways banned the carriage of live monkeys except for conservation.  Effectively this takes the airline out of the international trade in monkeys for vivisection laboratories. 


March (20k)

Photo: Melanie Bromley

Bette Overell leads March to Parliament in protest at the Government's refusal to register submissions and hear petitioners for the Petition to Abolish Vivisection presented to Parliament the previous year.




ARSL 2nd Edition Page 19
"No amount of testing can make a drug safe because humans react differently from animals."
(Lord Platt, President of the Royal College of Physicians, 1957-1962.)

"If we halted research using animals today the result would be immediate and beneficial."
(The late Dr Robert S. Mendelsohn, Confessions of a Medical Heretic.)

Dr Moneim A. Fadali, M.D. Surgeon, Diplomate American Board of Surgery, Diplomate to American Board of Thoracic Surgery, Certified with the Canadian Board of Surgeons, Certified with the Royal College of Surgeons, Canada.  Twentyfive years on the clinical staff at the University of California.  Twentyfive years practising in hospitals in that area... says in Heart Research on Animals (A Critique of Animal Models of Cardiovascular Disease) by Brandon Reines:

"Animal models differ from their human counterparts.  Conclusions drawn from animal research when applied to human disease are likely to delay progress, mislead and do harm to the patient.  Animal experimentation inevitably leads to human experimentation."

Dr Walter Modell of Cornell University Medical College, whom Time Magazine has defined "one of America's foremost drug experts", wrote in Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics:

"If a person suffers from arteriosclerosis that manifests itself through heart cramps, no heart medicine will be able to prevent further trouble, such as renal cirrhosis or a stroke.  It takes more strength of character to eat less, exercise, cut down on fat, meat, sugar and salt, than to continue on one's disaster course, and, using animals as the scape-goats, hope for the best.

"Drugs are nothing more than palliatives, usually more harmful than the disease they are supposed to cure: they simulate recovery by suppressing the symptoms, but poison the organism and upset still further its natural balance... When will they realise that there are too many drugs?  No fewer than 150,000 preparations are now in use of which seventy-five percent did not exist ten years ago.  About 15,000 new mixtures and dosages hit the market each year, while about 12,000 die off... We simply don't have enough diseases to go around."

A strict low-fat vegetarian diet can reverse damage caused by heart disease, according to the findings of an American study.  The Lifestyle Heart trial was conducted on 41 heart disease patients by the Preventive Medicine Research Institute in Sausalito, California.  The study, published in British medical magazine The Lancet found 82 percent of the heart disease patients who adopted such a diet, stopped smoking and attended stress-management classes reversed their coronary artery blockages.

"What we're finding is that heart disease may be completely preventable for most people if they are willing to make changes in their lifestyle."
Study Co-ordinator, Dr Dean Ornish Saud.

The 41 patients, aged between 35 and 75, were recruited from the Pacific Presbyterian Medical Centre and from Moffitt Hospital at the University of California in San Francisco.  (Evening Post, Wellington, July 23 1990.)

Dr Salvador Allende, Chile's President, shortly before his assassination in 1973 stated that there are only about two-score medicaments that have a demonstrable therapeutic effectiveness, and that the pharmacopoeia should be reduced accordingly.
(Nouvel Observateur, October 20 1974.)

Brian Inglis wrote in Drugs, Doctors and Disease:

"The figures for animal experiments have continued to rise every year, not because ever better and safer drugs have been coming on the market, but simply because more drugs have been coming on the market.  Paradoxically, the increase in tests on animals have reflected the growing recognition of how inadequate the tests have been in the past."

The 1963 Report of the British Pharmaceutical Industry's Expert Committee on Drug Toxicity admitted:

"Information from one animal species cannot be taken as valid for any other.  It is not a matter of balancing the cruelty of suffering animals against the gain of humanity spared from suffering, because that is not the choice.  Animals die to enable hundreds of new drugs to be marketed annually, but the gain is to industry, not to mankind."

Dr (med.) Herbert Stiller: Specialist in Neurology and Psychiatry, Psychotherapy
Dr (med.) Margot Stiller: Psychologist, Specialist in Neurology and Psychiatry, Psychotherapy:

In Animal Experimentation and Animal Experimenters (A Critique of Medicine based upon Animal Experimentation) the Doctors Stiller write:

"The stereotypical uncritical assertion that there must be experiments upon animals really requires closer examination.  When something is asserted with especially striking evidence very often the opposite is the case... In the matter of animal experimentation, it is not at all a question of man's welfare, as is emphasised with such suspicious frequency, but rather of much less noble motives."

The Doctors Stiller go on to describe current medicine based on animal trials as "veterinary medicine" claiming that as many as twentyfive percent of all patients show toxic effects of prescribed medicaments.  A. Lwoff, a Nobel Prizewinner at the Pasteur Institute in Paris says that thirty percent of all sickness is caused by medicines, and according to F. Hoff, a specialist for internal diseases, damage caused by attempts at healing through vivisection-based preparations "is the most frequent cause of illness today"I. Illich writes "The general state of health of the population is worst in France with the highest consumption of medicines, and best in Holland with the lowest consumption of medicines."  According to statements issued by the World Health Organisation, half the drugs produced by the West German pharmaceutical industry are superfluous to any medicinal-therapeutic function.  H.C. Schneider (Die Zukunft Wartet Nicht, Stuttgart, 1971) claims:

"Animal research does not produce sensible medicines, but it brings in the most profit."

From Professor Pietro Croce, M.D. in CIVIS International Foundation Report, Nr. 10, by Hans Ruesch:

"Within ten years, the Italian Ministry of Health has withdrawn from the market 22,621 drugs because of toxic side-effects."
(A Parliamentary Bulletin of August 8 1983.)

In another bulletin, within three years 14,836 "side-effects" or "toxic damages" were reported.  All "tested" on animals.

"Modern medicine is a negation of health.  It isn't organised to serve human health, but only to serve itself as an institution.  It makes more people sick than it heals."
(Ivan Illich, Medical Nemesis.)

Refer also to Chapter 8 Cancer (below)



ARSL 2nd Edition Pages 1, 8, 9, 19

Photo: Melanie Bromley

The 1990 March to Parliament makes its way down Lambton Quay.

Readers should question the credentials of the publishers of ARSL who claim that the prevention and cure of cancer is to be found through vivisection.  An increasing amount of medical evidence and an overwhelming number of doctors and scientists are saying that vivisection causes cancer.  That the prevention of cancer means abolishing the products of vivisection.

Knowledge of cancer causation by chemicals originates from clinical observations, in 1775, of chimney sweeps.  According to the World Health Organisation at least 80%-90% of cancer deaths are due to environmental poisons, including industrial chemicals, factory emissions, nuclear power-plants, automobile exhaust, gas-powered engines, incinerators, plastics, diet, as well as to reproductive behaviour, and various elements of lifestyle and culture.  Carcinogenic material is now in the air we breathe, in the food we eat, the water we drink, the medicines we take, including X-rays, the list is endless.  It is said that with effort at least 50%-60% of carcinogens could be eliminated from our environment.

Environmental tragedies of every conceivable nature are now commonplace and occurring at a level never before in history.  Radio N.Z. News, January 26 1991, announced that on the ninth day of the war in the Middle East the deliberate spilling of oil into the sea as a military measure would cause pollution exceeding five times that of the Exxon Valdez disaster, as did the U.S.S.R. rocket fuel spill which killed over 100,000 seals and millions of cod, flatfish and starfish in the White Sea.  Does ARSL seriously expect us to believe that by cutting up animals the cancers let loose in these disasters can be prevented?  Almost on a daily basis toxic chemical spills are reported widely in the media.  At time of writing this article on January 3 1992 the N.Z. Herald headline article reads: "After-Effects of Chemical Spill Rip Town Apart".  Such reports are now so numerous one flicks the page without giving it a second thought.

"Unfortunately, we shall only learn the effect of thousands of chemical preparations on our health some time in the future, for they only emerge slowly in the course of time by accumulation."
(Dr John Higginson, Director of the Intl Office for Cancer Research, Corriere Della Sera, Milan, October 22 1974.)

"It has been estimated that as much as ninety percent of all human cancers are influenced by environmental hazards.  The way to stop useless and unnecessary animal experimentation is simply to make it unprofitable; eliminate the funding by the government agencies, or eliminate the agencies... money talks.  If the flow of the taxpayer dollars that supports the foolish and cruel and dangerous practices of official science is cut off, these practices will stop."
(Dr Irwin D. Bross, President of Biomedical Meta-Technology, Inc., U.S.A.)

Sir Arbuthnot Lane, Bart., C.B., M.B., M.S., F.R.C.S., speaking in the House of Commons:


"Animals in Cancer Research: A Multi-Billion Dollar Fraud", is the title of an article written by Dr Irwin D. Bross reproduced in Fundamental and Applied Toxicology, November 6 1982.  It begins:

"The use of animals in cancer research has been attacked as unnecessary cruelty to animals, and defended as absolutely essential for research progress that will prevent or cure human cancer.  From a scientific standpoint, what is pertinent is that what are called 'animal model systems' in cancer research have been a total failure."

It concludes:

"The moral is that animal model systems not only kill animals they also kill humans.  There is no good factual evidence to show that the use of animals in cancer research has led to the prevention or cure of a single human cancer."

This article exposes that cancer research using animals is a highly profitable undertaking for certain medical schools and research institutes that are incapable of doing genuine cancer research - and that the use of animals is sustained by what Dr Bross says is a "superstitious belief in a grossly unscientific notion that mice are miniature men".

Dr Irwin D. J. Bross writes as a scientist with 30 years experience in public health.  As head of research design and analysis at Sloan Kettering Cancer Institute in 1954, he initiated and designed the controlled clinical trials that led to the first cures of childhood leukemia.  During the same period, Dr Bross pioneered the first statistical studies of highway accidents - investigations which led to the use of seat belts and special door locks that have saved thousands of lives.  He was also a major force behind the reduction in the tar and nicotine levels of cigarettes.  In 1959, Dr Bross was invited by the Director of the Roswell Park Memorial Institute for Cancer Research in Buffalo, New York to head RPMI's department of biostatistics.  Using modern sophisticated statistical techniques, Bross has elucidated the actual hazards of such controversial technologies as medical "x-rays and toxic waste sites".  He is now President of Biomedical Metatechnology Inc.Dr Bross is author or co-author of over 300 published articles and reports as well as three books, including his most recent Scientific Strategies to Save Your Life, a statistical monograph published by Marcel Dekker Inc. in 1980.

"For years I have carefully studied the annual reports of the Ministry of Health, the Medical Research Council and the two cancer research bodies, but I have been unable to discover what benefits they have conferred on the community, although I must confess I have often admired their easy flowing rhetoric and their naive assumption of the value of their own efforts and as essays in subtle propaganda for the extraction of yet more money out of the generous and credulous British public."
(W. Mitchell Stevens, Britain, M.D., F.R.C.P., Medical World, July 5 1940, page 465.)

"During the past fifty years scientists experimenting with thousands of animals have found 700 ways of causing cancer.  But they had not discovered one way of curing the disease."
(Dr J. F. Brailsford, M.D., Ph.D., Birmingham Evening Dispatch, January 10 1956.)

The following is taken from the "Houston-Null Analysis" in New York's paper Our Town, September 3 1978:

"A solution to cancer would mean the termination of research programmes, the obsolescence of skills, the end of dreams of personal glory.  Triumph over cancer would dry up contributions to self-perpetuating charities.  It would mortally threaten the present clinical establishment by rendering obsolete the expensive surgical, radiological and chemotherapeutic treatments in which so much money, training and equipment is invested.  The new therapy must be disbelieved, denied, discouraged and disallowed at all costs, regardless of actual testing results and preferably without any testing at all."

"It is time to end cancer research on animals because it is not related to humans."
(Dr A. Sabin.)


  1. DRUGS

    "My effort to head off the poisoning of hundreds of women with breast cancer with a dangerous drug (Breast cancer drug 5FU) that could destroy their host defence systems failed.  The National Cancer Institute went right ahead.  Not a few women with breast cancer have paid with their lives for this stupidity."
    (Dr Irwin D. Bross, Experimental and Applied Toxicology, Jan/Feb 1983.)

    The U.S. National Cancer Institute, in the New York Times, December 23 1986, admitted that "the live mouse screen is just not producing action against the major tumours".  This coincides with Dr Bross's statement who writes in Animals in Cancer Research: A Multi-Billion Dollar Fraud:

    "Although there are hundreds of different animal model systems used in cancer research involving many different animals and many different transplanted or induced tumours from the same or different species, there is no animal model system that comes anywhere close to being a model of the human cancer process.  It does no good to put human cells in animal systems or to use primates as hosts.  The biochemical environment of the model is completely different from that of the human host.  The animal model systems are merely a bad analogy and reasoning from a bad analogy is fallacious in logic and in science."


    The much touted mammogram does not prevent cancer, merely finds it, but overwhelming medical evidence exists that X-rays actually cause cancer.  This is now acknowledged by the medical profession.  Refer to an article titled "X-ray Tests Linked as Cause of Breast Cancer", Evening Post, December 27 1991.  (Also note on Dr Bross earlier in this article.)


  3. DIET
    In 1982 the U.S. National Research Council published a report titled "Diet, Nutrition and Cancer" which shows the evidence that dietary factors cause cancer of the breast and other organs.  In an article in the September/October 1991 issue of the journal of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine the Committee criticises that:


    "Brochures with watered-down recommendations have sat collecting dust at cancer research centres.  There was never an organised effort to give women the information they need to make decisions about cancer prevention."

    This four-page article, complete with graphs, gives life-saving information on how women can take responsibility for their own health by preventing cancer through diet.  There is no mention of the necessity of vivisecting animals, which ARSL would fraudulently have us believe is necessary!  Brief extracts of the article are as follows:

    PCRM claim that a cancer-prevention diet has to be very different from even the diet recommended by the National Cancer Institute which recommends a 30 percent fat diet.  They cite further studies which have discovered that to prevent cancer, fat intake must be reduced to the extremely low levels found in China, Japan, and other countries which enjoy low cancer rates.  Cancer prevention, they say, should contain no more than 15 percent fat and should be vegetarian.

    With this new knowledge, which PCRM says is "powerful artillery in the war against cancer... as much as 80 percent of cancers can potentially be stopped before they even start".

    "As the consumption of meat, dairy products, and fried foods has become a daily routine, the female body has been assaulted by altered hormonal function, an unnatural age of puberty, and a much greater risk of cancer.  By eliminating unhealthful dietary factors and encouraging the diets that diminish risk, we can hope to turn the tide on this epidemic."


One does not have to be an expert to conclude that ARSL seeks the continuance of vivisection - for vivisection's sake.  Not because of its publishers' interest in health, but for their interest in maintaining profits - commercial, political and academic.

Thus the reader sees that the arguments against ARSL's false claims do not come from fanatical animal-loving anti-vivisectionists, misguided but well-meaning activists or freaks in funny clothes, but from sober, medical and scientific professionals, some of whom are leading vivisectors.  In the following section titled ARSL VERSUS THE VIVISECTORS, the vivisectors themselves argue against ARSL ARSL says (page 17 of the booklet): "If we halted research using animals today ways to prevent many cancers would never be found... The development of urgently needed new drugs to treat heart disease, cancer and a host of other diseases would be severely restricted."




Twenty years on the staff of the National Cancer Institute and editor of its journal.  Recipient in July 1990 of the prestigious MacArthur Fellowship, one of the few scientists so chosen says:

"My overall assessment is that the national cancer programme must be judged a qualified failure."
(Speaking at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in May 1985.)

These were Dr Bailer's answers to questions put by Neal D. Barnard, M.D. of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, U.S.A. and published in PCRM Update, September/October 1990.  (Kindly supplied to the author by K. and M. Ungar, U.S.A.)

"The five year cancer survival statistics of the American Cancer Society are very misleading.  They now count things that are not cancer, and, because we are able to diagnose at an earlier stage of the disease, patients falsely appear to live longer.  Our whole cancer research in the past 20 years has been a failure.  More people over 30 are dying from cancer than ever before... More women with mild or benign diseases are being included in statistics and reported as being 'cured'.  When government officials point to survival figures and say they are winning the war against cancer they are using those survival rates improperly."
(Dr J. Bailer, New England Journal of Medicine.)



Chairman of the National Cancer Institute's (sometimes known as the National Mouse Institute) Advisory Board says:

"For 35 years U.S. scientists labouring in the National Cancer Institute's screening programme have injected more than 400,000 chemicals into leukemic mice, hoping to find chemotherapies that would help solve the riddles of cancer... We've been using the wrong system as the screening device."

"The new system which is being employed at the Development Therapeutics Programme in Frederick, Maryland, uses an arsenal of automated devices and computers to test potential cancer-fighting drugs on real human cancer cells grown in laboratories rather than on mice.  This enables scientists to test more than 300 chemicals a week.  Many of these drugs had failed in the past when tested on mice."
("Giving up on the Mice.  Scientists Searching for Cancer-cures Try a New Tactic", Time Magazine, September 17 1990.)


Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences at the University of California at Berkeley, and...


Director of the Carcinogenicity Potency Database Project at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, and...


Chairman of the National Academy of Sciences say:

"A growing number of scientists are questioning the usefulness of the animal tests used to decide whether chemicals cause cancer."

"Animal tests themselves can cause cancer."

"Researchers have criticised the tests for years, there is now more of a scientific basis for their complaints."
(Dr Goldstein.)

Ames and Gold explain that animal tests look for cancer by giving rodents enormous doses of suspect chemicals.  But say:

"At these high doses, many chemicals cause excessive cell division because, quite often, they kill cells or chronically irritate tender tissues, leading other cells to start dividing to replace ones that are lost.  Cells that are dividing are much more likely to experience cancer-causing changes."
("Skepticism About Cancer Tests on Animals Growing", Daily News, Bur Val, California, U.S.A. , thanks K. and M. Ungar.)

N.B.: Dr Bruce Ames, a cancer expert from the University of California (Berkeley) and a member of the President's National Cancer Advisory Board, will be remembered in medical history for the discovery, for which he rose to fame in 1973, of a non-animal, bacteria-based test which is reliable, quick and cheap.  Widely acknowledged "The Ames Test" can be completed in approximately two to seven days, at a cost of $100 to $250 per substance tested.  Animal tests take an average of two to four years, at a cost of $200,000 or $400,000 per substance tested.1
(B.N. Ames, "Principles and methods for their detection", Chemical Mutagens, Vol. 1, 1971, pages 261-282; B.N. Ames, W.E. Durstan, E. Yamasaki, F.D. Lee, Carcinogens are Mutagens.  A Simple Non-animal Test System, 1973.)

Prof. Croce, in Vivisection or Science - A Choice to Make, says of the Ames test:

"It has many advantages such as speed, simplicity, low cost, ability to test many substances simultaneously and to produce standardised results regardless of the location of the laboratory."

Given this information anti-vivisectionists everywhere, but especially in New Zealand where alliances such as the publishers of ARSL are using public money to promote them, should be questioning their governments, WHY ANIMAL TESTS ARE STILL BEING CARRIED OUT?

In addition to questioning the credentials of ARSL's publishers we should be examining, in face of all the scientific opposition to vivisection, ARSL's insistence on maintaining it.  The reader is directed to NZAVS Submission in Support of NZAVS Petition to Abolish Vivisection (1989), pages 15, 16 and 17, which touch on the solid gold business of cancer and how more people make their money from cancer than die of it.  It also lists numerous scientists and their evidence who strongly reject the validity of animals in the search for cancer "cures".

(Considerable evidence about man-made cancers and doctors' opposition to the use of animals on the grounds of invalidity is in Chapter 22 Living 25 Years Longer Than Our Great Grand Parents.)

"Thirty years ago cancer in children was regarded as a medical rarity.  Today more children are dying of cancer than any other disease.  The increase in harmful effects on health seems paradoxically to go hand in hand with an increase in the number of scientists."
(Dr med. Herbert Stiller, Specialist in Neurology and Psychiatry, Psychotherapy, Animal Experimentation and Animal Experimenters (A Critique of Medicine Based Upon Animal Experimentation).)

Refer also to Chapter 7 Development of New Drugs.

Cancer has killed 350,000 Canadians in the past 10 years.  And 3,000 Canadian researchers have spent hundreds of thousands of hours and $250 million trying to find the cure.  Largely, they have failed.
"Animal Models: Fighting Cancer with a Failed Technology"
Irwin Bross.
Animal Defense & Anti-Vivisection Soc., Vancouver, BC
(Civil Abolitionist, Vol. IV, No. 2, Spring 1992, page 5.)

1. An example of the value of the Ames Test, when it was used on the cancer-causing fire-retardant, TRIS, which affected 45 million children's sleepwear is given in Chapter 22 Living 25 Years Longer Than Our Great Grand Parents.

Description of Graphic

The cartoon depicts a cat, rabbit and mouse, bandaged up after having been vivisected, exiting a "cancer research foundation" building.  They are speaking to a man holding a bucket full of dollar bills and a woman with a purse stuffed full of dollars.  The caption reads "Cure?  Well no... but they have discovered 700 ways to give it to us...".




ARSL 2nd Edition Page 5

 The problem faced by those investigating ARSL's claim that without vivisection we should all be sick or dead is not lack of evidence, but the overwhelming, seemingly inexhaustible proliferation of it.  Perhaps it is a reflection of public apathy that vivisection continues to exist in face of the well-documented, easily-available, opinions of professional medics and medical historians who are vehemently opposed to it.

Not surprisingly Animal Research Saves Lives omits to name the specific type of child leukemia it claims vivisection cures.  Evidence however abounds that modern civilisation's steady diet of poisons and contaminates to which it is now subjected, and the failure of governments to protect future generations from the resulting incidence of ill-health, make childhood leukemias and cancers, which are on the increase, a self-administered and preventable tragedy.

Written as far back as 1935 One Thousand Guinea-Pigs (Dangers in Everyday Foods, Drugs and Cosmetics), by Arthur Kallet and F.J. Schlink, is a remarkable and terrifying book which should be read by the public at large for it exposes in detail how:

"A hundred million Americans act as unwitting test animals in a gigantic experiment with poisons, conducted by the food, drug and cosmetic manufacturers."

One Thousand Guinea-Pigs voices the deep concern and anxiety felt since the beginning of the century, for the potential cancer and leukemia-forming substances the public consume daily in foods, medicines, cosmetics, toiletries (including toothpaste), antiseptics, health-foods, hair-dyes, breads, confectionaries, kitchen-shelf paper, fly-sprays, fruit and vegetables and a myriad of other commodities (even clothing), which are eaten, applied, sprayed and administered or worn without question as to their safety.  Brand names are published throughout and the reader recognises many products that are widely used and advertised today.  Arthur Kallet, was at time of publication, a director of the Consumers' Union of the United States, New York, and F.J. Schlink, technical director of Consumers' Research was an engineer and physicist, six years on the staff of the U.S. Bureau of Standards.

Rachel Carson, acclaimed worldwide for her classic Silent Spring, (published in 1963, referred to elsewhere in this work) undertook investigation into the cause of infant leukemias, and cites on page 192 the evidence of Sir Macfarlane Burnet, distinguished Australian physician and Nobel Prize winner, who claims that in the three-to-four age bracket leukemia is increasing worldwide, due, he says, "to the exposure of the young organism to mutagenic stimulus before or around the time of birth".  Carson also refers to the words of Dr Hueper, whose years of distinguished work in cancer and leukemia investigations makes his opinion one to respect.  "The goal of curing the victims of cancer is more exciting, more tangible, more glamorous and rewarding than prevention... To prevent cancer from ever being formed is definitely more humane and much more effective than cancer cures."  Dr Hueper also believes that assuming a "cure" for leukemia is found it will fail because it leaves untouched the great reservoirs of carcinogenic agents which would continue to claim new victims faster than the as yet elusive "cure" could allay the disease.

John Elkington, one of Europe's leading environmental writers, Consultant for the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the U.N. Development Programme and the World Bank, stresses in The Poisoned Womb (published 1985 and dedicated to the unborn) the dangers of birth control pills and pregnancy medication, drugs, sleeping tablets, tranquillisers and antibiotics doled out to mothers during pregnancy he says can be pinpointed to the incidence of childhood leukemias.  Worse, he emphasises, with terrifying clarity, the hazards to the unborn, of involuntary and unintentional exposure of pregnant women to pesticides, industrial wastes, chemicals in our water, homes, factories, hospitals, pharmacies and supermarkets, and from what he calls "our arrogant chemical war against nature""Today", he says "... we all live on the toxic frontier and, in case after case, disaster after disaster, our reproductive systems are showing the strain."

A recent article at hand from a West Yorkshire newspaper entitled "Leukemia Blamed on Paternal Radiation Exposure" reads:

"While animals are still being irradiated in laboratories all over the country to 'study' the effects, Dr Martin Gardner and colleagues of the Medical Research Council in Southampton, England have learned that the children of fathers who worked at the Sellafield nuclear-reprocessing plant there were six times more likely to be afflicted by leukemia than neighbours whose fathers had not worked at the plant.  Sellafield, formerly called Windscale, has experienced so many episodes of radioactive leakage that the government changed the name to disassociate the plant from its history.  There is an unusually high incidence of childhood leukemia in the area.  Dr Gardner's study seems to indicate that it is caused by damaged sperm, which leaves the father intact but visits the government's sins upon unborn children."

Refer also to Chapter 22 Living 25 Years Longer Than Our Great Grand Parents, Male Infertility.

There is much evidence that childhood leukemia is also the direct legacy of vaccination, the foundation stone of vivisection.

The publishers of ARSL make much of the cures and benefits they claim originated with animal experimentation, and extensive time and effort is wasted on endless investigation and dialogue into whether this or that drug was developed erroneously on animals or resulted from clinical studies.  And so the booklet deliberately refuses to face up to the abolitionist debate.

Fiddling while Rome burns ARSL unwisely focuses on dubious "remedies", which, valid or not, animal based or otherwise, do nothing more than alleviate or allay disease at an alarmingly slower rate than disease is being produced.  Omitting to as much as mention or acknowledge the words of researchers like Kallet and Schlink, Carson, Hueper, Elkington, or Hamaker and Weaver (The Survival of Civilisation) and many others who have given governments ample warning that carcinogenic agents (much of which is doctor prescribed) threaten the very existence of our survival at a faster rate than any of the cures.

Vivisection is the wholesale holocaust of animals difficult to comprehend by sane individuals or by those not blindly pursuing its inherent profits.  Shrouded in the camouflage of a quest for health ARSL is an excellent example of the emotional blackmail to which the vivisection industry will stoop.  All the facts reveal that vivisection has the potential to destroy life before it enters the womb.  That it threatens life itself.  It is vitally important that those interested in joining the anti-vivisection movement should support the groups which have not yet been infiltrated by agents of the international pro-vivisection alliance.


Abolitionists are striving to divert the vast amounts of public money currently being wasted on creating artificial and irrelevant diseases in animals, in a business in which there are rich pickings and glittering awards, to the study of mankind, its difficulties, its circumstances, its problems and its salvation.



ARSL 2nd Edition Pages 1, 19

 Members of the N.Z. Anti-Vivisection Society who attended the Society's AGM of April 8 1989 heard, for the first time, that Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome is not caused by a virus, is not infectious, but that it is as described by investigative reporter Jon Rappoport:

"The precise breakdown in the dynamic balance of our sustaining environment which causes primary immune system weakness.  Evidence suggests that large drug use and chemical contamination cries out as the key factor."

Many doctors agree, and support Rappoport.  About AIDS they say:

"Virus is not the cause.  The definition of AIDS is worthless.  The treatment is poison.  Thousands are dying needlessly as the medical world and media pull off the biggest scandal of our time - and all for the love of power and money."

This article on AIDS is taken from the NZAVS Submission in Support of NZAVS Petition to Abolish Vivisection (1989) - the Petition was signed by 100,640 people.  The Submission was not acknowledged by the Government, other submissions were also ignored, and at time of writing this ARSL rebuttal in January 1992, the Society had still not been informed of the Government's decision on the Petition - despite many enquiries to the Chairman of the Primary Production Committee Mr Ross Meurant, and to the Prime Minister Mr. J. Bolger.



Investigators expose that AIDS is nothing more than a blurred synonym for chemical contamination - and all the ravages of a polluted world.

Strong indications are surfacing that AIDS is not a single illness but an international operation, a business, a bureaucracy.  That the disease is not caused by one but a variety of reasons, and that all bar one, starvation, bear the same common denominator... massive drug use and exposure to chemicals.  However, by including starvation under the umbrella of AIDS not only is the resultant terror justified, but it gives the pharmaceutical opportunists (to whom AIDS is the greatest God-send of all times) and the pseudo-scientists, unlimited power to flood civilization with even further toxic preparations.

The latest World Health Organisation interpretation of a proper diagnosis of AIDS as indicated by Drs Piot and Colebunder in "AIDS, A Global Perspective" released by the WHO and published in the Western Journal of Medicine, December 1987, in diagnosing AIDS says:

"The elimination of the requirement of the absence of other causes of immunodeficiency."...

Which, claim Drs Piot and Colebunder means that it is no longer necessary to scrutinize the patient and see where his immune-compromised condition comes from...

"Medics can simply overlook a multitude of multi-national sins and say... it's AIDS."






(AIDS victims: gay men who volunteered for Hepatitis B. vaccine trials in 1980.)

In January 1983 Dr John Findbeiner, writing in Medical World News warned that the hepatitis B. vaccine:

"Might be contaminated with a pathogen responsible for the AIDS epidemic."

Alan Cantwell, a Los Angeles doctor confirms in his book AIDS The Mystery and the Solution that investigations revealed that the first 26 cases of AIDS in the U.S. were from New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, the three cities that carried out the most extensive early hepatitis B. vaccine trialsDr Cladd Stevens of the New York Blood Centre assembled 212 men out of the 1083 who had taken part in the hepatitis B. vaccine trials and found 85 of them with AIDS.

On May 11 1987, Pearce Wright, accomplished science-editor of London's The Times ran a front page story with the headline...

"Smallpox Vaccine Triggered AIDS Virus."

An outside consultant to the World Health Organisation had reported to The Times that the WHO having found a connection between their smallpox inoculation programmes and the incidence of "AIDS" in Zambia, Zaire and Brazil had engaged his firm to investigate.  Which they did, and found the suspicion correct.  However when the report was given to the WHO they would not publish the findings.

Pearce Wright wrote:


"The smallpox vaccine theory would account for the position of each of the seven Central African States which top the table of most affected countries; why Brazil became the most afflicted Latin American Country; and how Haiti became the route for the spread of AIDS to the US.  Brazil was the only South American country covered in the eradication of smallpox campaign and has the highest incidence of AIDS in that region, Zaire has 33 million smallpox vaccinations, Zambia 19 million, Tanzania 14 million and so on... Haiti had 14,000 citizens living in Central Africa, they had smallpox inoculations there and eventually returned home."

"After a meeting of 50 experts near Geneva this month it was revealed that up to 75 million (one third of the population of South Africa) could have AIDS within the next five years."

Robert Matthews, technical correspondent of The Times, told Jon Rappoport of the New York Native, June 29 1987:

"The World Health Organisation which had been running their 13-year smallpox eradication programme in the third world until 1980 wondered if the vaccinations were connected to the AIDS pandemic.  They hired an outside consultant to do a study on it.  He did and said... 'Yes your suspicion is correct.'  But the report was buried by the WHO and so the consultant came to us... His credentials can not be dismissed... We are not giving his name, but the WHO know he is our source."

There is informed speculation that the smallpox vaccine could also be contaminated with harmful viruses.  For thirty years various doctors have claimed that we have been playing with a time-bomb called vaccines and there are many examples to point to.  US AIDS researchers in their labs will soon begin to wonder if they themselves are merely dupes working to correct what another part of the medical establishment has wrought in its vaccines... but they will keep their mouths shut because they are paid to do so."
(Dr Robert Gallo of the National Cancer Institute.)
SOURCE: The Times, May 11 1987 and New York Native, June 29 1987.  K. Ungar, California.

Protective vaccination against smallpox can also trigger off cancer in the form of malignant tumours as was shown in the case of 38 persons whose tumours resulted from the vaccination scar.

(This was the report on the first page of the journal Medical News in 1969.  Dr Willard L. Marmelzat of the University of Southern California reported at the second International Congress of Tropical Dermatology that none of these patients had ever been in contact with carcinogenic (cancer-forming) chemicals, and not one had ever received any injury or mechanical trauma at the site of the vaccination scar.) 

"I have been saying for some years that the use of live vaccines, such as that used for smallpox, can activate a dormant infection such as HIV."
(Dr Robert Gallo.)



As a result of historically unprecedented sexual promiscuity, sexual deviants and drug addicts, in attempts to elevate sexual prowess and to cure or stave off rampant sexually-transmitted diseases are (says Jon Rappoport) killing themselves with different combinations of chemical factors: MDA, Quaaludes, Amyl, Isobutyl, Butyl Nitrates, Lomatil, Poppers, Flagyl, Atabrine, Diiodoquin, Preludine and dangerous illegal preparations marketed as "room odorisers" to name a few.  For ten years PharmChem Laboratories in California analysed samples of street drugs from all over the world.  They discovered that a drug called MPPP, a synthetic substitute sold as heroin contains a by-product called MPTP which can cause Parkinson's disease from one injection.  In 1985 the Santa Clara Valley Medical Centre in California set up an MPTP Parkinson's clinic discovering that 500 people in central California were injecting with MPTP.  The drug causes chronic headaches, diarrhoea, drastic weight-loss and wasting away which today would be classified as AIDS.

Obviously none of the self-inflicted drug damage can be cured by inducing diseases into healthy animals.

Meanwhile for years on end chimpanzees are held in solitary sterile isolates (small tubular steel containers) where pseudo-scientists have unsuccessfully endeavoured to induce them, by way of radiation and the infliction of chemical toxins, with the AIDS "virus".  So far no chimpanzees have developed AIDS, but many of these sociable and intelligent animals are being driven insane in their solitary hell-holes.




As chemical aggressions damage human health the immune system is reduced, mangled and slowed to a halt.  This is called Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.  Pharmaceutical and chemical conglomerates are overwhelming the world with immunosuppression damage they then call AIDS.  Tetracycline and antibiotics damage liver, teeth, and bones and firms like Dow, Pfizer, Dumex, Le Patit, Lederle, sell them over the counter in the Third World, as Squibb sells Vertivitone in Bangladesh where 60% of consumers developed liver damage.  Ciba-Geigy sells the painkiller Cibalgin over the counter in Mozambique which contains Aminopyrine, banned in Europe.  Parke Davis, McKesson, Boehringer and Beacon sell Chloramphenicol that kills by anaemia and Hoeschst of West Germany sells Diphrone pain-reliever which causes anaemia and immune suppression... banned in U.S.A..

The dangers of animal-based medications and remedies with which we are bombarded for the slightest discomfort and with little if any regard for the cause of our problems, or the consequences of the "cure" is dealt with elsewhere, as is the tragedy of Clioquinol.  Between 1962 and 1978 thirty thousand Japanese people were crippled, blinded or killed by Ciba-Geigy's Clioquinol, an anti-diarrhoea drug, sold under many other trade-names.  Symptoms were acute headache, abdominal pain, paralysis, blindness, degeneration of muscles and nerves, weakness, weight-loss and wasting away.  Today this would be classified as AIDS.

Different combinations of chemical factors also cause these symptoms but those controlling AIDS research grants are not interested in eliminating toxic medicaments from our menu, or instituting detoxifying programmes.  There is no money in health (a ruthless industry), or prevention, whereas research in AIDS "cures" are more profitable even than cancer research.  It also facilitates further poisons to be unleashed onto an already terrified community.

According to reports in the Liberator (BUAV) March 1988 over 80 different AIDS drugs and 25 vaccines are currently under development by rival drug companies.  Wellcome's Retrovir claims to hold the "virus" at bay although with risk of serious side-effects.  The Independent U.K. wrote:




"For the first time in the history of the world every human being is now subjected to contact with dangerous chemicals.  From the moment of conception until death.  Regardless of age, circumstance or geographical position on the planet chemical pollutants are present in the bodies of all Earth's inhabitants.  Residues of chemicals are in the air, ground water, major river systems, oceans, soil, earthworms, birds' eggs, and in man and his food.  In mothers' milk and in the tissues and marrow of the unborn."

"In the glass of water served at your dinnertable are mingled chemicals that no responsible chemist would think of combining in his laboratory."
(Rachel Carson, Silent Spring.)

All fish, birds, reptiles and domestic and wild animals are polluted so universally that those who make their living through vivisection have instituted a secondary major industry, that of producing "germ-free animals".  An industry both immoral and macabre.  However, since the aim of this paper is to emphasise the connection between chemical destruction of our immune system and the label of AIDS, elaboration of this abomination is impossible in the limited space available.  Refer Chapter 1, Vivisection Industry.

The run-off from pesticides, herbicides and insecticides are often unseen and invisible making their presence known only when hundreds of thousands of fish, birds and wild animals die.  More often they are never detected at all.



(Short for dichloro-diphenyl-trichlorethane) discovered by Paul Muller of Switzerland who won the Nobel Prize for his pains, was first used in wartime to dust thousands of soldiers, refugees and prisoners to combat lice.  DDT is lethal and sinister as it passes through all links of the food chain, beginning as a dusting over crops and ending in milk and butter.

Residues of DDT are little affected by washing.  A scientific team from the U.S. Public Health Service investigated a variety of restaurant and institutional meals finding every meal contained DDT.  They wrote:

"Few if any food can be relied upon to be entirely free of DDT."

A separate Public Health Service study analysis of prison meals disclosed that most foods were "heavily contaminated".

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration said in 1950:

"It is extremely likely that the potential hazard of DDT has been under-estimated, no-one knows what the ultimate consequences may be!"


A major killer among pesticides developed by Nazi scientists as a weapon in WWII is widely distributed in the Third World.  It is sixty times more toxic to humans than DDT.  Parathion can kill simply by touching spray equipment.  The amount used to spray a good-size farm, could, says one authority:

"... Provide a lethal dose for five to ten times the whole world's population."


A pesticide outlawed in the U.S., when marketed in Latin America turned its victims into zombies.  All suffered what would be called AIDS symptoms.  A Texas plant in 1976 (which manufactured Phosvel) had to close down because workers contracted loss of coordination, inability to work, talk or think clearly, malnutrition and wasting away.  According to Rappoport's findings this would now be classified as AIDS.

Chlordane, Heptachlor, Dieldin, Aldrin, Endrin, "BHC" and Lindane are other super-poisons and there is much information that they cause serious liver diseases including Hepatitis.  Like DDT they can lie dormant in human beings and flare up in periods of stress or malnutrition.

In "Dieldrin Poisoning - A Case Report" (N.Z. Medical Journal, Vol. 58, 1959, page 393) a New Zealander under treatment for obesity suddenly developed symptoms of poisoning and on examination his body-fat was found to contain residues of Dieldrin which metabolised as he lost weight.

The WHO say that when Dieldrin was substituted for DDT in malaria-control (when malaria mosquitoes had become resistant to DDT) sprayers went into convulsions and several died.  New strains of mosquitoes are resistant to pesticides causing two million cases of malaria a year, where previously there were 23 (though non-toxic methods are available e.g. sterile male mosquitoes).  Pesticide manufacturers won't part with this lucrative market.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation predicts that by the year 2000 sixtyseven percent of the seeds used in under-developed countries will be improved meaning they will be more vulnerable to pests and require even more pesticides.

Weir and Shapiro's table of "Recent North American Seed Company Acquisitions" reveal the following prominent pharmaceutical names on the list of those taking over seed companies... Upjohn, Sandoz, Pfizer, Ciba-Geigy and Monsanto.

ALDRIN is extremely toxic and causes sterility even of new generations who suffer for the poisoning of their parents.  It is sprayed from aeroplanes and showered over suburban areas and farmlands.

ENDRIN the most highly toxic of all, kills fish, fatally poisons cattle which stray into sprayed areas, poisons water and endangers all life.  In Kenya a chemical called "BHC" blinded workers who suffered chronic diarrhoea, fever and wasting away, which now can be classified as AIDS.

In 1988 the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the WHO reported:

"Mass contamination of coffee beans from twenty two countries with DDT, Dieldrin, Malathion and Lindane."

There were also recent reports of the Australian soya bean crops being similarly contaminated.

Pesticide Management in East and Southern Africa...
Published in 1985 by the U.S. Agency for International Development claims that the definition of AIDS in Africa is now becoming synonymous with starvation symptoms: chronic diarrhoea, fever, malnutrition and wasting away.

In Brazil (and other Third World countries) backyard pesticide formulators working with deadly nerve toxins manufacture all the diseases, which coupled with malaria, T.B., polio, leprosy, yellow fever and malnutrition now come under the heading of AIDS.

Both Parathion and Malathion have been used in some drugs as muscle relaxants and Dinitrophenol, an ingredient of herbicides was once dispensed to human-beings as a reducing drug until patients suffered permanent injury and it was withdrawn.



April 22 1915:  Germans use chlorine gas as military weapon.  One million deaths resulting from the use of chemicals as weapons.

In the Second World War the Japanese injected prisoners with anthrax, bubonic plague T.B., smallpox, typhoid and cholera.  The General-in-Charge was granted immunity from prosecution and the Japanese bio-warfare specialists were imported to work in the U.S.A.

In Vietnam 1965 to 1969 the U.S. Army polluted the country with orthochlorobenzamalonitrile, a chemical more dangerous than dioxin, the highly toxic Agent Orange.  Ex-prisoners of war suffered chronic diarrhoea, fever and wasting away.  But it was not at that time, says Rappoport, called AIDS.

Robert Lederer in his 1987 article in Covert Action, "Information Bulletin No. 28, Precedents for AIDS" exposes the bio-warfare conducted in State prisons by Dow Chemical Company and that the symptoms produced are: chronic diarrhoea, serious weight-loss and wasting away and that some advocates now tie these chemicals' immunosuppressive effects to AIDS.

Rappoport reveals that in recent years there have been many allegations of bio-warfare.  The U.S. states that the Soviet Union is using yellow fever agents in Afghanistan.  Iran accuses Iraq of using mustard gas and nerve gas on Iranian troops.  (Now confirmed.)  In 1987 West German police found 12 companies shipping equipment for the production of poison gas to Iraq.

In several countries where AIDS cases are reported it has been found that biowarfare is (or has been) used in wars and revolutions."
(J. Rappoport, AIDS Inc..)

"It is theoretically possible to develop so-called ethnic chemical weapons, which would be designed to exploit naturally-occurring differences in vulnerability among specific population groups.  Thus such a weapon would be capable of incapacitating or killing a selected enemy population to a significantly greater extent than the population of friendly forces."
(Paxman and Harris, Decontamination of Water Containing Chemical Warfare Agent, Hill and Wang Publishers, 1982; and A Higher Form of Killing.  Also refer Piller & Yamamoto, Gene Wars, William Morrow & Co., 1988.  Other similar information freely available in several newspapers and magazines.)

The following extract of a chronology researched for AIDS Inc. by Jon Rappoport reveals not only that some so-called AIDS symptoms can be produced by bio-warfare agents but that some very nasty things are going on which should be opened to public view and investigation.  "It is enlightening" says Rappoport "to realise how many diseases, infections and symptoms are being attributed to AIDS."

  • FROM MID 1940 TO MID 1970 - The Manhattan Project Atomic Energy Commission and the Energy Research and Development Administration carries out radiation tests on citizens throughout U.S.A. 
  • 1945 - In four hospitals people diagnosed as terminally ill were injected with plutonium. 
  • 1946/47 - Patients with good kidney function injected with uranium salts at University of Rochester. 
  • 1950 - Two U.S. Navy ships spray serratia bacteria on city of San Francisco.  The test showed that supposed harmless bacteria could be spread to every inhabitant of the city.  Such experiments helped the military to determine the feasibility of inoculating whole populations against bio-warfare agents - without their knowledge.  Serratia infections are common today and under the AIDS definitions "and other bacterial infections" would qualify for a diagnosis of AIDS
  • 1950 - Fort Detrick scientists contaminate pigeons with deadly chemicals and release them to infect fields of crops. 
  • 1950 - Ciba-Geigy spray Egyptian children with chemicals in field trials.
    (Hans Ruesch, Slaughter of the Innocent.  Also newspaper reports.)
  • 1951 - Contaminations by U.S. Navy (of wooden boxes) with serratia bacteria, bacillus globigli and asperigillus fumigatus.  Shipped to various points to see how easily germs can be spread to people handling cargoes. 
  • 1951/52 - People exposed to tritium by breathing, immersion or ingestion at Richland, Washington. 
  • 1953 - U.S. Chemical corps spray chemicals and bacteria over Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. 
  • 1952 - British float mice, guinea-pigs, rabbits in cages on rafts off Scotland.  Contaminated with clouds of germs.  All died.  Their bodies brought back to shore for analysis. 
  • 1953/54 - British strap animals to rafts and float them off the Bahamas.  (Operation Ozone and Negation.)  The animals died.  Were burned at sea. 
  • 1953 - British soldiers tested for reaction to nerve gases at Porton Downs. 
  • 1953 - 1,500 U.S. Armed Forces and civilians given LSD and other hallucinogens in tests. 
  • 1953/57 - U.S. Army pays $100,000 to New York Psychiatric Institute for testing patients' reactions to selected drugs.  Many ill.  One died. 
  • 1961 - Operation Ranch-Hand starts three-year spraying of defoliants from the Mekong in Vietnam to the Demarkation Zone.  Agents Green, White, Pink, Purple, Blue and Orange. 
  • 1960 - People fed radioactive uranium and manganese spheres at the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory.
  • 1961/63 - People fed real fallout from Nevada test sites plus simulated particles containing strontium, barium and caesium at University of Chicago and the Argonne National Laboratory. 
  • 1963/65 - Radioactive iodine released seven times at the Atomic Energy Commission Reactor Testing Station, U.S.  (Cows graze on contaminated land.) 
  • 1965 - U.S. Army performs 239 secret biological tests in which "biological agents" are spread over vast populated area.  Repeated in New York several times in 1968. 
  • 1969/74 - Angola and Mozambique attacked with bio-agents and unidentified chemical by Portugal. 
  • 1978/82 - South African UNITA rebels attacked Angola with paralysing gas. 
  • 1984 - Angola alleges that UNITA bombarded them with unidentified chemical agents. 
  • 1984 - U.S.S.R. states that U.S.A. in a Brazilian deforestation programme, killed 7,000 Indians and caused thousands of birth defects through use of chemical herbicides. 
  • 1985/86 - Angola.  UNITA rebels claim they were attacked by napalm and unidentified chemical agents.

In the Vietnam war Seventh Day Adventists (serving as non-combatants) were exposed to airborne tularemia by military personnel.  In many cases bio-warfare casualties suffer chronic diarrhoea, fever, dramatic weight loss and wasting away.  Now classified as AIDS symptoms.

All over the world young men and women of the Animal Liberation Front (who have never injured or killed a single human being or animal) are languishing in jails under the label of fanatics, terrorists and violators whilst pious, respected and affluent the real fanatics, terrorists and violators receive financial grants, accolades and even Nobel Prizes for their contributions of death, damage and destruction, the extent of which now threatens the very existence of our planet and all its inhabitants.




In the Third World the classification of starvation as AIDS facilitates the substitution of harmful medical drugs for food.  Jon Rappoport in AIDS Inc. gives evidence that in an insidious interconnection of interests between the chemical, pharmaceutical, agricultural, pesticide, war (and vivisection - Author) industries scientists have assembled a massive number of unrelated symptoms.  Chronic headache, diarrhoea, fever, drastic weight-loss, malnutrition, paralysis and wasting away and called them AIDS.

The U.N. report that 60,000 children in Angola die in their first year and 100,000 before the age of five.  The World Bank rates Zaire as the fifth poorest nation in the world and more than a third of its people die of malnutrition.  In Malawi, Zambia, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Ethiopia, Angola and Mozambique poor nutritional status, increasing population densities combined with inadequate water and sanitation systems, in areas sometimes ravaged by war and chemical weapons, have resulted in a resurge of highly infectious diarrhoeal and water-borne diseases that could be called AIDS.  Rappoport says that:

"Attributing such illness and misery to the HIV virus (sic) will accomplish only one thing, a boom in the sale of pharmaceuticals."

To aggravate the situation in these poor African states preparations containing Dipyrone, Aminopyrine and Diiodogydroxyquin are sold over the counter.  In addition one million infant deaths per year are connected to pharmaceutical baby formulas sold by Abbott, American Home Products, Nestles and Bristol Myers.  Kwashiokor, an immune-deficiency syndrome caused by protein deficiency also shows the "AIDS" patterns, diarrhoea, malnutrition, fever, extreme weight-loss and wasting away.

"The commonest cause of T-cell immunodeficiency worldwide is protein-calorie malnutrition."
(New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 311, No. 15, 1984, page 1289.)

"Malnourishment and a general lack of medical services contributed to diarrhoea, tuberculosis and other African diseases that signify AIDS." which he describes as "... a rather vague clinical definition for a panoply of conditions."
(Myron Essex, AIDS researcher at the Harvard School of Public Health, in New Scientist, February 18 1988, page 27.)




Evidence of the serious danger to public health arising from exposure to contaminants residual in the flesh of animals is freely available through the daily newspapers, and through an ever increasing number of magazine articles as well as radio reports.

To avoid repetition of this information the reader is referred to Chapter 2 The Farming Industry, Vegetarians and Health.


In summary, according to Rappoport's investigation, there is no AIDS "VIRUS" only total collapse of our immune systems in an environment unable to digest the pollutants on a dying planet.

John D. Hamaker and Donald A. Weaver in The Survival of Civilization say that abuse of the planet has put its very survival and the future of its inhabitants at stake.  Since vivisection is the alibi used to produce the pollution the first step is must be abolition of vivisection, and immediately while there is still time, that is if we are not already, as warned by Hamaker and Weaver, past the point of no return!



AIDS, described as the worst medical disaster in history is thus a direct result of vivisection, all the above products being "tested" on animals.  The 'disease' also promises the vivisectors more in grant money for "animal research" than even the vast fortunes made from phoney "cancer research".


On Thursday September 20 1990 the British Channel Four Despatches, "The AIDS Catch" was screened in New Zealand in which Professor Peter Duesberg, in conjunction with, and firmly supported by, other medical authorities confirmed that vast research funds are being wasted on the development of vaccines for a condition, wrongly diagnosed, which is in reality the destruction of the human immune system from combinations of chemical agents.  Though nothing has been seen in the State-owned press about this programme and letters from NZAVS to The Listener have been ignored, much of the media has attacked Prof. Duesberg and his associates.


"No animal has yet contracted AIDS after being given HIV in a laboratory."
(Prof. Peter Duesberg, Biologist, California, U.S.A., from the Royal Society of Medicine Newsletter, Spring 1988.  Hans Ruesch, One Thousand Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection.)


On November 14 1991 The Dominion in an article titled "AIDS Study Vindicates Professor" the editor of Nature Magazine Mr J. Maddox says there is evidence to support Professor Duesberg's "long fight against the establishment".  Mr Maddox predicts that Professor Duesberg will soon be saying "I told you so".


Jon Rappoport, AIDS Inc. The Scandal of the Century
The Times, London, May 11 1987
New York Native, June 29 1987

Refer to Chapters 12 Alzheimer's Disease and 22, Living 25 Years Longer Than Our Great Grand Parents.


NZAVS 1990 March to Parliament

March at Gates of Parliament (40k)

Photo: Melanie Bromley

Arrival at the gates of Parliament.



ARSL 2nd Edition Pages 5, 11, 12, 19

"The principal cause of coronary heart disease is bad nutrition and lack of exercise."
(Prof. Beaglehole, Prof. of Community Health at the Auckland Medical School on Morning Report, Radio N.Z., February 27 1991.)

It is absolute absurdity to use dogs as models of human coronary heart disease, when meat, the diet perfect for dogs is the precise diet that contributes to heart disease in humans.  Thus were the comments of Dr M.G. Marmot at the University of California, Berkeley, who found that there is an exact statistical correlation for all groups between consumption of saturated fats and cholesterol, and deaths due to coronary heart disease.  Dr Marmot said the use of dogs in such studies were erroneous and only confused the issue.
(M. Marmot, "Epidemiologic Studies of Coronary Heart Disease and Stroke in Japanese Men", American Journal of Epidemiology, 102:511, 1975.)

Prof. Peter Gluckman, Director of Animal Research at the University of Auckland, member of the University's animal ethics committee has been vivisecting animals for almost twenty years.  Since abolition challenges his lucrative job he was one of the greatest opposers of the Society's Petition to Abolish Vivisection 1989.  (Readers are referred to Mobilise! No. 31, December 1991, the newsletter of NZAVS.)  In addition to being responsible for revolting experiments on many species of animals Gluckman approves experiments on hundreds of dogs which are taken from pounds and used in simulated heart attacks.

John Gavin (Cardiac Pathology Research) also of Auckland, leads vivisection programmes using hundreds of dogs.  In Sunday Times, March 25 1990 Gavin was reported to make the following astounding statement which exposes precisely the attitude these vivisectors have towards their victims: "Dogs provide an accepted model for human hearts because research showing one form of treatment was worse than another could not be done on humans since they could not be badly treated for a condition."

Research Fellow Lois Armiger uses hundreds of pound dogs in simulated heart attack experiments brought about by blocking coronary arteries for which this vivisector was awarded $68,600 from the Medical Research Council (one of ARSL's publishers and recipients of $12.5 million of the taxpayer's money in 1989.).

Prof. Robin Norris, of Auckland University says his research team at Greenlane uses about 30 dogs a year but would not divulge the research.

Michael Eade (Physiology Senior Lecturer) kills many dogs saying: "The driving force for us is a desire to know what the hell is going on.  I feel strongly about that."  The author could inform Eade that the experiment he does on dogs is being carried out cheaply and efficiently elsewhere with conclusive and reliable results using computer simulations, and that copies of the computer programs were supplied in 1985 to Auckland University free by NZAVS, the first receiving dismal acknowledgement because the recipients were not computer specialists, and the second receiving no acknowledgement at all!

Doctors are organising on a dramatic and substantial scale in over 30 countries in opposition to the kind of experiments being carried out by these Auckland vivisectors and it is unlikely that such procedures will survive as the blatant fraud they represent becomes recognised by the public.

ARSL claims that coronary by-pass and open heart surgery was pioneered on dogs in New Zealand, and without "their help" many New Zealanders who received heart surgery would not be here today.  Were these claims backed up with evidence which could withstand scrutiny, the N.Z. Anti-Vivisection Society would concede and shift from the scientific to the ethical battleground against vivisection.  However not a shred of evidence is offered and a study of the papers written by pioneers in the field of heart surgery (and all medicine) reveals a clear-cut and comprehensive case for the immediate abolition of vivisection on the grounds that it is unreliable, dangerous, and retards progress.

The writer's first witness is Dr Moneim A. Fadali, for 25 years one of America's leading cardiovascular surgeons.  This highly respected doctor is also: Diplomate to the American Board of Surgery; Diplomate to the American Board of Thoracic Surgery; Certified with the Canadian Board of Surgeons; Certified with the Royal College of Surgeons, Canada; twenty-five years on the clinical staff of the University of California where he currently practises.  The statements of Dr Fadali, are confirmed and supported by doctors equally impressive and prestigious in many fields of medicine who are vociferous in their agreement that abolitionists are correct in their claim that vivisection is fraudulent and that those engaged in it are scoundrels and charlatans who should be imprisoned.  Of the use of the dogs for coronary by-pass and open-heart surgery Dr Fadali writes:

"Animal research was NOT responsible for the development of coronary bypass surgery.  In 1961 in France, Kunlin first used a portion of a person's own vein to replace obstructed arterial segments.  This gave birth to arterial bypass surgery for different parts of the body, the heart included.  By contrast, Beck of Ohio and Vineburg of Canada took their theories to the animal laboratory in search of surgical answer to the complications of coronary artery disease.  Each devised more than one procedure, envisioning success from their findings in animals.  Not long after, their recommended operations were performed on thousands of human patients.  What were the results?  To say the least, unworthy.  To put it bluntly; a fiasco, a total failure.  I am witness to this event and the least I can do is speak out.  Animal experimentation inevitably leads to human experimentation.  That is the final verdict, sad as it is.  And the toll mounts on both sides."

"Dogs have been extensively used in heart research, but their coronary arteries differ from those of humans - they have smaller connections with one another and the left coronary artery dominates, while in humans the right does so.  In addition, the conduction system has a different pattern of blood supply, and consequently, researchers have had difficulty in producing ischemic heart blocks in dogs, which occurs frequently in humans.  The blood coagulation mechanism is unlike ours, therefore using dogs to test prosthetic devices and valves is unreliable.  A dog's reaction to shock is also very different to that of humans.

After massive blood loss a dog's intestines are congested, while in humans we see pallor and ischemia.  No wonder conclusions from dog experiments extrapolated to human beings frequently brings about catastrophic results and regrettable failures, which occurred with the earlier models of heart valves and in the first several years of using the heart-lung machine.  For the benefit of medical science vivisection should be stopped.  We must put an end to the medical fraud of vivisection."

Dr Fadali's evidence is borne out by medical historian Dr M. Beddow Bayly in Clinical Medical Discoveries who writes:

"As for bypass surgery, animal research actually retarded this therapy for humans.  Because a dog's clotting characteristics and coronary valves are so different from ours, the initial human patients died.  The first success was Dr Kunlin's work in France.  Dr Kunlin's work was clinical and had nothing to do with animal research."

Our next witness is Dr Brandon Reines at Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine in Boston, U.S.A.  Reines has been published in the Boston Globe, Omni magazine, and Family Health and Animals.  He is the acclaimed author of four recent works of major proportion:

  1. Psychology experiments on animals: a critique of animal models of human psychopathology and environmental experiments on animals
  2. A critique of animal models of heat stroke, frostbite and hypoxemia
  3. Cancer research on animals: impact and alternatives
  4. Heart research on animals: a critique of animal models of cardiovascular disease

Dr Moneim Fadali in the Foreword to the latter work writes:

"To say that the current state of medical knowledge and future advances would not be possible without live animal experiments is false:  Brandon Reines discusses most of the breakthroughs in cardiovascular research; blood transfusion, asepsis, modern endotracheal anesthesia, the various cardiac medications and many more.  He correctly asserts that while these developments are now at our disposal, virtually none of them were developed as a result of animal research."

In Heart Research on Animals Reines takes us through the development of drugs and surgical techniques used in the treatment of heart disease and details the history of surgery for coronary artery disease, open heart surgery, heart transplantation, artificial heart valves, artificial hearts and more.  Presenting mountains of evidence from an impressive number of professionals in these fields Reines states from the onset that animal experimentation has not achieved a single advance in these areas.  Like Dr M. Beddow Bayly he cites that it was clinical investigation that led to open heart surgery, heart transplantation and prevention of deaths from coronary artery disease.  Reines says that clinical investigation should be glorified by the medical community and the mass media.  That instead of continuing what he calls "the currently bankrupt animal model strategy" the medical community should begin an intensive effort to apply deep mathematical models (pioneered by Dr Irwin D. J. Bross, former director of biostatistics at Roswell Park Memorial Institute for Cancer Research in Buffalo, New York) to research heart disease and stroke.  "This hard scientific strategy" says Reines "put a man on the moon and split the atom:  It could also do the same for the war against cardiovascular disease.  The public deserves no less."  Brandon Reines also quotes Drs Kenneth L. Melmon and Howard F. Morrelli who he describes as "the most well-respected clinical pharmacologists in the world" - whose findings as below correspond with those of Dr Marmot quoted earlier in this article:

"Animal models do not provide good mirrors of human disease.  Most of the information helpful in management of coronary artery disease comes from epidemiological studies."

There are many anatomical differences and dis-similarities between dogs and human beings which destroy all ARSL's assertions that one model can be the model for the other.  These are detailed in section Differences Between Cats, Dogs and Humans, this Chapter.

Beginners in the anti-vivisection movement, the uninitiated, the naive and those who are fearful of moving from an established belief based on generations of brainwashing, could be forgiven for expressing doubt that publishers of ARSL would go to such lengths of producing and distributing their insistence that health relies on vivisection were this not true.  But surely, if they were confident and correct in their claims, they would merely shrug aside dissention as one shrugs off irritating flies on a hot day, not wasting thought, much less time and money to discredit us.  To consolidate and propagandize their insistence that health relies on cutting up animals merely emphasises their apprehension.  For those who, in spite of all the evidence, still need convincing that vivisectors are crooks and confidence tricksters the writer quotes Reines' own words from the Introduction of Heart Research on Animals:

"With the birth of the National Institutes of Health and its vast financial resources, the battle for medical research grants encouraged laboratory physiologists to greatly exaggerate the contribution of animal research to advances against human disease.  From roughly 1930 on, medical students were taught that virtually every significant advance - from the discovery of insulin to surgery for 'blue babies' - arose from 'basic' scientific research on laboratory animals.  These distortions were further propagated by the corporations that flourished with the rise of animal experimentation; the laboratory animal breeders, sellers, and promoters.  While occasionally a brave clinician dared to contradict the dogma of animal experimentation, he did so at grave risk to his reputation and his livelihood.  Mass media stories continued to aggrandize the accomplishments of animal research and even investigative reporters failed to see that the claims of animal researchers were largely a promotional device aimed at bringing in the federal funds."

As NZAVS, working in unison with doctors against vivisection, represents a threat to the funds and credibility of AGCARM, the Cancer Society of N.Z., the N.Z. Heart Foundation, the Medical Research Council of N.Z., and MAF, all of which uphold vivisection because of its inherent financial benefits, those bodies collaborated to produce the booklet Animal Research Saves Lives which is nothing more than a promotional device aimed at defending their interests.

The writer recommends the following sources of medical and scientific information which demolish totally ARSL's claim that heart surgery was developed as a result of vivisection.  That on the contrary, in the entire history of the treatment of heart disease, experiments on animals, though creating work for a vast industry, has clouded the issue and delayed progress whilst pouring a river of gold into a flawed system.  A more comprehensive and professional chronology of the history of the heart transplant and other cardiology advances, entitled Cardiac Arrest, may be obtained from:

PO Box 26
New York 14884-0026

To whom the writer is grateful.

Covered in Chapter 14 Kidney Disease, Organ Transplants and DialysisDr M.H. Pappworth, eminent London physician and internationally known teacher of clinical medicine, wrote:

"The public should know that transplant surgery never cures the original disease and never makes the recipient a healthy person... All transplant surgery is a confession of failure, of unsuccessful early diagnosis and treatment."
(Hans Ruesch, One Thousand Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection, page 98.)

Experiments on dogs to develop transplant techniques were disastrous.  Hundreds of dogs were used yet the first human patients died because of complications which arose when the technique was applied to the first human patients.
(Dr Albert Iben, Stanford University cardiac surgeon reported in the Erie Daily Times, May 23 1968.)

By 1980, 65% of patients survived more than a year as a result of increased skill gained through clinical experience.
(Lancet, March 29 1980, pages 687-688.)

The electroencephalograph is not a result of animal experimentation.
(M. Beddow Bayly, Clinical Medical Discoveries, NAVS, 1961.)

Dr Forssman used his own forearm to develop cardiac catheterization and his technique was completed through clinical trials with human patients.
(M. Beddow Bayly, Clinical Medical Discoveries, NAVS, 1961.)

Mouth to mouth resuscitation was developed by Kouwenhoven, Jude and Knickerbocker by experimenting on cadavers in the morgue.  Their technique is the standard form of cardiopulmonary resuscitation used by the American Red Cross.
(Comroe, Exploring the Heart: Discoveries in Heart Disease and High Blood Pressure, Norton and Company, 1983, page 1162.)

Doctors Starr and Edward almost discarded the caged ball valve as it killed all their experimental dogs.  It was however successful on human beings.
(A. Starr, "Mitral Replacement: Clinical Experience with a Ball-Valve Prosthesis", Annals of Surgery, 154(4):740, 1961.)

Doctors Ivan Magill and E.S. Rowbotham, working with World War I casualties at Sir Harold Gillie's plastic surgery hospital in Sidcup, Great Britain developed the technique of delivering anaesthetic gas through a single endotracheal tube under positive pressure controlled by the patient's breathing.  They performed no animal experiments.
(R.G. Richardson, The Surgeon's Heart: A History of Cardiac Surgery, William Heinemann Medical Books Ltd, page 101.)

Fibrillation of the ventricles is life-threatening.  Reverend John Wesley in the 18th Century through clinical observations successfully used electrotherapy to stop fibrillation in human patients.  More than a century later in 1899 Presost and Batteli "re-proved" what Wesley had developed, by using electric shock to reverse ventricular fibrillation in dogs.  William B. Kouwenhoven of Johns Hopkins University is sometimes credited by pro-vivisectionists for developing a closed-chest defibrillator for dogs and then for human use in 1957.  However clinician Dr P. Zoll had developed closed-chest resuscitation on patients in 1956.  Once again Kouwenhoven repeated what Zoll had discovered through human observations and falsely credited animal research for the advance.
(L. Wertenbaker, To Mend the Heart, the Viking Press, 1980, page 178.); (J.H. Comroe, Exploring the Heart: Discoveries in Heart Disease and High Blood Pressure, W.W. Norton and Company, 1983, page 159.); (L.E. Meltzer, Textbook of Coronary Care, The Charles Press Publishers Inc., A Prentice Hall Company, 1980, page 4.)

For "restarting" the heart once again animal experiments gave misleading results.  Though a technique was shown "effective" in animals, it was discarded for use in humans because of "many problems, consisting of pain, burns and inability to keep up continuous stimulation for a prolonged period".
(W. Lillihei, "The Treatment of Complete Heart Block by the Combined Use of a Myocardial Electrode and an Artificial Pacemaker", Surgical Forum, 43rd Clinical Congress, Vol. VII, American College of Surgeons, Chicago, 1957.)

In 1935 Dr Claude S. Beck pioneered the surgical technique to increase the blood supply to the heart muscles when blood became blocked in the coronary arteries.  Beck whose success was based on clinical observations said though he had conducted thousands of animal experiments they were useless, that his only useful knowledge came from clinical studies.  The Beck operations were carried out for 25 years before being superseded by the clinical development of new operations.
(T. Preston, Coronary Artery Surgery: A Critical Review, Raven Press, 1977, page 9.)

Scientists at the Middlesex Hospital and Medical School recently isolated individual heart cells from human heart muscle.  These cells are useful in research into heart disease and in the preservation of heart (myocardial) tissue for cardiac surgery, with the advantage that results are directly applicable to patients because as the researchers stated: "... it is difficult and often misleading to extrapolate experimental results in animal tissues to man."
(T. Powell, et al, BMF, October 17 1981, pages 1013-1014.)

At the time of this operation it is reported that Bailey had no experience in human heart transplants but had experimented with many animals performing over 160 cross-species transplants.  According to Dr Martin Ruff, an immunologist at University College, London, rejection of the baboon heart was inevitable because there are no antigens in common between baboons and humans.  (But as Dr Fadali has told us "animal experiments inevitably lead to human experiments".  The untold amount of suffering this flawed methodology caused to Baby Fae was the result of human experimentation.)
(New Scientist, November 29 1984.)

The various drugs now used to control the immune response during organ transplantation were well-known through clinical observation to be immunosuppressive in human patients long before animal tests were conducted.  In 1984 when some cyclosporin-treated heart transplant patients developed kidney problems batteries of animal experiments failed to produce the same damage, except for one extremely unusual strain of Kyoto rat.  There is no way to predict with accuracy that human kidneys react to cyclosporin as it does in this one specific animal.
(R. Y. Calne, "Immunosuppression for Organ Grafting", Clinical Immunosuppression, edited by J.R. Salaman, Grune and Stratton, 1980, page 11.); (W.B. Pratt, The Anticancer Drugs, Oxford University Press, 1979, page 59.); (Lancet, February 22 1986, pages 419-420.); (R.Y. Calne, et al, Lancet, June 8 1985, page 1342.)

It is emphasised in many sources that medical progress has been delayed because of the vast difference in dogs and human beings and that dog experiments were a failure in this area.  The conduction system in dogs is less likely to clot than in human blood; dogs walk on four legs, thereby placing less stress on the circulatory system than upright human beings; the ventricles in dogs are opposite to the human system; and animal recipients of artificial hearts are healthy before the operation.  There are many other variables noted elsewhere in this work.  The first recipient of an artificial heart, Barney Clark, survived a miserable 112 days kept alive against his wish to be allowed to die, until he expired from kidney collapse.
(C.F. Scott,"Appropriate Animal Models for Research on Blood in Contact with Artificial Surfaces", Annals N.Y. Academy of Science, 516, 1987, pages 636-637.); (C.F. Scott, The Physiologist, 31 (3), 1988, page 53.); (Hans Ruesch, One Thousand Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection, 1989, page 28.)

Elsewhere in this work it is recorded how the discovery of insulin and the success of open heart surgery, and organ transplants were developed despite confusion arising from experiments on dogs (and other animals).  As revealed under the section on congenital heart defects the success of the "blue baby" operation was developed through clinical observation of human patients.  Similarly the pacemaker for complete heart block was developed through investigation of those afflicted with the condition.

Each of the techniques made to contract or stimulate the ventricles in attempts to "pace" the human heart was tested on dogs and shown "effective", even heralded as a success, however they were "quickly discarded in patients because of the many problems, consisting of pain, burns and inability to keep up continuous stimulation for the prolonged period"Dr C. Walton Lillihei pioneer of the pacemaker, seeing his method which was developed on dogs fail to cross the species, devised, through observing his patients, a method of "stitching electrodes directly on to the heart, leading them through the chest and running a pulsed current through them".

"The development of artificial pacemakers for complete heart block grew out of direct studies of human patients suffering from ventricular septal defect."
(W. Lillihei, "The Treatment of Complete Heart Block by the Combined Use of a Myocardial Electrode and an Artificial Pacemaker", Surgical Forum, 43rd Clinical Congress, Vol. VIII, American College of Surgeons, Chicago, 1957, page 360.)

Also refer L. Wertenbaker, To Mend the Heart, The Viking Press, 1980, page 181; and R.G. Richardson, The Surgeon's Heart: A History of Cardiac Surgery, William Heinemann Medical Books Ltd, page 101.


The heart-lung machine was the most critical development in open-heart surgery for it takes over the function of the patient's heart and lungs during open heart operations.  John H. Gibbon of Philadelphia, U.S.A. who developed a heart-lung machine on dogs abandoned his project when two patients died, admitting that it was unsafe for human beings.  J.W. Kirklin of the Mayo Clinic, without the use of animals and using careful clinical trials made a heart-lung machine which was successful on human beings.
(H. McLeave, The Risk Takers, Holt, Rinehard & Winston, 1962, page 70.)

For a comprehensive paper on the failure of the transplant process: from the misleading results derived from animal experiments; the inability of society to sustain the massive financial burden; and the inability for a technical procedure to substitute health, refer Chapter 14 Kidney Disease, Organ Transplants and Dialysis.



ARSL 2nd Edition Page 19
The term "blue baby" is derived from a condition brought about by four defects of the heart, the effect of which decreases the flow of blood to the lungs.  When too little blood goes to the lungs to become oxygenated much of the blood in the body remains without oxygen and retains the classic blue colour of venous, or accumulated, blood.  Thus so-called "blue-babies" do indeed appear to be blue and not "pink with health".

In the 1940s Dr Helen B. Taussig, Head of the Pediatric Cardiac Clinic of Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in U.S.A. allowed surgeon Alfred Blalock to commission his assistant Vivian Thomas to attempt to create an animal model of the blue baby syndrome.  After two hundred drastic experiments on dogs Blalock announced that it was obvious to everyone concerned that it was impossible to accurately mimic all four human congenital heart defects in a dog heart, that they could not create anything even vaguely resembling an animal model of a blue baby.  Doctors Taussig and Blalock then set about devising an operation without the use of animals and totally different to that performed on dogs.

Four years later, in Great Britain a "blue baby" operation was devised by R.C. Brock, M.S., F.R.C.S., surgeon to Guy's Hospital, London; who wrote an account of its technique in the British Medical Journal, June 12 1948.  Brock made it quite clear in his report that the whole procedure was evolved without recourse to animal experiments, and, as stated in Chapter 18 Surgical Techniques, the use of animals for practice operations for the gaining of surgical skills were prohibited in Great Britain under the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876.  A comprehensive report of Brock's technique, which was hailed as a success, is found in Annals of Surgery, Vol. 132, No. 3, September 1950, page 498.  Yet another successful "blue baby" operation was devised by Doctors N. R. Barrett and Raymond Daley at St Thomas's Hospital, London (again without the use of animals).  This is found in the British Medical Journal, April 23 1949, page 699 and this apparently is an improvement on all other techniques.

Though history reveals that the use of dogs in Blalock's initial "blue baby" experiments were erroneous and considerably set back progress, the public was told by the media and the medical community that the blue baby operation was a triumph of animal research.  In Heart Research on Animals (A Critique of Animal Models of Cardiovascular Disease), Brandon Reines writes:

"It is a matter of fact that the entire scientific evolution of the blue babies operation was based on observations on patients and not laboratory animals.  While it is now possible to correct the four defects in blue babies' hearts with open heart surgery, [also without recourse to vivisection, see elsewhere in this work, - author] obviating the need for the blue baby operation, the development of the blue baby operation is still of critical historical interest.  The reason being that the blue baby operation was used by numerous medical authorities and animal researchers in the 1940s to convince legislators to maintain maximum funding for animal research - under the guise that animal research in the development of surgical operations is scientific."

"Virtually every advance in the treatment and prevention of cardio-vascular disease was achieved by direct clinical and epidemiological investigations of actual human patients.  In the early half of this century, the development of surgical operations capable of curing infants and children suffering from such congenital defects as tetralogy of fallot, coarctation of the aorta, and mitral stenosis was achieved during the course of actual operations on human patients.  The thousands of animal experiments conducted to discover a surgical procedure for the congenital heart defect were an utter failure.  Such refinements as the use of pacemakers for complete heart block grew out of observations of patients suffering from the congenital heart defect known as ventricular septal defect."

"The development of open heart surgery and heart transplantations is yet another triumph of clinical investigation: The direct study of actual human patients."
(Brandon Reines.)

Also refer to M. Beddow Bayly, M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., Clinical Medical Discoveries.

"Orthodox medicine condones ill-conduct and seeks to restore health without rectifying it.  True health cannot be attained in this manner.  Vivisection has no philosophy, no ethics, and no width of vision.  It will, therefore, disappear in the course of time."
(Bertrand P. Allinson, M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., in Hans Ruesch's One Thousand Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection.)



ARSL 2nd Edition Page 12

The author has demonstrated extensively, with logically presented medical evidence, much of which is taken from Hans Ruesch's One Thousand Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection, that the use of cats, dogs (and other animals) retards the objective of experiments.  That the animal researcher, frustrated and unable to apply to the human circumstance the information acquired in his vivisection laboratory, eventually, (if his goal is medical progress as distinct from financial gain) changes direction towards human investigation and observation.  This evidence indicates that the unsubstantiated claims of ARSL are contrived to boost the publishers' credibility as the public begins to realise that vivisection is a fraud which threatens their health and well-being.

Professor Henry J. Bigelow, Professor of Surgery at Harvard University:

 "Any person who had to endure certain experiments carried out on animals which perish slowly in the laboratories would regard death by burning at the stake as a happy deliverance.  Like everyone else in my profession, I used to be of the opinion that we owe nearly all our knowledge of medical and surgical science to animal experiments.  Today I know that precisely the opposite is the case, in surgery especially, they are of no help to the practitioner, indeed he is often led astray by them."

(Hans Ruesch, One Thousand Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection.)

In section Heart Surgery, this Chapter, is recorded the scientific differences between man and his best friend, but for the benefit of ARSL's producers we elaborate further:

(Courtesy of Hans Ruesch in Slaughter of the Innocent):

  1. The dog is so different from man that operations require special instruments
  2. the skin tissues are tougher
  3. the dog's heart has a highly irregular intermittent pulsation.  (There is no less reliable guide to a man's heart.)
  4. the dog has a far superior resistance to man
  5. the dog is less subject to infections
  6. the dog will suffer fatal collapse of both lungs from a small puncture of the chest cavity - whereas a man has two separate chests each harbouring a lung and each capable of sustaining life.

Even Great Britain, the bastion of vivisection, refuses to allow surgical trainees to try their manipulatory skills on dogs... because to do so blunts their sensitivity for operations on their own species.

The Austrian Ministry of Science has banned ALL experiments using dogs.
(PeTA News, Vol. 7, No. 4.)

Despite the evidence cited, which is a mere fragment of that at fingertips, breeders, dealers in stolen/lost pets, the manufacturers of the vast array of essential paraphernalia, (listed in Chapter 1 - The Vivisection Industry), all of whom have their fingers in the vivisection pie, and last but not least the vivisectors, continue to uphold the torture of dogs, ostensibly in the glorification of human advancement, but in reality for the advancement of their affairs.  And they are willingly aided and abetted by the politicians who refuse to consider legal petitions to abolish vivisection, the news-media which has insufficient space to report abolitionists' activities and twists the facts on the rare occasions that it does, or insufficient time to report on our television screens NZAVS campaigns, though it has sent crews to film them, and others, like the respectable and stolid librarians who "lose", "fail to locate", or "have no remembrance" of receiving abolitionist material, which, though donated to the public and not to the library censors, seldom finds its way to the library shelves.  Without a single exception all the above share complicity in the perversion of experiments like the following two examples, which, inconceivable as they may appear to the innocent reader, are no exception from the rule but merely routine workouts in the everyday life of your friendly vivisector who carries them out in your name... and with your money.


On May 9 1988, Turin's daily Stampa Sera scooped the entire Italian press with a front page story titled: "They are Experimenting on Dogs the Passion of Christ.  Doctors and Experts Want to Demonstrate that the Holy Shroud was Stained During Resurrection."

With neither the space nor the inclination to reproduce all the details, the author of a book on the studies of Catholic scholars believe that the Holy Shroud was stained by blood issued from Christ's body during his resurrection and not immediately after his death.  "Such blood", he claimed, "would have contained a much higher number of red corpuscles than normal blood".  Hence the necessity to demonstrate, through experiments (not on each other of course) on dogs, that it could circulate and stain the Holy Shroud.  Consequently at a secret location, the God-fearing vivisectors set out to reproduce the passion and resurrection of Jesus Christ on five unfortunate dogs.  The vivisectors were respected clinicians of the Catholic University: Prof. Paolo Pola, titular of the Chair of Angiology (blood vessels) and Dr Augusto Borzone, of the Institute of Clinical Surgery.  A Jesuit father, Domenico Chianella who was in touch with the vivisectors said in an interview with the weekly Gente in November 1987:

"The fundamental and unequivocal proof that the blood on the Holy Shroud is not the blood of the dying Jesus comes from the precise and incontrovertible physical law called lyperfibronilitical syndrome, which appears when a living being suffers intensely from a grave and multiple trauma, in which case the blood fails to coagulate.  Knowing in what condition Christ died on the cross, after a long passion, the terrible flagellation and ritual of crucifixion, it can be assumed with certainty that His body contained abundantly all the premises that lead to a very grave and irreversible hyperfibrinolitic syndrome, absolutely impeding his blood to coagulate."

One thing all parties were mutually agreed upon however was that the success of the experiment depended on the intense suffering of the dogs, for only that could reproduce the condition in which Jesus Christ was during the crucifixion.

The reader who is put in a dilemma by the sheer insanity of these goings-on behind the scenes is in good company.  The mighty Ruesch himself subsequently admitted that the Preface of One Thousand Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection, being sectionalised under seven headings: Historical, Medical, Sociological, Religious, Legal, Psychopathic and Mercenary, he had been in a dilemma as to which heading this experiment should go under.  Finally, deciding the experiment was a mixed bag producing a script which would discredit any fiction writer as having turned mad and addle-brained, he decided on the Psychopathic section, where it can be found on page 21.



Sponsored by ICI, and involving no less than 15 chemical companies, vivisection programmes costing fifteen million pounds sterling are being carried out in Great Britain to "try to find a way to save the ozone layer" by producing alternatives to the CFC chemicals which eat away at the Earth's protective cover.  Though experts agree that drastic action must be made to stop producing poisons that damage the environment, gases are being manufactured and "tested" by forcing beagle puppies to inhale them to make their hearts beat faster, and daubed on their shaved skin to study the damage.  Thousands of puppies are being used.  All die horribly and their organs examined for signs of cancer.  Thus the vivisectors ignore the evidence running thick and fast that there is no correlation between dog and human hearts, and that dogs' skin, being tougher than human skin offers no correlation in that area either.  Unperturbed by such spoil-sports the vivisectors to whom these experiments represent a tidy nest-egg defend them by saying "there is no other way of finding environmentally-friendly gases needed for products like aerosol sprays, fridges, foams and solvents".  And so nature itself in all its forms is being abused in order to preserve the environment.  Crazy?  Yes, but also lucrative.
(David Jones, Environment Editor, exclusive article in Great Britain's Western Daily Press, February 28 1992.)

The wealth of information demolishing ARSL's claims that dogs are suitable models for human beings is available in similar context and volume exposing the vast difference which makes the cat the most unreliable of all human models.  Instead however of repeating a similar formula of evidence the writer refers the reader to the article by Hans Ruesch, written as an introduction to his CIVIS Bullet-In Nr 2 (The Infiltration in Animal Welfare) which is reproduced in Chapter 20 Head Clamps.


John Terris MP & Bette Overell (23k)

Photo: Dominic Hammond

WDLA 1990 John Terris MP... accepting letter from Bette Overell to Prime Minister Geoffrey Palmer protesting the ignoring of NZAVS Petition to Abolish Vivisection presented to Parliament the previous year.  PM Palmer continued to ignore petitioners - as did his successor PM Jim Bolger.


ARSL PAGES 5, 10, 17

ARSL 2nd Edition Pages 11, 19


It is the vivisectionists' current assertion, which crops up loud and strong evermore frequently now that they are openly coming out in defence of their trade, and therefore in defence of the future of their dubious existence, that without vivisection most of us would be dead.  But medical evidence is becoming increasingly abundant proving beyond doubt that exactly the reverse is applicable.  That far from saving mankind, vivisection, which cannot even produce a cure for the common cold, is destroying it.  Medical evidence supporting this statement is so prolific it will be dealt with in a separate section and even as this article is being written some readers will be viewing 60 Minutes on T.V. 3, September 22 1991 which at this moment is screening the dangers of Valium, Lithium, Halcion and other profitable benzodiazapines which are said to be "destroying the lives of thousands of New Zealanders".

Pages 5, 10 and 17 of ARSL respectively make unreferenced claims that:

  1. without insulin, most insulin-dependent diabetics "would be dead"
  2. "research with dogs and other animals... led to the discovery of insulin", and
  3. without vivisection "a cure for diabetes would be beyond reach".
Lack of space precludes the printing of all the vast arsenal of medical evidence, however readers interested in following up this work can easily locate the recommended material from which it is sourced, and so ascertain that vivisection is a profit-making fraud born of expediency to justify profitable philanderings with animals.


The first thing that strikes the novice when investigating the "discovery" of insulin is that in all the photographs of the tens of thousands of agonised dogs which had their pancreases extirpated towards this end, the animals are crudely propped, tied, or even hanging or slung, upright.  This is because every animal on Earth, with the exception of man, is horizontal, making pressure-points, structure and other variables so overwhelming that any attempt to extrapolate conditions is a game of chance.  Criticism of this total lack of similarity between the horizontal animal and the vertical human-being crops up repeatedly from many medical doctors and it is essential that the importance of this fundamental is understood.

During the 1920s, the dog experiments performed by scientists Banting and Best were strongly criticised as:

"... a wrongly conceived, wrongly conducted, and wrongly interpreted series of experiments."
(Dr F. Roberts, "Insulin", British Medical Journal, 1922.)

Readers are also directed to the clinical work of an American pathologist Dr Moses Barron, who published an article based on the autopsy of a patient who had died of pancreatic lithiasis, in which he says:

"The scientists Banting and Best were incorrectly credited with the discovery of insulin."
(Dr M. Barron, "The Relation of the Islets of Langerhans Diabetes with Special Reference to Cases of Pancreatic Lithiasis", Surgery, Gynaecology and Obstetrics, November 5 1920.)

Further, in Clinical Medical Discoveries, Medical Historian M. Beddow Bayly, M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., says that the association of diabetes with degenerative changes in the Beta cells in the pancreas was a well-recognised clinical discovery long before animal experiments in this connection were contemplated.  "The means of separating from the pancreas the active principle, which Professor Schafer, a renowned physiologist had already in 1915 designated insulin", was, says Dr Beddow Bayly, "repeated by Banting who demonstrated it on a medical colleague who suffered from the disease.  However the numerous experiments made by Banting on thousands of dogs proved nothing of value to human medicine, since, as is scientifically recognised, the dogs were not suffering from diabetes... The discovery, isolation and application of insulin was a clinical one."

The reader is directed to Chapter 10 Heart Surgery, and the evidence given by veterinarian Brandon Reines, Surgeon Dr Moneim Fadali and Hans Ruesch, all of whom emphasise the inability to extrapolate conditions or circumstances between dog and man.  Further many doctors say that Banting's dogs suffered, not from diabetes, but from stress, a statement that no-one who has viewed the photographs of his unanaesthetised, depancreatised victims would argue, a condition which is said to be similar to diabetes, which from the vivisectors' point of view was a convenient one since it ensured, with the duplicity of the pro-vivisection alliance, his legitimised and relentless work on their crucifixion.

This uncompromising statement coincides with that of Doctors N. Robinson and J. Fuller in New Scientist, November 15 1984, page 23, who said that families developing diabetes had been exposed to higher levels of stress than those who have not.  "It is known", they say, "that obesity, drugs, chemicals, heredity, great grief, anger, fright and extreme emotional states can cause diabetes".

Though the highly criticised animal-based insulin is now replaced by new oral preparations of pure chemicals it is no less criticised by many medics, to name a few:

In New Scientist, March 18 1982, doctors say they believe insulin could be responsible for the high levels of blindness in diabetics.  Massive available data shows that diabetes is preventable through appropriate diet.  That the highest incidence of the disease is in the United States, which consumes an average of 35 percent animal fats and meat, the lowest in Japan which diet contains an average of five percent, and that when the Japanese take to American eating habits they developed diabetic problems.  One of the well-worn favourites of the exponents of vivisection when tub-thumping supposed examples of the benefits of their grotesque and obvious fraud, is the discovery of insulin to administer to diabetic patients.  Yet more people per capita are dying of diabetes today than in 1900 - twentytwo years before the discovery of insulin.  (For more comprehensive statistics refer Hans Ruesch, Slaughter of the Innocent.)

Even a cursory investigation reveals easily obtainable facts exposing that treatment with insulin merely effaces the symptoms and masks the true cause of the patient's ailment.  That insulin has brought more damage than benefits, has killed more people, especially among the old, through insulinic shock, than it has saved, and that it has shortened more lives than it has lengthened.  All that is needed is a little patience, a little time, a little determination... to prove ARSL wrong on every count.

Pursuing the important role of diet in the prevention of diabetes in The Health Revolution Ross Horne writes:

"Referring to the Pritikin Longevity Centre's diet and exercise programme, Dr James Anderson of the University of Kentucky Medical Centre, said: 'With this kind of approach, diet only, 80 percent of the diabetics in this Country could be normal in thirty to ninety days.'  In a report made public before the American Chemical Society, Dr Michael Somogyi of the Jewish Hospital of St. Lexies, pointed out that a study of 4,000 diabetic cases conducted by him and his associates over a period of fourteen years, revealed that virtually all adult victims of diabetes can be restored to normal health without insulin injections."

As diabetes can be prevented and controlled by diet there is also much evidence that the escalation of the disease can be related to the amount of sugar we consume.  In 1972 Dr Banting himself pointed out:

"The incidence of diabetes has increased proportionately with the per capita consumption of sugar."
(F.G. Banting, Strength and Health magazine, 1972.)

This is certainly borne out in the following table showing Danish consumption of sugar in relation to that country's incidence of diabetes:

1880 29 lbs 1.8 per 100,000
1911 82 lbs 8.0 per 100,000
1934 113 lbs 18.9 per 100,000

(W. Dufty, Sugar Blues, Warner Books, 1975.)

And in an article "You are all Sanpaku" by Nyoiti Sakurazawa:

"Sugar is the greatest evil that modern industrial civilisation has visited upon the countries of the Far East and Africa."

In the 1960s an eight year study to compare the progress of patients suffering from diabetes was carried out in the U.S.A. by the university group diabetic programme.  "The trials used insulin, oral drugs, placebo and diet.  The group found that after five years none of the drugs, including insulin, had any effect at all as the body had got used to them... but that the diet treatment worked well."  During the survey the following drugs were withdrawn because they were causing heart disease - even killing the patients:

    "Because it was causing four and a half times more cases of heart disease and 60 percent more deaths."  (Phenformin was banned from use in the U.S.A. and eventually also in the U.K.)
    "Because doctors found it was causing two and a half times more cases of heart disease, and a higher death rate."  (Tolbutamide is still being prescribed today under the brand names of Rastinon, Glyconon and Pramidex - with no mention of the great danger to the heart.)

This survey is the most comprehensive and meticulously controlled study of the use of insulin ever published.  It is reported in the following:


"Since the introduction of diabetes drugs in the 1950s the international death rate for diabetics in the past twenty years have risen in England, Wales, Germany, Japan, and Israel, probably because of the use of insulin."
(R. Warner, Public Citizens Health Research Group, Washington D.C., U.S.A.)

 Significantly Dr Banting, according to a book entitled Deadly Allies by John Bryden (McClelland Stewart) progressed from his merciless extirpations of the pancreases of thousands of man's best friend to even higher things, when in 1940 he graduated to vivisection in the noble field of biological warfare.  Among his other legacies to mankind are his infected bullets; the rearing of disease-carrying insects; and the aerial spraying of deadly bacteria.



Vivisection Must Be Stopped - Legal Channels Have Been Blocked

Marchers on their way to Parliament (59k)

Thus was the title of NZAVS March to Parliament on WDLA, 24 April 1991.  A spectacular march visually, though filmed it was NOT televised - and there was hardly any mention in the newspapers.



ARSL 2nd Edition Page 19

ARSL claims (page 17) that without vivisection, cures for multiple sclerosis "would be put back decades - or possibly forever".  (What they of course fear is that without vivisection their evil industry would not exist.)  They cite no evidence to support their statement.

"Multiple sclerosis does not occur in animals.  Ultimately, therefore, definitive research on multiple sclerosis must be done with humans."
(Proceedings of the Mayo Clinic, 1985, Outrage, No. 66, February/March 1990.)

"The concept that by getting hold of millions of healthy animals medical science can extract from them through torture the answer of how to heal human diseases - the origin of which reside in man's, and not the animals' own organism, soul or lifestyle - is so absurd that some day wiser men will wonder how such an idiocy could ever have been rendered believable to the majority."

Those words come from the lead article in Hans Ruesch's CIVIS International Foundation Report, Nr. 12, Fall-Winter 1991-92.  They bring to mind the words of John Stuart Mill:

"It often happens that the universal belief of one age, a belief from which no-one was free without an extraordinary effort of genius or courage, becomes to a subsequent age, so palpable an absurdity that the only difficulty is to imagine how such an idea could ever have appeared credible."

Ruesch's words reflect the author of ARTL's unshakeable conviction - before she ever became aware that vivisection is scientifically as well as morally bankrupt.  Like others striving for abolition she finds it incomprehensible that the Majority can be swayed or brainwashed into believing this grotesque and glaring error.  Before attempting to solve the riddle of the speed and eagerness with which the Majority tumbles over itself to believe the lie of vivisection however, it must be borne in mind, that just by chance, as a delectable bonus, the Majority is thereby absolved from shouldering the tiresome and irritating responsibility for its abolition.

Ruesch also quotes the words of Goethe:

"Truth has to be repeated constantly, because Error also is being preached all the time, and not just by a few, but by the multitude.  In the Press and Encyclopaedias, in Schools and Universities, everywhere Error holds sway, feeling happy and comfortable in the knowledge of having Majority on its side."

The following medical statements are about the human malady of multiple sclerosis:

"Clinical studies on people worldwide have suggested that multiple sclerosis is caused by a breakdown of the blood-brain barrier which allows the penetration of inflammatory cells into the central nervous system.  It was clinical observation which showed that inflammation of the brain sometimes occurs in people vaccinated with rabies vaccine prepared from infective brain tissue.  This clinical observation led vivisectors to attempt to reproduce this brain inflammation artificially by repeated injection into animals.  The experimental disease is called 'experimental allergic encephalomyelitis', EAE for short."
(A.N. Davison, The Encyclopaedia of Medical Ignorance, Pergamon Press, 1984, pages 62-71.)

"However, the damage caused by EAE is different and different animal species appear to differ in susceptibility to the disease."
(D.A. Hafler, et al, Encyclopaedia of Human Biology, Vol. 5, Academic Press, 1991, pages 143-158.)

The reader is asked to consider some basic procedures which take place in the vivisection laboratories in the normal daily routine, remembering that ARSL was published in order to convince you that they are essential for the alleviation of the suffering of sick people.  The evidence comes from eye-witness accounts of Louise Wallis, refer Chapter 15, Arthritis and Hip Replacements.

"Young female rats are injected in the base of the spine with a mixture of mashed up guinea-pig spinal cord, an adjuvant, and bacterium, which causes an immunological response inside the brain.  This is supposed to be a model for multiple sclerosis and results in most of the rats becoming totally or partially paralysed with their muscles wasting away.  Some rats however, appear normal and run around as usual.  The rats are divided into groups and housed four to a cage - some control groups, and some groups being dosed orally with drugs to see if this helps remedy the paralysis."

This was an on-going experiment which was (and probably still is) funded by the Multiple Sclerosis Society.

"There are always inconsistencies in this experiment, with some batches of rats taking longer to develop paralysis, and some batches are more markedly paralysed than the others.  In the worst stages the rats drag themselves around the cage floor pitifully, and often become incontinent, soiling the fur around their back legs and tails.  Their little bodies becoming twisted and 'hunch-back' like.  At this stage they have to be fed soft diet (soaked pellets) as they cannot reach the food hopper."

"In other experiments, experimental allergic encephalomyelitis, or EAE is produced by a single injection into the animal's skin, of specially prepared material from the central nervous system of other animals.  According to these researchers the disease produced in rats is 'similar' (that word again) to human multiple sclerosis.  Symptoms of EAE are described as including 'weight loss, tail droop, floppiness, partial or complete hind limb paralysis which may lead to quadraparesis and in some animals incontinence'.  However EAE in rodents does not follow a chronic relapsing time course as does multiple sclerosis in people."
(D. Howat, et al, Agents & Actions, Vol. 27, 1989, pages 473-476.)

An editorial comment in Scientific American pointed out in 1990:

"There are crucial differences between MS and EAEMS is a naturally occurring human illness caused by as yet unidentified genetic and environmental factors.  EAE is an artificial disorder that researchers induce in laboratory animals by injecting them with a major protein constituent of myelin."
(Scientific American, July 1990, page 12.)

In 1989 the vivisectors at St Bartholomew's Hospital in London described one such experiment on rats.  Some animals were killed by ether overdose and their spinal cords removed.  These were prepared into a mixture which was then injected into the skin at the base of the tails of seven groups of six rats.  The effects of a range of drugs on the developing EAE were studied.  Symptoms were scored numerically: 1 for an animal with partial tail droop; 2 for complete tail droop; 3 for partial hindlimb paralysis; 4 for complete hindlimb paralysis.
(D. Howat, et al, Agents & Actions, Vol. 27, 1989, pages 473-476.)

The above project was funded by the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.  The researchers' description of EAE describes paralysis and implies some degree of suffering.  Video footage taken secretly at St Bart's shows conscious and crippled animals suffering from EAE.

Two further papers published in 1989 were also funded by the MS Society.  These concerned experiments of chronic-relapsing EAE on young guinea-pigs, and concluded that guinea pigs were different from other species, including people; in fact, one of the papers cites clinical studies on people, making the guinea pig experiments irrelevant.
(C. Wilcox, et al, Cellular Immunology, Vol. 120, 1989, pages 82-91.)

Researchers at the University Hospital in Gottingen, Germany pointed out that:

"In the variable, chronic-progressive course of MS in the adult, it is very difficult to show that immunopathological features are the same as those in animal models.  In childhood MS, an earlier and more rapid sequence of events may help to answer unsolved questions."
(H.J. Bauer, et al, Lancet, Vol. 336, 1990, page 1190.)

An editorial in the British Medical Journal, emphasises that clinical research must be the way forward in such a disease.  It reviews the vast amount of useful information gained from purely clinical studies of MS patients, including geographical distribution, genetic susceptibility, histocompatibility antigens and viral infection.  It concludes:

"Instead of pitting genes against geography, the attack on multiple sclerosis should use the classic epidemiological model of agent, host and environment.  Research that allows for interplay among these factors is likely to be most productive.  We already know much about the environments in which multiple sclerosis is common and about relevant host factors (including those with a genetic base).  The agent(s) remains a mystery although an infectious agent has long been suspected.  Another lesson from the history of epidemiology is that diseases may be preventable before their causes are properly understood."
(D.C.G. Skegg, British Medical Journal, Vol. 302, 1991, pages 247-248.)

And thus, the cruelty aside, it is repeated for the umpteenth time how different animal species react differently to laboratory procedures.  Procedures, it must be added, that are artificial, irrelevant and contrary to what the animals would develop naturally.

The link between multiple sclerosis and vaccination has been well established and documented.  This is emphasised in Chapter 5, Vaccination General and Polio Vaccination.  In the 1960s when two and a half million New Zealanders were vaccinated with contaminated monkey-based vaccine the (then) Minister of Health Dr A. Malcolme said it could, in time, result in the onset of multiple sclerosis in those vaccinated.

"Leukemia, encephalitis, multiple sclerosis - and now I believe the smallpox vaccine theory is the explanation to the explosion of AIDS."
(World Health Organisation, advisor, Times, May 11 1987, Hans Ruesch, One Thousand Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection, page 39.)

The vivisection lie:

"Formerly it was the lie under the guise of religion that deceived mankind; now it is the same lie under the guise of science that is deceiving the whole world, and there is no weapon against it other than reason.  Reason teaches us that the true healing of diseases and the maintenance of health consists in freeing the body of impurities and keeping it clean."
(Dr med. Franz Hartmann, Hallein in Tirol: (Lotusblueten, 1895) From Hans Ruesch's One Thousand Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection.)

Refer also to Chapter 17, Blood, High Blood Pressure.

A full report of Louise Wallis's investigation can be obtained from:
261 Goldhawk Road
London W12 9PE



ARSL 2nd Edition Page 19

 Cystic fibrosis, a disease of the pancreas, is a genetic disorder which mostly affects newborns.  We should be asking why, as ARSL states, one in 400 New Zealand babies are being born with this crippling disease.  Similarly we should be asking why are one in 25 healthy Jews now carriers of the dreaded Tay-Sachs disease which strikes babies at six months of age and kills them at age three to four.  And why there is a one in four chance that each carrier of Tay-Sachs disease will result in an affected child - and why an alarming number of Carribean babies are now being born with sickle-cell anemia?

The Dominion, February 19 1991, ran an article "Health Authorities Debate High Cost of High-Tech Care" in which the highly intensive and extended treatment of a 25 year old woman suffering from cystic fibrosis was criticised "as health budgets buckle under increasing demands".  A rough estimate put the cost of keeping this patient in intensive care at NZ$13,000 a week.

Dr Herbert Stiller, specialist in neurology and psychiatry, psychotherapy, in his book Animal Experimentation and Animal Experimenters (A Critique of Medicine Based Upon Animal Experimentation) writes:

"Life expectancy has been sinking again in the industrial countries and the number of sick persons rising, the number of deformed children with some rapidity.  Shortly after the War, one could reckon on deformities, or genetic defects in one percent of new-born babies.  Today, thirty years later, one finds genetic deficiencies in every third child... thirty-three percent.

An increase in deformities ranging from 20 to 30 fold in a single generation gives cause for thought.  In the same way thirty years ago cancer in children was regarded as a medical rarity, but today more children are dying of cancer than any other disease.  The increase in harmful effects on health seems paradoxically to go hand in hand with an increase in the number of scientists."

In Great Britain the Cystic Fibrosis Research Trust, after twenty-five years of dosing rats repeatedly with Reserpine (a drug used in people for high blood pressure, and which causes suicidal tendencies and cancer of the breast, effects impossible to predict from animal studies) and the study of "juvenile" atrophy of the pancreas in the German shepherd dog, has yet to find "precisely how cystic fibrosis of the pancreas in humans is caused".  But the Trust is "grateful to the public" which it says is "most generous" enabling the continuance of its work which has reached an "exciting" point.
(In a letter from the Trust dated May 1 1987.)

Abolitionists have written to the Trust complaining that as the action of a given chemical drug in one species cannot possibly be predicted and applied when given to another species - whatever their condition, this outlay of money in animal manipulation is unjustifiable.

The author agrees; like our British counterparts we ask how long it will take for the public to learn that they are being milked money to maintain "exciting" careers in vivisection that will never bring about health betterment, only more miseries.  The authorities should heed the words of professionals like Dr Herbert Stiller who warns (above) that every third child can now expect to be born with genetic defects, the increase of which goes hand in hand with the increase in bio-medical researchers (vivisectors).  Heed should also be taken of the thousands of doctors who claim that modern drugs passed from mother to baby are the root of increasing health problems and genetic defects and deformities.

Those seeking abolition of vivisection do not seek the abolition of research, but an end to ANIMAL research.  They believe that money should be spent in clinical investigation of the hereditary and environmental factors of the victims of genetic disorders, the introduction of drug-free medicines, the search for patterns and causes of dis-ease and dis-harmony, the adaptation of non-invasive techniques including psychotherapies, diet and exercise and the investigation and purification of the source of pollution much of which springs from the legalised drug-pusher.  None of these advances however are lucrative to the vivisectors and their cohorts who threaten the dire consequences to human health should vivisection be abolished forever.

It is becoming however increasingly recognised that this threat merely reflects the fear for the future of the vivisectors' self-perpetuating, self-motivating, self-congratulating industry where built-in profits are guaranteed provided that the populace remains sick.

(The writer acknowledges information received from T. MacManus, U.K.)


"For decades the most noble minds and the warmest hearts have fought in speech and writing for the abolition of vivisection, attacked animal cruelty and its priests, and despite all this they have so far achieved precious little.  The reason for this lack of success lies mostly in the combination of vivisection with capitalism.  Today vivisection is business... an appalling, sad business."
(Dr med. Gustav Riedlin in an article on page 155, One Thousand Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection, Hans Ruesch.)


Refer also to section on Alzheimer's Disease, this Chapter.



ARSL 2nd Edition Page 19

Like cystic fibrosis and multiple sclerosis and many other present-day afflictions Alzheimer's disease has been described as a genetic sickness that is increasing to a terrifying degree.

Toxic sodium fluoride, a by-product of aluminium whose many products get in the food chain, is linked with Alzheimer's disease.  "Nowadays no-one could countenance adding fluoride to the water supplies" says Lord Douglas of Barlock (Deputy Speaker of the British House of Lords).  Fluoride has been described as "an added biochemical and physiological poison that at higher concentrations is a common form of rat poison".  Pesticides have also been linked with Alzheimer's disease.

Critics of vivisection wisely argue that if animal research were halted the money could be diverted to purifying the water supplies thus avoiding many of today's health tragedies.  Since there are no profits in prevention, the vivisection industry understandably does not support this logic, but devises ways to capitalise from human misery by seizing it as an opportunity to embark on further batteries of experiments on human beings.  It is now established that Alzheimer's disease can be inherited from parents and the floodgates for human vivisection are wide open as, on a gigantic and chilling scale, women are undergoing abortions to avoid giving birth to genetically damaged babies are being urged to take doses of drugs to enable study of the effects on aborted fetuses (Sunday Times, March 24 1991).  Meanwhile evidence abounds that a dubious trade in late-term aborted fetuses and living fetuses in the 7th, 8th and 9th month is escalating.1

There are now many reports of the dangers of aluminium in milk powder.  "Babies at Risk" was the heading of an article in N.Z. Herald, November 21 1988, which reported that thousands of bottle-fed babies risk longterm brain and bone damage because of aluminium in their food formula.  Surveys show the powders often contain more than 100 times the amount of aluminium found in breast milk.

Other information, which is freely available, shows that Alzheimer's disease is also linked to food additives, flavourings and sweeteners which contain Aspartame, an artificial sweetener.  Great controversy is raging in U.S.A. where efforts have been made to get Aspartame removed from the shelves of supermarkets.  Mr H.J. Roberts, Director of the Palm Beach Institute for Medical Research in Florida refers to Aspartame as:

"an imminent health hazard since it causes blindness, loss of memory, convulsions and Alzheimer's disease... Walk into any grocery store - it's almost impossible to find a food product that does not contain aspartame"...

said Mr Roberts (New Scientist, February 18 1988).  Aspartame, marketed by Monsanto otherwise known as Nutrasweet or Equal was approved for use in New Zealand in 1984.

However, as with the refusal to remove toxic sodium fluoride from the water supplies there will be no removal of deadly and insidious poisons from the grocery shelves while the church, the animal protection societies and the uncaring public continue to sanction and uphold vivisection.  The sacred shrine upon which living creatures, are churned out of carefully-concealed production ghettos, marketed as inanimate and disposable objects, degraded, destroyed and utilized (in phoney alibi "tests") for profit in the most evil and lucrative industry on Earth.
(Der Deutsch Arzt, Vol. 19, 1971, page 1007, id Vol. 3, 1972, page 158.);  (Medizinische Weld, Vol. 23, 1972, page 758.);  (N.Z. Papers - Truth, Dominion and Evening Post, 1983.)

Pollutants saturate the air we breathe, the water we drink and the food we eat.  The impact of pharmaceutical drugs on our health is described below by medical historian Ivan Illich:

"The pain, dysfunction, disability and anguish resulting from technical medical intervention now rivals the morbidity due to traffic and industrial accidents, and even war-related activities, and makes the impact of medicine one of the most rapidly spreading epidemics of our time."
(Ivan Illich, Slaughter of the Innocent, Hans Ruesch, page 193.)

"There are but few pharmacologists, physiologists, and other medical researchers who possess the moral stature to reject animal experiments and to oppose group-thinking in this matter.  Destruction is made a technical matter and manipulated in a sterile fashion.  Mass-destruction is made into a perfected production process.  The fact that animals and their sufferings are thus made unrecognizable renders it easy, even for most of the associations for the defense and protection of animals, to ignore, or even worse, accept, and moreover to indulge reassuringly in the generally widespread obedience to science, sacrificing any personal awareness of responsibility."
(Dr Herbert Stiller.)



"Sixteen percent of people in hospital are there directly due to the toxic effects of drugs." (Dr R. Sharpe, Medical Adviser, NAVS, London.)  Twentyfive million people are suffering from irreversible brain-damage, and twentyfive million from Tardive Dyskenesia as a result of taking La-Gactil tranquillisers.  One hundred and fifty million people take the drug on doctors' prescription worldwide.  In a survey in Edinburgh Hospital in 1988 it was discovered that of 95 patients admitted to the City Hospital with Parkinson's disease over half had taken the tranquilliser (Prochlorperazine) on doctors' prescription.  In Chapter 9 (AIDS) it is also revealed that Parkinson's disease can result from a single injection of a synthetic substance called MPPP, sold as heroin, which contains a by-product called MPTP.  A Parkinson's disease clinic has been set up in the Santa Clara Valley Medical Centre specifically to deal with these patients.  The drug Haloperidol, prescribed to the sufferers of schizophrenia was withdrawn from the market after killing the patients to whom it was prescribed.
(For latter see Committee on Safety of Medicines U.K. report in Medical Journal, 1982.)


The above bold heading of an article in Dominion, November 3 1992, expressed concern about the "excessive aluminium presence" in certain softdrinks... The "dangerously high levels of toxic aluminium" it says "could cause mental deterioration, and researchers had established a link between its levels... and Alzheimer's disease".

(New Zealand Woman's Weekly, August 31 1992.)


1Mobilise! No. 17, January 1987 and Mobilise! No. 35, March 1993.



World Day for Laboratory Animals, 24 April 1991

Debbie Garrett and Anita Spencer presenting addresses (16k)

Photo: Simon Cottle

Deborah Garrett (left) and Anita Spencer (NZAVS Exec. members) present addresses at Wellington Cenotaph.



ARSL 2nd Edition Page 6

To investigate ARSL's claim (page 6 of the booklet) that "rehabilitation for thousands of head injury and stroke victims are a result of techniques developed in animals" the writer referred to the authoritative and influential journal of the American Heart Association titled Stroke.  In issue 7:14 of 1976 an article headed "Clinical Relevance of Experimental Stroke Models" by G.F. Molinari says the following:

"The way researchers 'simulate' a stroke in an animal is by the application of microsurgical spring-clips to an artery.  The clipping itself affects blood vessels in ways totally artificial and never seen in blood vessels of human stroke patients."

In the May 1989 issue of Stroke, Samuel Neff of the New England Medical Centre wrote:

"The repeated failure of laboratory-proven stroke therapies in human beings can be due only to the inapplicability of animal models to human cerebrovascular disease."

Less than a year later, in January 1990, in Stroke, David O. Wiebers and his colleagues at the Mayo Clinic and the University of Iowa wrote a substantial and comprehensive article in which they called the relevance of information from animal experiments "dubious".  They cited a review of experimental treatments for stroke over the past decade extracts of which read:

  1. "Of 25 treatments which worked in animals, not a single one worked in human studies."
  2. "Human strokes are complicated by underlying artherosclerosis, genetic factors, chronic hypertension, diabetes, smoking and medications, all of which can have important effects and cannot be duplicated in animal studies."
  3. "Attempts to cause strokes in animals are highly artificial and can send armies of researchers down blind alleys, wasting precious time and money."

In a further issue of Stroke, July 1990, Weibers wrote:

"Dozens of treatments tested on animals did not work in people."

He, along with his team of researchers, cautioned against the assumption that information from animal experiments is relevant to the human disease.  In the same issue, Justin Zivin and James Grotta agreed that:

"Drug studies in animal models have not... translated into effective therapy in humans."

Stroke journal, which is the most relevant and weighty source of information applicable to the subject states in the above article:

"Conclusions arising from the whole Stroke debate were that reliance on animal models impede rather than advance scientific progress in the treatment of stroke."

"The single most effective means of dealing with strokes is still prevention.  Hypertension, smoking and cholesterol levels can be controlled.  When they are not, serious damage to the brain is very difficult to stop."
(Update of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, Washington D.C., kindly supplied by K. & M. Ungar, U.S.A.)

Other researchers agree with the findings revealed in Stroke journal, the following being a typical example of what the honest investigator can turn up given time and patience:

"Basic physiology tells us there is no suitable animal model for strokes because, unlike humans, animals have a collateral vascular system in their brains which allows blood to bypass clots; therefore they do not have strokes in the way humans do, nor are the effects from stroke the same.  In addition, many domestic animals have a retermirable system of blood vessels which effectively filters out blood clots and other substances that might otherwise flow to the brain."
(J. Moossy, "Morphological Validation of Ischemic Stroke Models", Cerebrovascular Diseases, edited by T.R. Price and E. Nelson, New York, Raven Press, 1979, page 7.)

In One Thousand Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection, Hans Ruesch publishes the following statement made by Dr Werner Hartinger, acclaimed German surgeon and advocate for the abolition of vivisection:

"There are only two categories of doctors and scientists who are not opposed to vivisection: Those who don't know enough about it, and those who make money from it."

A glimpse at page 21 of the booklet Animal Research Saves Lives reveals that without exception its publishers:

  1. fall into the second category


  2. vivisection is the prop which supports their lucrative careers.


Head Injury is covered in Chapter 20.


Marchers at the Cenotaph (120k)

Assembly at the Cenotaph in full view of Parliament.  WDLA 1991.



ARSL 2nd Edition Pages 6, 7, 11

The N.Z. Health Service should be investigating the reason for the high incidence of kidney disease, and the reason for the massive number of diseased organs for which ARSL says hundreds of sick people need transplants.  Obviously reasonable approaches to health will never take place whilst enormous sums of money are poured into mechanistic, experimental concepts, which, in the case of transplants are aimed at manipulating the human body and keeping sick people artificially alive, but not in better health.

Dr Herbert Stiller says in Animal Experimentation and Animal Experimenters that today's legal and lethal drug prescription and addiction is directly responsible for putting many patients on the waiting list for transplants.  In the same book Dr Kisker K. P. Mediziner in der Kritik, Stuttgart 1973 says:

"Far too little known is the fact that persons with transplanted organs are up to 140 times more susceptible to cancer than comparable groups of people of the same age - not to mention their enormous susceptibility to infection and to damage to the blood, bones, brains and the retina.  In addition, every transplanted organ fails within a short time in the same way as that which has been removed."

Dr Peter Schmidsberger, Medical Correspondent, Bund, No. 50 (one of Germany's major weeklies) wrote:

"Painkillers must be held responsible for about fifty percent of kidney transplants."

Forty thousand children starve to death each day in the Third World.  One fifth of the children in the poorer countries die of malnutrition and lack of clean water and basic medical care before their fifth birthday.  Two hundred and fifty million children worldwide are going blind through lack of vitamin A in their diet.
(UNICEF report, New Scientist, September 16 1983.)
South Africa, a country which is unable, or unwilling to provide even basic medical care for millions of blacks, amongst whom rheumatic heart disease has reached staggering proportions (according to "Epidemiology of Rheumatic Heart Disease in Black Schoolchildren of Soweto, Johannesburg", British Medical Journal, 1975) was, ironically, the scene of the first heart transplant in 1968.  Spectacular operations attract more attention and are far more lucrative and prestigious for vivisectors and surgeons than the promotion of healthy lifestyles.  And there is great medical criticism that the relief transplants bring is only temporary, that is if the patient survives.

Meanwhile, as children starve to death, in New Zealand a heart and lung transplant costs an estimated $250,000.  A liver transplant costs $50,000 if performed here, approximately $150,000 if the patient goes overseas.  The State of Oregon, U.S.A. has imposed a blanket ban on all transplants because of spiralling costs and in the State of Victoria, Aust., late last year two big hospitals warned they would have to turn patients away because of the financial strain organ transplants are placing on their health service.
(Dominion, February 19 1991.)

Like transplants the cost of dialysis "treatment" is exorbitant.  The prime cause of kidney disease today is the regular ingestion of painkillers/analgesics.  As with all diseases, time, money and intelligence must be spent on prevention...

In Hamburg, Germany in 1968 medical students made their criticism of experimental organ transplants public by writing:

"Here is a science which consciously plans the destruction of the human subject of the experiment as an acceptable consequence."

It is clear, from all the evidence, that organ transplants, are, from the economical and practical viewpoint, an indictment of the erroneous direction and goal of modern orthodox medicine - which is based on the experimental laboratory rather than the study of the human being.

Many of today's doctors are openly voicing their fear that the increase in vivisection (which is the cornerstone of today's medicine) goes hand in hand with the deterioration of health, resulting in the clamour for transplants, which they say are both physically and financially impractical.  But for the lucrative biomedical researchers (vivisectors) education, prevention and fundamental medical care are ignored in favour of the production of evermore toxic poisons which worsen the patient's condition.

Appeal to halt baboon transplants
AP Pittsburgh
  A group of 3000 doctors says transplanting baboon livers into humans is "bad medicine and bad science" and should be stopped.
  "The success rate of these operations is zero percent so far," Dr Wendy Thacher, a spokeswoman for the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine in Washington, said.
  The organisation promotes preventive medicine and alternatives to research that involves animals.
Two patients have died after receiving baboon livers at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Centre.  The second patient, a 62-year-old man, died on Saturday of a massive infection in his abdomen, 26 days after his operation.
  The first patient, a 35-year-old man who had the HIV virus, lived 70 days last year before dying of brain bleeding that was caused by a quick-moving blood infection.
Auckland's New Zealand Herald, February 8 1993

Refer also to Chapter 10 Heart Surgery


At Cenotaph WDLA 24 April 1991

Bette Overell, Debbie Garrett, Anita Spencer

Creation lead banner: Ross Gardiner (left)


March Organiser
Simon Cottle

Wheelchair tableaux: Marlene Curyer (standing, far left)



ARSL 2nd Edition Page 5


In Great Britain alone in 1983 there were 573 deaths from the prescribing of arthritis drugs: Opren, Tanderil, Butazolidin (several deaths in New Zealand).  These drugs were tested extensively on animals.  Monkeys, dogs, rats, mice, forcefed (LD50) with the drugs after being injected with painful chemicals to study "writhing" and drug response.  As with Thalidomide these tests failed to show how deadly Opren would be to humans.  These cruel tests reportedly being carried out in Boots laboratories.
(Source: Liberator, Dominion, January 5 1984.)

Eli Lilly & Co. showed a 17 percent increase in worldwide pharmaceutical sales in 1981.  A big part of that increase was due to sales of their new anti-arthritis drug Opren (Benoxaprofen).  This has had serious side-effects resulting in the deaths of 61 people and 3,000 seriously ill.  It was agreed that the symptoms experienced with humans could never have been detected in animals. (Pharmaceutical Journal, February 27 1982.)  Following fast on the footsteps of Opren, another killer drug has been removed from the market: Osmosin - for treating arthritis.  Reportedly (Liberator) half a million prescriptions have been issued since Christmas 1983 with drastic side effects.

Hip and knee replacement do not cure arthritis and the "simulated" arthritis artificially being induced in animals by N.Z. vivisectors bears no resemblance to the spontaneous arthritis which develops naturally over a period of time in the human being due to lack of exercise, overeating, and a host of human circumstances.  Arthritic sufferers in their wheelchairs can be suffering the dire result of consumption of dangerous and ineffective prescriptions, which, based on wrong principle and methodology, worsen the condition.  Arthritis, in humans can also be hereditary.

The principal cause of arthritis is faulty diet.  Today's food, lacking in nutrients due to chemical and pesticide residues leaves us with undernourished bodies full of uric acid which is carried around in the blood until it eventually deposits between the joints, on the bones, or in the muscles.  Doctors are becoming increasingly alarmed at the number of babies being born with uric acid in their blood inherited from arthritic mothers.

Anti-inflammatory drugs which are easily obtained bring only temporary relief.  These drugs, like the uric acid, destroy the membrane between the bone joints.  As the patient becomes immune, in great pain they are administered even stronger drugs until their bodies are poisoned by legal and lethal prescriptions of dangerous toxic chemicals which worsen the arthritis condition.  Today's hospitals are full of patients who are the victims of drug prescription and addiction.  Thousands of deaths have resulted from arthritis drugs which are quietly removed from the market after doing their dirty work.

The patient who can no longer get relief from drugs for the increasing pain of arthritis is then given a hip or knee joint replacement.  Whilst on the waiting list for these operations they are pumped with further drugs which leads to serious doctor-induced disease as the drugs drain the body of nutrition.  The new hip or knee joint does not however remove the uric acid which causes the pain, and eventually, sooner or later, FURTHER hip or knee joint replacements take place in conjunction with the ongoing drug treatment.

Joint replacements are not the answer for the sufferer of arthritis.  Money should be spent on education and prevention, the removal of uric acid from the system through the many natural methods available, and the removal of drugs which are more dangerous than the disease.  But the publishers of Animal Research Saves Lives are aware that there is no money in prevention and health... whereas vivisection and illhealth is an extremely lucrative industry.

Opren, Tanderil, Butazolidin, Closic, Zomax, Flenac, Eraldin, Ibufenac, Flosint and Suprol, are arthritis drugs given to hundreds of millions of people worldwide after being declared safe by animal testing.  All were subsequently removed from the market as "dangerous" after causing many deaths.

Around the world vivisectors "studying arthritis" are injecting material into the muscles and joints of animals and injuring them traumatically in a senseless method based on wrong principle.  On page 336 of Slaughter of the Innocent, Hans Ruesch explains that cartilage can be removed from human accident victims under anaesthetic and kept alive for weeks during which its reactions to various drugs can be observed.

Prof. Andrew Passebecq, M.D., N.D., D.Psy., of the Faculty of Medicine of Paris, 13th District, said at the International League of Doctors Against Vivisection Conference of June 19 1989 in Paris, after he had been elected as President of ILDAV:

"Today's orthodox medicine and suppressive surgery don't understand the purpose of disease and therefore don't know how to treat it.  Instead of vital hygiene, which aims at preservation or reconstruction of health by natural means and shuns all use of degrading, destructive chemicals, today's medical students are only taught to manipulate poisons and mutilate bodies.  We demand that this be changed."
(Hans Ruesch, One Thousand Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection.)

Evidence abounds that with determination and will-power even the most cruelly afflicted arthritis sufferers can be cured by natural means.  The following book is highly commended to the arthritis sufferer:

Curing Arthritis (The Drug Free Way)
by Margaret Hills, S.R.N.
Order from: Sheldon Press

Margaret Hills, S.R.N., trained at St Stephen's Hospital, London.  She developed osteo and rheumatoid arthritis as a young woman, but went on to finish her nurse's training, marry, have eight children and pursue a long career as an industrial nurse.  She developed her own method of natural treatment and, in 1982, opened a clinic for arthritics in Coventry.  The clinic attracts patients from all over the world.



Louise Wallis, of the National Anti-Vivisection Society, answered a SmithKline Beecham advertisement headed: "An Important Role Working With Animals".  The firm wanted a person who "enjoys contact with animals of all kinds".  She landed the job and commenced working as a laboratory technician in an undercover investigation which took seven months.  It involved her witnessing at first hand the horrific and degrading procedures taking place as a daily routine at two British laboratories.  One was the SmithKline Beecham toxicology unit in Stock, Essex, where this firm which fakes interest in alleviating suffering, poisons friendly beagle dogs to death, the other a laboratory at the London Medical School at St Bartholomew's Hospital where batteries of animals are exposed to whole-body radiation without anaesthesia as a daily routine (funded by the Cancer Research Campaign) and others suffer and die in indescribably cruel and barbaric multiple sclerosis and arthritis experiments which have been established in the medical journals as medically invalid because of species difference.

Thus on April 11 1991 Wallis commenced observing the force feeding of dogs and rodents with drugs, to long and lingering death, the whole-body irradiation of animals, and the crippling and destruction of healthy rats and mice in arthritis research.  In the latter experiments she reports that thousands of animals have been used in "excruciating painful experiments" in the attempt to create an animal model of arthritis, always as we are already fully aware, without success as no animal species can be accepted as an experimental model for any other species.

After describing in detail the ghastly procedures on dogs, cats, rabbits, rats, mice and guinea-pigs which she filmed and photographed as well as keeping extensive diaries, Wallis set about to demolish them scientifically.  The reports, along with footage of film taken in the laboratories, have been aired extensively on British t.v., the radio and newspapers and are being investigated by the Home Office.

The following medical papers reveal the clinical invalidity of animal experiments designed to produce medicaments for human sufferers of arthritis.  Despite the proof that they are scientifically unsound these experiments are being repeated at St Bartholomew's:

Despite all the evidence that the mass torture of animals cannot produce a solution to human ailments these degrading experiments continued throughout 1987, 1988 and 1989 through to the present day, because the "researchers" working on comfortable grants, promise to make an animal model "similar" to human arthritis, which has proved time and again to be impossible.

Recently a pharmacologist at the University of Newcastle Upon Tyne pointed out:

"Benoxaprofen (Opren), a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agent, was introduced in 1980 with the promotional claim (in journals including the British Medical Journal) that it... 'Has been shown, experimentally, to actually modify the arthritic disease process.'  This claim was based on the observation that Benoxaprofen inhibited the development of adjuvant induced arthritis in the rat, but failed to mention that other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs had similar actions or that beneficial effects shown in rats have only a limited ability to predict efficacy in humans."
(M.D. Rawlins, British Medical Journal, Vol. 301, 1990, pages 729-733.)

Finally, an editorial in the doctors' journal The Lancet recently states:

"Animal and human cartilage may behave differently: Studies of cartilage protection by different non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs have yielded inconsistent results: And there may be considerable variation within individual studies."
(The Lancet, Vol. 337, 1991, pages 769-770.)

As the distribution of ARSL commencing in November 1990 continued throughout 1991 it is significant to note that simultaneously ARSL argued against the prestigious Lancet, for on page 6 of ARSL is written:

"There is no choice but to work with animals whose bodily functions are similar to ours."

But, as has been revealed, medical evidence exposes that "similar" which means resembling, does not mean the "same", which means identical.  ARSL thus attempts to perpetuate for its own ends the dangerous error of substituting a resemblance in place of an identical.  An error which directly resulted in 573 people dying from the arthritis drugs Opren, Tanderil, Butazolidin at the cost of hundreds of thousands of animals' lives in the blatant scramble for profits for the vivisectors and their supporting industries.

(Further reference to Louise Wallis' undercover investigation is made in Chapters 12 Multiple Sclerosis and 20 Photos/Videos.)

Refer also to Chapter 17 Artificial Blood, High Blood Pressure.


photo montage (172k)
WDLA, 24 April 1992.  Rally at Queen Victoria Statue, Courtenay Place and March to General Motors to register protest at the company's use of animals in car-crash tests.  March organiser Simon Cottle (top left, holding loud hailer), active in NZAVS for over 8 years.  Pig effigies made by Rose Williamson, shown holding banner at far left, Michelle Eades centre and Stiff Jones far right.



ARSL 2nd Edition Page 3

 It is crucial to the joint publishers of Animal Research Saves Lives (all convinced vivisectionists) that the politicians, staff and pupils of educational institutions and the general public, to whom the booklet is distributed, believe and accept its content without question.  However those who are sufficiently inspired or motivated to make their personal investigation will be amply rewarded as a cursory study of the overwhelming and easily-available evidence reveals the truth.

Clinical Medical Discoveries by Dr M. Beddow Bayly, M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P. outlines a brief history of the discovery and application, by human observations, of antibiotic penicillin until the advent of Prof. A. Fleming and Sir Howard Florey, who carried out all their initial experiments in vitro.  More recently Dr Robert Sharpe, basing his article on Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics by T. Koppanyi and M.A. Avery, Vol. 7, 1966, pages 250-270, agreed with a report made by Hans Ruesch in Naked Empress (or the Great Medical Fraud) that Fleming, being worried that penicillin might be de-activated by blood, injected a sample into rabbits, which died.  Discouraged he abandoned penicillin until Oxford scientists Florey and Chain resurrected it for further tests.  Being out of stock of the usual guinea-pigs on the day of the trials they used mice which it cured and penicillin was acclaimed.  Later trials with guinea-pigs proved fatal, even with tiny amounts.  Another coincidence occurred when Fleming was reluctant to inject penicillin into the spine of a critically-ill patient and Florey tried it on cats.  As the patient was near death with insufficient time to observe the cats Fleming took a gamble and administered the penicillin.  The patient lived and the cats died.  Thus humans received penicillin despite the erroneous and inconclusive trials with animals which almost resulted in its rejection and abandonment.

Despite its apparent success, evidence shows that the discovery of antibiotics might have been a devil in disguise.  In Slaughter of the Innocent Hans Ruesch reveals reports from many doctors and medical institutions warning that antibiotics weaken the organisms while strengthening the various strains of bacteria to such an extent that some of them eventually defy every type of antibiotic.

Ruesch points out that by the end of the 1940s antibiotics were so overprescribed that the result was the production of stronger and stronger bacteria, and weaker and weaker human beings.  By the 1950s various hospitals registered outbreaks of epidemics that no antibiotic was able to cure.  Brian Inglis reported that in the U.S. there were "over a hundred such epidemics in a single year, of which one killed 22 patients in a Texas hospital".  When the medical authorities argued that the use of antibiotics was justified in spite of the recognised damage, John Lear, former science editor of the Saturday Review wrote in a "miracle drugs" article about a study made by Charles Henry Kempe, University of Chicago medical researcher, as follows:

"The record shows that prophylactic antibiotics do more harm than good.  Dr Kempe's study cited in this connection the result of a 250 'clean' operation.  Of the 154 not subjected to prophylactic antibiotics only 7.8% developed bacterial aftermath.  The remaining 96 patients all received prophylactic antibiotics, of which 37.5% were subjected to bacterial complications."

In December 1972, Dr Harry F. Dowling, Professor Emeritus at the University of Illinois and former Chairman of the Council on Drugs of the American Medical Association testified before the Senate Monopoly Subcommittee:

"A few years ago we were resting secure in the knowledge that we had two effective drugs for use in typhoid fever: chloramphenicol and ampicillin.  Then a strain of typhoid bacilli was found that was resistant to chloramphenicol, and now one is resistant to ampicillin.  Before too long we may be back to the 1930s when we had no effective therapy for this disease."

On December 9 1972 the International Herald Tribune reported:

"Resistant bacteria are increasing blood poisoning in hospital patients treated with antibiotics."

In Rome's Il Tempo, July 31 1976 Nobel Laureate James Banielli stated that "antibiotics have caused damages that are far superior to their benefits", having been found responsible for chronic conditions, for specific injections, for allergic reactions, cellular toxicity and vitamin deficiencies.

In Animal Factories, Jim Mason and Peter Singer expose the danger of antibiotics used in the agribusiness - and how the pharmaceutical companies now own many of the factory farms:

"Crowding masses of animals together causes stress, germ build-up, filthy air, and other conditions that invite disease.  To cope with these diseases farmers must employ antibiotics, sulfa drugs, pesticides, disinfectants and a whole battery of other chemical products.  Food from animals raised in such an environment is not only of poor quality but it can also contain chemical residues that are dangerous to humans."

"The US Food and Drug Administration's efforts to ban or regulate antibiotics, growth promotants and other feed additives in animal agriculture are vigorously opposed by drug and agribusiness corporations since

  1. many factory farms are owned by the drug companies and
  2. without these artificial and erroneous shortcuts to animal health the losses in crowded factory farms would be so great that the system would be impossible, much less profitable."

For the prevention of infection in pets after injury or accident refer Chapter 2, The Farming Industry, Animal Health and Vaccines.  Chapter 3 Diseases in Cats and Dogs, Feline Enteritis, Distemper; Cats and Dogs Vaccines, Parvovirus also refer:

"We have to remember that the main aim of pharmaceutical companies is not to make drugs for the good of mankind, but to make profits for their shareholders."
(Brewster Ashley, Director of the Therapeutic Goods Administration, Drug Evaluation Branch (Australia) in Auckland Star, March 7 1991, page 7 under World News.)



Fiona speaking at rally (163k)
Fiona Tait NZAVS member for eight years, Exec member and active campaigner, outlines the vivisection performed by General Motors at the rally assembly point of Queen Victoria Statue.  WDLA 1992.

(A Brief History)


ARSL 2nd Edition Page 19

 ARSL states, that if we halted research using animals it would be "too dangerous to test exciting new products like artificial blood".

In 1934 the Department of Physiology at the State College of Medicine at Memphis, Tennessee, U.S.A., commenced experiments in which cats were drained of almost all their blood and given injections of "synthetic blood".  They lived 36 hours.  These "exciting" (ARSL) experiments were carried out by Dr W.R. Amberson.  Simultaneously Dr A.G. Mulder in London was "working along the same lines".  He used an extract of ox-blood and salt solution.  "Monkeys", the vivisectors said, "are the next to be experimented upon".  Both these experiments were failures, as they had to be being based on the wrong species.
(News Chronicle, July 13 1934.)

In 1966 vivisectors reported that mice could survive for extended periods totally immersed in an oxygen-rich solution of fluorocarbon chemical, with it filling their lungs.  This led to batteries of experiments entailing near-total blood replacement with perfluorocarbon chemicals on frogs, mice, rats, gerbils, rabbits, cats, dogs and monkeys.
(L.R. Clark, F. Gollan, "Survival of Mammals Breathing Organic Liquids Equilibrated with Oxygen at Atmospheric Pressure", Science, Vol. 152, 1966, pages 1755-1756.)

When tried on man, in Japan, West Germany and the U.S.A. the solution only worked if the subject was breathing pure oxygen - not if he was breathing normal air.
(K. Lowe, "Artificial Blood: Fact or Fiction?", Biologist, Vol. 30, No. 2, 1983.);  (Ohyangagi 1979, "Clinical Studies of Perfluorochemical Whole-Blood Substitutes: Safety of Flusol-Da (20%) in Normal Human Volunteers", Clinical Therapeutics, Vol. 2, pages 306-312.)

The only artificial blood that worked for man was Dextran.  This was developed from sugar during a search for a substance which would act as a buffer-medium for the blood cells, prove harmless to the host, and remain in the system long enough to cover the first few critical days following shock from blood-loss.  It owed its discovery to clinical experiment and observations by Dr Gronwell and Ingelman in Sweden, first reported in 1943.
(Beddow Bayly, Blood Transfusion, NAVS, 1960.)

Dextran was used as a transfusion medium.  Clinical experiments during 1944 and 1945 soon established its safety and effectiveness.  It is still used.
(British Medical Association and the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, British National Formulary, No. 5, 1983.)

More recently the Dominion Sunday Times ran an article titled "A New Brew of Blood?" which said experiments using animals to produce a human blood substitute gave so much concern about the side-effects of haemoglobin produced in this way that all new trials have been prohibited by the United States FDA.
(Dominion Sunday Times, March 10 1991.)


"According to the Report of the Royal Commission on Vivisection (1912): The first human blood-transfusion was made by Andre Libavius in 1594 when, for a large reward, the blood of a young man was passed into the veins of an older man.  Modern technique depends upon a careful matching of blood-types, and no animal experiments have, or could have helped in this essential particular."
(Hans Ruesch, One Thousand Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection, page 131.)

The following information is taken from Cardiac Arrest by Emil Levin, M.D. and Diane Danielson.

"The French physician, Jean Denis, transfused lambs' blood into numerous patients who all died.  Not recognizing the basic differences between animals and humans, Denis did not realize why his technique failed.  Yet, because of the failure of this animal experiment, no further attempts were made for more than a century."
(K. Walker, The Story of Medicine, Hutchinson, 1954.  R. McGrew, Encyclopedia of Medical History, MacMillan Press, 1985.  A. Gastiglioni, A History of Medicine, (1947 edition translated by E.B. Krumbhaer) Ryerson Press, 1941.)

The identification of the various blood groups by Karl Landsteiner, an Australian emigrant who was awarded a Nobel Prize for his achievement, which permitted safe blood transfusions, was a result of direct observation of humans.
(J.E. Schmidt, Medical Discoveries Who and When, Charles C. Thomas, 1959.  P. Levine and R.E. Stetson, FAMA, Vol. 113, 1939, pages 126-127.)


There have been four main anticoagulants used for human medicine.  None of these four were discovered through animal experiments.  Two, Hirudin and Citrate, grew out of direct patient study.  Hirudin is an anti-coagulant secreted by leeches that allows them to suck the blood out of animals.  The observation was made that since the patient continued to bleed after a leech was removed from a site, it must have deposited the anti-coagulant in the wound before removing the blood.
(J.H. Comroe and R.D. Dripps, The Top Ten Clinical Advances in Cardiovascular-Pulmonary Medicine and Surgery 1945-1975, Washington D.C., 1977, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, DHEW Publications No. (NIH) 78-1521, page 61.)

"The use of citrates stemmed from the observation of sailors treated for scurvy in the 1700s.  Physicians noted that sailors often suffered spontaneous hemorrhages from lemon and lime juices, notably high in citrates."

"The use of the anticoagulant dicumoral was developed from the observation made by veterinarians that cattle who ate the toxic plant 'sweet clover' (which contains dicumoral), suffered the same spontaneous hemorrhages as the sailors.  By coincidence, this particular agent had the same effect on humans."
(J.H. Comroe and R.D. Dripps, The Top Ten Clinical Advances in Cardiovascular-Pulmonary Medicine and Surgery 1945-1975, Washington D.C., 1977, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, DHEW Publications No. (NIH) 78-1521, page 63 and page 68.)

"The last anticoagulant, heparin, was discovered when Jay McLeon tested various chemicals on blood in a test-tube."
(C.H. Best, "Preparation of Heparin and its Use in the First Clinical Cases", Circulation, Vol. XIX, January 1959, page 79.)


"These phenomena are easily observed in a non-invasive manner in most species, notably humans.  The vivisectors assert advances in techniques involving blood-pressure and heart rate in animals so they can make great claims about animal research, but there is no productive data on blood-pressure and heart rate that could not have been obtained more accurately from human subjects.  Also, the discovery of the circulation of blood, blood pressure, and heart rate can be credited to William Harvey's work on the corpse of a hanged man.  There is no evidence that animal experiments contributed to Harvey's revolutionary discovery."
(S. Peller, Quantitative Research in Human Biology and Medicine, Bristol, John Wright and Sons Ltd, 1967, page 11.)


"This item stands out as one of the advances that are, in most cases, a last ditch effort to save a patient whose condition has deteriorated through his own neglect.  The money spent developing the pump oxygenator could have been used to save many more patients through education in prevention."

"Vivisectors had long attempted to take over the function of the lungs by putting air bubbles in the blood outside of the body and recirculating the oxygenated blood back into an animal's body.  The animals usually died because the bubbles caused widespread organ damage.  There were no substances known in the early part of this century, however, that could remove bubbles, until Dr Richard Lillihei of the University of Minnesota thought of using Corning Antifoam, a substance used in dairies to dissipate foam on milk.  The use of Antifoam in milk production was the first proof that this substance was safe for human use.  The prior animal studies were useless in the development of the bubble, or pump oxygenator."
(L. Wertenbaker, To Mend the Heart, New York, Viking Press, 1980, page 154.)


Harvey, through the use of cadavers, and his own arm, established the theory that the blood circulates.  Tying a ligature around his arm and noticing that the blood only accumulated on one side Harvey deduced that the blood must move in a circuit.  Despite a lifetime of animal experiments Galen failed to figure out that the blood circulates.  Dr Sigismund Peller maintains that Harvey's discovery is the earliest example of (what he calls) biostatistical reasoning in medicine.  On the corpse of a hanged man Harvey forced water into the right side of the heart and then the left side taking careful note of the direction, course and volume of fluid.

"Harvey's logical quantitative reasoning led to only one conclusion; that the very same blood that was emitted from the left heart had to return a little while later to the right heart through passages that were as yet unknown... Sharp logic and simple estimates, made without the benefit of exact observational data or of new experiments, and without the use of higher mathematics, led to the hypothetical conception and provided proof both for this concept - that is, the new theory of circulation - and for the absurdity of any contrary opinion voiced by or since Galen."
(S. Peller, Quantitative Research in Human Biology and Medicine, Bristol, John Wright and Sons Ltd, 1969, page 11.)



ARSL 2nd Edition Page 7



ARSL states (page 7) that there is no alternative to using animals for researching high blood pressure.  Even the novice knows this is nonsense!  The following professional medical opinions prove that yet again ARSL's claims are incorrect.

"The arguments from quadrupeds to man as to the power of the heart and pressure in the blood vessels are fallacious, for those physical reasons which bring about a difference in the circulatory apparatus of animals habitually and respectively horizontal and erect."
(Alexander Morison, M.D. Edin., F.R.C.P.E., British Medical Journal, May 14 1896, page 650.)

That was one hundred years ago, and today's doctors are hammering the same message under the new title of scientific anti-vivisectionism... the specific policy of which is set out in the centrefold of NZAVS Mobilise!, No. 28 of October 1990, also can be seen by selecting this link.

"In the old days we were taught, as the result purely of animal experiments, that digitalis raised the blood-pressure.  We now know that this is utter nonsense.  Indeed, it is a remedy of very great value in certain cases when the blood pressure is found to be abnormally high."
(James Burnet, M.A., LLB (Lond.), M.D., F.R.C.P.E., Medical World, July 3 1942, page 338.)

"Animal experimenters found, as a result of experimentation on animals that digitalis raised the blood-pressure, and, as a consequence, it was not used for some years on human beings.  The fact that the blood-pressure is raised by digitalis was found - clinically - to be incorrect in the case of human beings, and it is now freely used in cases in which the laboratory experiments warned us that it would be dangerous."
(Andrew S. McNeil, L.R.C.P.S. Ed., Medical World, February 5 1943, page 608.)

Reserpine, a common drug used for high blood-pressure, was tested by driving cats insane with electric shocks before being deemed safe to prescribe to human patients.  It is linked to such serious side effects as mental depression, disturbed heart rhythm, angina, glaucoma and impotence.  Dr Robinson of Michigan City, Indiana, who studied high blood-pressure for many years has this to say:

"Other side effects of high blood-pressure drugs have just as many dangers, most hypertensive drugs should not be on the market doing their dirty-work.  Their side effects include arthritis, liver disease, diabetes, heart failure and senility.  Out of the 15 million people who will take hypotensive drugs within the next five years, one hundred thousand may be killed by the drug... Many of these deaths will be improperly reported since a death by stroke or heart attack is usually attributed to natural causes and seldom to side effects of drugs."

Though the U.S. National Cancer Institute claimed that Reserpine caused cancer in laboratory animals, this was ignored.  The drug was put on the market proving once again how little the vivisectors think of their own laboratory findings based on animal experiments.

"In a study of high blood-pressure conducted by the Medical Research Council, the prevalence of male impotence after two years in men treated with the drug Bendrofluazide was more than twice that of the untreated group.  Other side effects included lethargy, constipation, nausea, dizziness and headache.  Many of these symptoms would never have been observed in animal tests."
(Lancet, 1981, page 539.)

The drug for high blood-pressure SLOW-K (Ciba-Geigy) was brand-leader for 17 years until it was taken by 12 healthy volunteers for one week, all of whom developed ulceration of the stomach, gullet, bowels.
(Sunday Times, October 10 1982.)


The atrocious tortures being endured by batteries of animals on a day-to-day basis in the vivisection laboratories of SmithKline Beecham have been well-documented elsewhere in this work.  Under Chapters 12 Multiple Sclerosis and 15 Arthritis and Hip Replacements, the author gives first-hand evidence of investigator Louise Wallis who exposed to the public the martyrdom inflicted daily on rats, mice, rabbits and beagle-dogs which are kept in pitiful conditions of deprivation prior to being poisoned to death with drugs.  The laboratories of this wealthy pharmaceutical company are hidden in the heart of the English countryside.  It is described by Wallis as a sinister, precision-controlled, high-tech, sterile environment screened from public view by two perimeter fences, as video cameras and security guards carry out a round-the-clock surveillance and employees must show identification cards and have company stickers on their cars.

This then is the scenario for the production through animal torture, of drugs designed for human sufferers of high blood-pressure which is brought about by a vast array of human factors, none of which are applicable to animals, suffered by animals or reproducible in animals.

Nine other drug companies are also involved in creating anti-high blood-pressure drugs.  They include: Squibb; Merck, Sharp and Dohme; and Bayer.  The procedures involved include breeding rats with a tendency to high blood-pressure and "renal wrapping" one kidney in cats and two kidneys in beagle dogs, which entails under anaesthesia wrapping their kidneys in cellophane to give the animals high blood-pressure!

The drugs thus produced on the premise that the rats, cats and dogs are suffering from high blood-pressure are then tested on rabbits, rats, guinea-pigs, cows and monkeys.  The monkeys are given the drug for over a year at doses up to a hundred times higher than human patients would receive.

Interestingly, researchers at Hoffman La Roche and Merck, Sharp & Dohme stated:

"The ultimate model is humans and the ultimate evaluation is a well-defined population of patients."
(L.R. Bush, The FASEB Journal, Vol. 4, 1990, pages 3087-3098.)

A spokesman for SmithKline French with whom Beechams merged, remarked in 1967:

"Hypertension can be produced in experimental animals in several different ways, but none of these artificial systems have been helpful in predicting the action of hypotensive drugs in man.  The data cannot be analysed because so many unjustified assumptions and interpretations have been made."
(G.E. Paget, Drug Responses in Man, Pub. J.A. Churchill Ltd, 1967, pages 120-121.)

Prof. J.D. Swales, Chairman of the British Hypertension Society's working party obviously believes that drugs produced this way are of no value:

"In the absence of clinical evidence the pharmaceutical industry has promoted a series of scientific hypotheses which predict that the newer drugs might be better at preventing myocardial infarction.  Thus we have been told that the calcium antagonists reverse a specific abnormality of smooth muscle calcium handling and that angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors correct angiotensin II receptor modulation, cardiovascular structural remodelling, and (most recently) insulin resistance.  Like most other clinicians concerned with hypertension, I have been to countless meetings devoted to these hypotheses, ending inevitably with the conclusion that the effects might be clinically important if relevant clinical evidence could be found.  It never is.  One hypothesis is succeeded by another."
(J.D. Swales, British Medical Journal, Vol. 301, 1990, pages 1172-1173.)

... And so even the vivisectors state outright that vivisection doesn't work!


To the great relief and joy of many patients who have refused to comply with their doctor's dire threat that to prevent them dropping dead with a stroke brought about by high blood-pressure they must spend a life-time on drugs, it has been proven by experience, including that of the writer, that even the worst cases of high blood-pressure can be controlled and managed by a radical change of lifestyle.  Not only can the sufferers of this ambiguous malady find physical and mental improvement through addressing the cause which brings on the frightening symptoms, but they can also prevent having their lives placed in jeopardy from consuming drugs which, creating a fresh crop of problems if they don't kill the patient altogether, cause more damage than they do good.

All the evidence reveals that the number one cause of high blood-pressure is stress.  Since pressure affects people differently and some can stand more of it than others, stress is nebulous.  In moderation it is an integral part of our lives and cannot be dispensed with altogether.  However, it has been found again and again that stress is the overriding factor which brings on the onset of high blood-pressure.  Sufferers must therefore be ruthless in eliminating from their lives: overwork, the striving for perfection, driving ambition, competition, the setting of too difficult targets, and aggression.  This does not mean that the patient must live in a cocoon for one can eliminate considerable pressures and still leave room for manoeuvre and management of life's inevitable circumstances.  Excess weight and lack of exercise are other important contributing factors.  Certain foods can aggravate, or even cause, high blood-pressure and the patient should be thorough in checking diet for any uncertainties perhaps with the assistance of a naturopath.  For example licorice clogs the arteries and its over-indulgence has been found to be the culprit by sufferers of high blood-pressure.

It is possible, indeed essential, for the sufferer of high blood-pressure to adopt a life-long programme of stress-reduction through physical, mental and emotional relaxation and there are many ways to achieve this.  Coupled with a strict regime of shedding excess weight, the taking of rigorous daily exercise and the shift to a small sensible vegetarian diet, the elimination of smoking, of excess salt and of highly processed salty foods, the patient can effectively alleviate the factors which cause even long-standing high blood-pressure.  This is a far cry from the established medical treatment of emotional blackmail that ensures sufferers are pumped with drugs which are formulated on rats, mice and dogs tested by forcefeeding batteries of animals including beagle-dogs and monkeys to death, and electric shocking cats, which results in an end-product physically toxic to man, socially repugnant and physiologically "out of tune" or at odds with any human being with self-esteem.

It cannot be over-emphasised that the producers of ARSL who claim animals must be used to formulate drugs for high blood-pressure are motivated by their individual interests in the vivisection industry.  These people are not philanthropists.  They are all, without exception, in the business of making money through vivisection.




ARSL 2nd Edition Page 6


To investigate ARSL's claim (page 6 of the booklet) that "rehabilitation for thousands of head injury and stroke victims are a result of techniques developed in animals" the writer referred to the authoritative and influential journal of the American Heart Association titled Stroke.  In issue 7:14 of 1976 an article headed "Clinical Relevance of Experimental Stroke Models" by G.F. Molinari says the following:

"The way researchers 'simulate' a stroke in an animal is by the application of microsurgical spring-clips to an artery.  The clipping itself affects blood vessels in ways totally artificial and never seen in blood vessels of human stroke patients."

In the May 1989 issue of Stroke, Samuel Neff of the New England Medical Centre wrote:

"The repeated failure of laboratory-proven stroke therapies in human beings can be due only to the inapplicability of animal models to human cerebrovascular disease."

Less than a year later, in January 1990, in Stroke, David O. Wiebers and his colleagues at the Mayo Clinic and the University of Iowa wrote a substantial and comprehensive article in which they called the relevance of information from animal experiments "dubious".  They cited a review of experimental treatments for stroke over the past decade extracts of which read:

  1. "Of 25 treatments which worked in animals, not a single one worked in human studies."
  2. "Human strokes are complicated by underlying artherosclerosis, genetic factors, chronic hypertension, diabetes, smoking and medications, all of which can have important effects and cannot be duplicated in animal studies."
  3. "Attempts to cause strokes in animals are highly artificial and can send armies of researchers down blind alleys, wasting precious time and money."

In a further issue of Stroke, July 1990, Weibers wrote:

"Dozens of treatments tested on animals did not work in people."

He, along with his team of researchers, cautioned against the assumption that information from animal experiments is relevant to the human disease.  In the same issue, Justin Zivin and James Grotta agreed that:

"Drug studies in animal models have not... translated into effective therapy in humans."

Stroke journal, which is the most relevant and weighty source of information applicable to the subject states in the above article:

"Conclusions arising from the whole Stroke debate were that reliance on animal models impede rather than advance scientific progress in the treatment of stroke."

"The single most effective means of dealing with strokes is still prevention.  Hypertension, smoking and cholesterol levels can be controlled.  When they are not, serious damage to the brain is very difficult to stop."
(Update of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, Washington D.C., kindly supplied by K. & M. Ungar, U.S.A.)

Other researchers agree with the findings revealed in Stroke journal, the following being a typical example of what the honest investigator can turn up given time and patience:

"Basic physiology tells us there is no suitable animal model for strokes because, unlike humans, animals have a collateral vascular system in their brains which allows blood to bypass clots; therefore they do not have strokes in the way humans do, nor are the effects from stroke the same.  In addition, many domestic animals have a retermirable system of blood vessels which effectively filters out blood clots and other substances that might otherwise flow to the brain."
(J. Moossy, "Morphological Validation of Ischemic Stroke Models", Cerebrovascular Diseases, edited by T.R. Price and E. Nelson, New York, Raven Press, 1979, page 7.)

In One Thousand Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection, Hans Ruesch publishes the following statement made by Dr Werner Hartinger, acclaimed German surgeon and advocate for the abolition of vivisection:

"There are only two categories of doctors and scientists who are not opposed to vivisection: Those who don't know enough about it, and those who make money from it."

A glimpse at page 21 of the booklet Animal Research Saves Lives reveals that without exception its publishers:

  1. fall into the second category


  2. vivisection is the prop which supports their lucrative careers.


Head Injury is covered in Chapter 20.




ARSL 2nd Edition Page 19

Regardless of major anatomical differences between the four-footed and two-footed spinal column, cats, because of their exceptional resilience and ability to withstand acute traumatic injury, are the chosen victims of spinal cord injury experiments, and to this end they are being subjected to slow and systematic torture.  The Canadian international health rights organisation Lifeforce video Broken Promises, filmed secretly (available for viewing from NZAVS) shows vivisectors severing the spines, paralysing the legs, inflicting head injuries and inducing shock into cats and newborn kittens.  These procedures coincide with Webster's definition of torture, "to punish or coerce by inflicting excruciating pain."

Piglets, dogs, ferrets, monkeys, rats, rabbits and other animals are also used in this fraudulent and deceitful "research", which ostensibly carried out to help victims of spinal cord injury, in reality, like all other vivisection, is motivated by the promise of academic recognition and advancement, and research grants.  New Zealand's veterinary school receives massive injections of money from overseas multi-national companies and governments, including the U.S. National Institute of Health.  This in addition to acting as a passport facilitating interchange laboratory to laboratory of vivisectors and their ideas, guarantees there will be no geographically-based dissension or criticism within the enclosed brotherhood.  Far from condemning the obscenities carried out under the camouflage of helping victims of spinal cord injury, the publishers of ARSL glorify them.

Throughout the world, an increasing number of people are confined to wheelchairs because of spinal cord injuries due to automobile, diving and other accidents.  There are also thousands of unfortunate people in wheelchairs for life because of animal tests.  Drugs which proved to be safe in animal models have caused new disorders of the central nervous system.  One such drug, Oxychinol, or Clioquinol, a "cure for diarrhoea" was responsible for thirty thousand cases of blindness and/or paralysis in Japan alone (Hans Ruesch, Naked Empress, pages 19-21.).  Agent Orange, Malathion, Diazion and Capstan were all tested on animals before paralysing people for life.

Spinal cord experiments on animals are part of the medical fraud of vivisection.  We are told that animals must be used in this horrifying way in attempts to understand physiological mechanisms and to test surgical procedures, but extracts from articles written by those undertaking this "research" show that spinal cord research with animals is obviously not working.

"A wide variety of experimental models and species have been utilised to study the patho-physiological consequences of spinal cord injury and its therapeutic management.  Such diversity of experimental models has resulted from the relative incompatibility of the two major theoretical considerations underlying experimental work in this area:

  1. that the model be relevant to human spinal injury
  2. that the effects of experimental spinal injury in control animals be reproducible.
Models which have closely approximated the effects of blunt traumatic injury in humans have generally caused unsatisfactory degrees of variability in the injury sustained by control animals; conversely, models showing reproducibility have been criticised as showing little relevance to human spinal injury... Species utilised have included rat, rabbit, ferret, cat, dog and nonhuman primate.  Additional variables in the experimental design have been the site of injury (i.e. cervical vs thoracic vs lumbar), the time at which pharmacological interventions are begun and their duration, the sex of the animal, the outcome measure (function, morphological change, blood flow change, etc.) and the length of time injured animals are followed.


Given the extraordinary number of variables, it is perhaps not surprising that no therapy to date has proved efficacious across experimental laboratories."
(A.I. Faden, "Recent Pharmacological Advances in Experimental Spinal Injury: Theoretical and Methodological Considerations", Trends in Neurosciences, Vol. 6, No. 9, September 1983, pages 375-377.)

In the Los Angeles Times, December 19 1985, page 34 an article entitled "Spinal Cord Research" by Dr Eugene Flamm, Vice Chairman of the Department of Neurosurgery at the New York University Medical Center.  Talking of spinal cord experiments on cats Flamm says:

"In the end, we might be able to cure the cat model but it might have nothing to do with the patient situation."

The abolition of spinal cord experiments on animals would not only prevent the suffering of animals, but it would help the handicapped by redirecting funds for humane and beneficial projects.  Human engineering has freed people from their wheelchairs and put them into swivel walkers which allow them to move in an upright position.  Improvements could be made in perinatal care, geriatric care, surgical treatment, trauma centres and rehabilitation care.  In vitro (non-animal) research employing human nerve cell and tissue culture and human cadavers, as well as the study of the many accident victims would also benefit.  The handicapped could be better helped to cope with their disabilities, money could go into counselling services, symptomatic care and greater accessibility to public buildings.  In addition better preventative measures could be put into operation.

"The only way to answer medical problems is to study spontaneous occurring disease.  There are many compounding variables when using non-human animals as models that have made the interpretation of results of animal experiments impossible.  The mysteries of human physiology will only be solved by the study of human physiology."
(Peter Hamilton, Lifeforce.)

"The fact is that the diseases of animals are so different from those of man, wounds in animals act so differently from those of humanity, that the conclusions of vivisection are absolutely worthlessThey have done far more harm than good in surgery.  In fact the late Sir William Fergusson, Sergeant-Surgeon to the Queen, declared in his evidence that vivisection had done nothing at all for surgery, and I think his authority on such a subject is beyond appeal."
(Lawson Tait, F.R.C.S., Birmingham Daily Mail, January 21 1882.)

"The difficulties which beset the licensed experimenter are many.  In the first place it is well known that it is impossible, in an experimental animal, to reproduce a lesion or a disease at all comparable to such as is found in the human subject."
(Dr Lionel Whitby: Practitioner, December 1937, from The Futility of Experiments on Living Animals, M. Beddow Bayly, M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P.)

"The most valuable things we have learned through animal experimentation are insights into the human mentality... We have learned that otherwise compassionate people can become remarkably desensitized and detached from the suffering they inflict on animals.  We have learned that highly intelligent people can be engaged in the most trivial or eccentric research yet convince themselves their work is important."
(Michael Giannelli, Psychologist, A Critical Look at Animal Research, Medical Research Modernization Committee.)

An article in the journal of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, PCRM Update, September/October 1991, titled "Monkey Experiment Published, Fraud Lawsuit Continues", outlines experiments in which monkeys which had the sensory nerves to their arms cut a decade ago are now being killed in further gruelling experiments, which the Physicians Committee describe thus:

"No serious scientists would claim that the experiments have anything whatsoever to do with treatment for spinal cord injury... Such far-fetched speculations might help them in their public relations but have nothing to do with scientific integrity."

Meanwhile the Civil Abolitionist, Winter 1991-1992, page 10, contains a letter from the Director General of the Pacific and Yukon Region of Environment Canada, attempting to justify the use of wild Canada Geese in spinal cord research.

"The research carried out at the University of British Columbia is viewed by the medical and scientific community as important and relevant to improving our knowledge of spinal cord injuries in human beings.  Canada geese are ideal subjects for the experiments due to their size, robustness and their well-developed ability to both walk and fly."

(This is an example of the idiocy and audacity of the vivisectors for, without laughing, expecting us to believe that such nonsense can restore or rejuvenate human health AS IT RESTORES AND REJUVENATES THEIR PROFITS!)



ARSL 2nd Edition Page 5


ARSL claims cataract surgery for human sufferers of cataract would be impossible without animal research.  This is incorrect.  The reader is asked to consider and assess the following medically proven facts:

The lead news in Wellington's Evening Post, March 3, and Dominion, March 5 1990, reported the many birth defects sweeping the north Wellington region.  During the first months of 1990 this news was broadcast constantly over local radio and television.  The abnormalities were spina bifida, cleft palate, club feet, Downs Syndrome and cataracts.  Photographs were published of babies born with cataracts (which causes opacity of the eye-lens leading to blurred vision and possible blindness).  Their parents, the Plunket nurses and the authorities were baffled and mystified, they all agreed it was uncanny.  National Health Statistics Centre's Dr Barry Borman investigating is reported to have said the abnormalities could be the result of environmental spraying.

On page 18 of The Poisoned Womb, John Elkington cites the evidence of Dr Peter Budetti, Director of the Health Policy Programme at the University of California, San Francisco, who stated:

"In the USA the number of babies born with physical or mental defects has doubled over the past twenty-five years."

Chapter 22 Living 25 Years Longer Than Our Great Grand Parents expounds substantially on the dire effects of chemicals on the human sperm, the fertility and health of embryos, foetuses and surviving children.

Elsewhere in this work is the evidence of Dr Herbert Stiller who says:

"Today, there is a genetic deficiency in every THIRD child."

Doctor Stiller reports on page 7 of his Animal Experimentation and Animal Experimenters, about the human eye as follows:

"It is certain that many medical substances suitable for use with human beings are not discovered at all if research is carried out through animal experiments.  Animal experimentation revealed in 1914 that amyl nitrate increases the inner pressure of the eye.  So for 50 years a valuable medicament in the treatment of certain eye diseases was ignored.  But in 1964 it was established that in human beings, in contrast to animals, the pressure of the eye is reduced by it..."

He then cites other examples of error and liability resulting from experiments on animals.  The reader is reminded of the example of asbestos in Chapter 1 Foreword of this book.

Dr Stiller, who is recognised as one of Europe's finest medical men, writes on page 31 of his previously mentioned book:

"In order to be critical of animal experimentation, one has no need of scientific expertise such as those concerned are so willing to demand."

The writer agrees, for the facts which legitimise criticism of animal experiments by lay-persons are freely available to all by way of the sixty-cent newspaper, for example:

A bold, lead article, on the front page of Great Britain's Western Daily Press, February 28 1992, reads:


The National Farmers Union is seeking urgent advice on whether farmers should take precautions against the risks from a hole developing in the ozone layer over Britain."

"There is fear", says European scientists, "that the ozone layer will break down completely over northern Europe in the next few weeks".  The article warns that if, or when, this happens, huge doses of ultra-violet radiation would reach the Earth's surface from the sun, heightening the chances of multitudes of people contracting skin cancer and cataracts.

It has also been widely publicised in the media that the chemical canthaxanthin, used in poultry-feed to enhance the colour of egg yolks "causes damage to the eyes" and livers of human beings.  Billions of egg-laying hens are dosed with canthaxanthin.  The British Government's Scientific Committee on Animal Nutrition reviewed the evidence but instead of withdrawing canthaxanthin from the birds' feed it asked for further evidence to be submitted to it in 1993.  The decision has been bitterly criticised by the Science Policy Research Unit at Sussex University which specialises in food additives.  Thus the experts which exposed the dangers involved in canthaxanthin additive now accuses the government as follows:

"The government is giving the benefit of the doubt to the industry rather than to the safety of the consumer."
(Advocates for Animals, Annual Pictorial Review, 1992, page 60.)

In New Zealand we have heard that before, when the New Zealand Government ignored in 1989 the warnings about chemical residues in food, resulting from the one-year investigation of environmental pollution conducted by Lincoln College and commissioned by the Ministry of the Environment.

On January 6 1992 the N.Z. Woman's Weekly cites the work of Dr George Duncan of the University of East Anglia who is using human eye tissue in cataract research.  He, and fellow researchers at Lister Hospital, claim that human tissue tests "give reassurance that experiments on animals do not".

Referring again to the dangers from pharmaceutical drugs tested on animals.  It is admitted in all the literature that Eraldin, in addition to killing people caused "severe eye damage".  And Ruesch, on page 74 of One Thousand Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection, who attended the European Parliament at Strasbourg in 1982 with his valid case to abolish vivisection (at which he was given three minutes to address the meeting), writes that: A.D. Dayan, who represented the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries at this event, and who works for the Wellcome Research Laboratories, revealed:

"Practocol was prescribed for over four years before doctors realised it caused corneal damage including blindness... A side-effect not predicted by animal experiments."

For the surgical aspect there is no better referee than Lawson Tait, acknowledged and acclaimed in medical circles as the most authoritative surgeon of our times.

"The wounds of an animal behave so differently from those of man that the conclusions drawn from them by the vivisectors are completely valueless and have caused more damage than benefit."
(Lawson Tait, quoted in Prof. Croce's Vivisection or Science - a choice to make.)

In presenting the following cast-iron evidence rejecting ARSL's claims that animal experimentation is a necessary adjunct to cataract treatment and surgery, it must be repeated that the comments from leaders in the field are all sourced and substantiated:


"I have the honour to enclose herewith a certificate against vivisection - it is cruel and useless."
(Dr Eugene Lob, Faculty of Paris, General Medicine and DISEASES OF THE EYES, Wasigny, France (Ardennes) in a letter to Hans Ruesch for publication in One Thousand Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection.)


"The use of Accutane, a Hoffman-La Roche product, has caused hundreds of defective births.  The packages containing this drug will henceforth have to display the picture of a malformed new-born."
(Swiss State T.V. News, May 30 1988.)
(Accutane had of course been considered safe following extensive animal "testing" - Author.)

 In conclusion the author summarises and asks the reader to consider the result of this investigation which reveals the following:

1.  Prescribed drugs - formulated on animals Creates serious damage to the eyes.  (Overwhelming evidence)
2.  Industrial chemicals - all tested on animals Destroy the liquid gases 20 miles above the Earth's surface which help break down the ultra violet rays of the sun.  Thereafter the sun's rays cause cataracts.
3.  Environmental spraying - all tested on animals (pesticides etc.) Creates genetic deficiency leading to damage to eyes including CATARACT.
4.  Food additives - tested on animals Creates serious damage to the eyes.
5.  Research into the treatment of eye disease - by animal experiments Has proven to be "Erroneous and a Liability".
(Dr Stiller & many others.)
6.  Surgery into eye problems and cataract - by animal experiments Have caused more damage than benefit.
(Lawson Tait & many others.)

 Without citing a shred of medical evidence ARSL makes claims which are patently false.  Given that the medical and scientific facts prove the publishers of ARSL are wrong in their statements, not once but time and again, the reader is left to deliberate the identity of those who insist upon making such statements and their motive for doing so.  One fact is crystal clear, should those authors be put under the microscope on the dissection table, without exception the common denominator would be exposed as the quivering nerve of fear for the shattering losses they can expect when vivisection is abolished.

The producers of ARSL would have its readers believe they are philanthropists.  In reality they power the machine, which headed on the road to destruction, is lined with both human and animal casualties derived from producing, and animal-testing, chemicals and pharmaceuticals.  Drastic measures must be taken for a different way in medicine, a different way in food production, and an immediate halt to the production of substances that harm the environment and the people.

Nothing but chaos is to be achieved from continuing and setting up further vivisection programmes, for no cutting up of animals can produce health and well-being.  Conversely in all the areas cited it is producing ill-health and endangering the future of the people and the planet.

Photo: Nelson Evening Mail

The above photo was taken in Nelson on WDLA 1989.  The author expresses gratitude to Doreen and Rick Hills for their outstanding contribution to the cause.



ARSL PAGES 1, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19

ARSL 2nd Edition Pages 1, 2, 13, 14, 15, 20

Animals used in research are not "protected".  The title is a contradiction in terms.  This lack of protection also extends to the human victims of vivisection as an ever-increasing number of doctors are warning that results extrapolated from animal trials to human beings seriously jeopardises human health.  ARSL asks "why do some people want to have animal research abolished?".  That this question can only be asked by the unscrupulous is as self-evident as the answer:  Vivisection tragically damages mankind by its physical fraud on the one hand as it irrevocably damages its moral and spiritual fibre on the other.  The author asks a far more important question:  Why do some people NOT want to have animal research abolished?  This answer is found by taking a glance at the line of business pursued by those who took a hand in the ARSL publication.

But first it is important to emphasise that those who struggle relentlessly to clean up the suppurating scab of vivisection, which contaminates everything it touches, have nothing to gain from their input of time, money and energy.  On the contrary opposers of vivisection, spanning decades of effort and sacrifice inevitably pay the price both physically and financially.  These pioneers are not to be compared with the publishers of ARSL who defend vivisection with a fervour and ferocity which must be regarded with suspicion.  Currently, on massive scale around the world pro-vivisectionists, fearful of the up-and-coming challenge taking place against them, are speaking out from their profitable positions to white-wash and defend their sordid occupation.

It is obvious that institutions like MAF, government and private-sponsored vivisectors and their satellites, and veterinarians, who have not yet embraced the abolitionist principle, oppose abolition because vivisection is their life support system.  They are the principal beneficiaries of a self-serving, self-perpetuating fraud, a conspiracy spewing rivers of gold which would be dammed at the source should funds diverted from phoney but lucrative experiments on animals, to the study of man, his circumstance, the improvement of his social conditions, prevention of disease and the reinstatement of his environment from its polluted state.  To this end they are aided by animal welfare groups, notably the RNZSPCA, which, placing their representatives on the animal ethics committees, sanitises and elevates vivisection, the future of which hinges on public acceptance that it is both respectable and necessary.  ARSL poured money and resources, much of which belonged to the taxpayer, into propping up, with false and deceitful illusion, that which is in reality a gruesome and cruel swindle.  That it went to such lengths to do so suggests that despite media censorship rife against the new abolitionist movement the truth about the fraud of vivisection is seeping through to the public.

It is incomprehensible that ARSL portrays MAF, which is responsible for the suffering and slaughter of hundreds of millions of animals, as "protectors" of animals!  One example which springs to mind happened when the N.Z. MAF in recent times brought shame and discredit on this country from people of all races and persuasions when in face of strong opposition from the public and from the farmers, on September 25 1985, it lifted New Zealand's nine-year ban on live sheep exports.  In the presence of NZAVS protesters the first shipment left Timaru on the Merino Express bound for Mexico on December 23 1985 with a cargo of 17,461 ewes of which 600 were to die en route, 152 on the dockside on arrival and 100 the following day.  The RNZSPCA, whilst opposing the trade had nonetheless declared the ship's condition satisfactory prior to sailing, and the Veterinary Association had given their seal of approval to the enterprise.  Since that illfated initial shipment the British organisation Compassion in World Farming, through its journal Agscene on a regular basis exposes to concerned people worldwide the crimes perpetrated by the N.Z. MAF in collaboration with the pro-vivisection alliance listed in ARSL, which in order to fulfil the quotas on each shipment must take into account at time of loading the increasing anticipated death rate.


The New Zealand populace would indeed need to beseech God in his heaven for intervention were those listed in ARSL as being "monitors of the welfare of animals", their only "protectors".  Scrutiny of their composition, and of the composition of the animal ethics committees they espouse is spine-chilling.  Members of these phoney committees have the right background, are profiteers from vivisection, some are established vivisectors.  Their single claim to respectability, and the pillar upon which their credibility is propped, comes from the presence on the committees of nominees from "animal welfare groups like the RNZSPCA", which history has revealed, runs with the hare, hunts with the hounds, has a foot in both camps and can always, without exception be relied upon to uphold vivisection in New Zealand.

In 1983, the most critical time in history for those working to bring abolition in New Zealand, animal ethics committees were being set up to contain and stem the rising tide of public concern about the free rein bestowed on vivisectors who could manipulate animals at their pleasure provided they did it "in the spirit of the [Animal Protection] Act".  Until the late 1970s vivisection in New Zealand had not been seriously challenged and the RNZSPCA, though operating for fifty years, had posed no threat.  The sparks however that began to fly through the campaigns of the new abolitionists ignited and threatened to become a blaze.  The revered RNZSPCA, financed and operating through the generosity of its well-meaning and unsuspecting subscribers, in failing to expose the ethics committee system as a phoney self-administering device designed to mollify and reassure the public whilst legalising and establishing vivisection, thus ensured ongoing funds for vivisecting animals free from interference - and insodoing betrayed its supporters.

In its Submission to Parliament on the Animal Protection Amendment Bill which dealt with the establishing of ethics committees, it was noticeable that the RNZSPCA made no reference to the growing number of eminent scientists and medical professionals who were criticising the validity of vivisection on the medical and scientific premise.  If this Society of animal lovers could be forgiven by the magnanimous for neglecting to oppose vivisection on scientific grounds they could NOT forgive it for omitting to condemn it on the ethical.  It did not, as can be seen from the following extract from its Submission:

"There are fanatics who oppose vivisection purely on emotional grounds... these fringe elements are fortunately few."

Thus this prestigious and powerful Society ridiculed and patronised the fringe element who campaign at such cost for the cessation of animal and human suffering, as the prestigious and powerful before them in history had ridiculed and patronised the fringe element who claimed in defiance of established opinion - that the world is round and not flat.

Once again the RNZSPCA came to the assistance of the vivisectors when it failed to address or acknowledge the growing medical opposition to vivisection in its Submission against NZAVS Petition 1989.  Examination of the following extracts from that Submission clearly reveals that the aforesaid Society is merely an extension of the government - and an integral part of the conspiracy of vivisection:

"Submission (of the RNZSPCA representing 53 local societies)1 to the Primary Production Select Committee on the Petition of Bette Overall and others that all forms of vivisection must be abolished."

If the slipshod and careless incorrect spelling of the Principal Petitioner's name in the introduction to its Submission could be excused as an accidental oversight the author believes that the glaring omission of any reference to the scientific factor in the body of the Submission is neither accidental nor careless, but carefully contrived.  The RNZSPCA's evasion of the important scientific criticism of vivisection indicates that its deliberations are drawn solely from ethical considerations.  That a growing number of people have long believed that the ethics of vivisection requires neither consideration nor debate but are self-evident has apparently not occurred to this "animal protection society", or do the ethical considerations of the RNZSPCA, like those of the British RSPCA, as revealed to the British public in May 1985 take second place to considerations of expediency?

It is difficult to believe that the RNZSPCA, which is respected even worshipped by the public and the media, does not have evidence of the scientific and medical uprising against vivisection.  Carefully omitting to mention them the Society outlines in the Submission the policy of the global pro-vivisection alliance, (which includes the British RSPCA) namely the 3-Rs principle:

  1. Refinement of scientific techniques
  2. Reduction in the numbers of animals used
  3. Replacement of animal procedures with non-animal procedures

It then concludes its Submission with the following words:

"The RNZSPCA does not seek any change to the basic law on the control of animals in research and teaching.  Any minor adjustments required will undoubtedly arise from the current review of Animal Protection Law which will probably come before Parliament in 1992."

Thus trotting true to form the RNZSPCA springs smartly to a canter to defend the institution of vivisection and goes into a gallop to protect the law which legalises unethical and immoral procedures.  That it expresses neither doubt nor criticism of the law could be seen as puzzling coming from the country's leading "animal protection society".  Yet another teaser crops up as the RNZSPCA tumbled over itself to please the pro-vivisection syndicate in 1990 by prostituting its name for the purpose of sanitising the booklet Animal Research Saves Lives, without which dubious endorsement the booklet visibly lacks logic and credibility.  Fortunately, given time, life's most irritating puzzles have a habit of unravelling and the puzzle of the love-affair between the RNZSPCA and its battery of unsavoury and distasteful bedfellows becomes less of a mystery as one reads on.

The RNZSPCA, along with its relative the RSPCA in Great Britain, is perfectly aware that the biomedical empire can live quite comfortably with the 3-Rs principle which does not examine or challenge the flawed method of vivisection.  The 3-Rs principle poses no threat whatsoever to the vivisection community because it keeps the public in the dark about the fraud of which they are victim, whilst encouraging it to believe that animal research saves lives.  The following may help us understand why the RNZSPCA's kin in the United Kingdom is enthusiastic to perpetuate the myth.

In 1985 Lazard Securities Ltd exposed the British RSPCA for collaborating with the vivisection syndicate, thus maintaining double standards.  To the Society's extreme embarrassment and detriment, and to the announcement from the combined animal societies that it was "absolutely outrageous" it was exposed that the RSPCA has massive investments in companies which undertake vivisection programmes using hundreds of thousands of animals.  Two of these companies the RSPCA itself had criticised in a report to the Home Office for conducting experiments which run counter to all the Society stands for!  In possession of over eight million pounds sterling collected in public donations and legacies the RSPCA has secretly invested the following amounts in vivisection laboratories:

GLAXO Electrical stimulation of the tooth pulp of beagle dogs via implanted electrodes;

Injection of toxic chemicals into stomach membranes of mice;

Injection of inflammatory yeast solution into rats' hind paws which were then "subjected to pressure";

Other experiments on cattle, sheep, chickens, cats, dogs, rodents, rabbits and a growing stock of monkeys.
ICI Administration of Paraquat weed-killer to monkeys.  All of which "died in extreme agony";

Secret testing of dye-stuffs, paints, industrial and agricultural chemicals on as many as one hundred thousand animals per year;

Testing of dyes and antioxidants on beagle dogs.  Study lasted 128 months.
BEECHAMS (Drugs & consumer products) Tests tranquillisers on monkeys and dogs and slimming pills on mice. 65,205
BRITISH PETROLEUM Uses animals to test cutting oils, lubricants and brake fluids.  Poured into animals' eyes.  Animals made to inhale them. 134,307
FISONS Evaluation of drugs and garden chemicals.  Use thousands of rabbits, beagle dogs and monkeys (at their Loughborough, Leicestershire labs). 71,500
UNILEVER An extensive range of tests on full menagerie of animals. 7,290
(Your friendly family chemist)
Same as above (Unilever). 236,000

(Note: ICI (Crop Care Rural Division) is a member of the Agricultural Chemical and Animals Remedies Manufacturers Association of N.Z. (AGCARM)... CO-PUBLISHERS OF ANIMAL RESEARCH SAVES LIVES).

The British RSPCA was also exposed as having, as at September 1983, thirtyfour thousand pounds sterling invested in South African gold mines, and large holdings in a controversial British-based mining giant Rio Tinto Inc.

Though the above may shock the novice it reveals only the tip of the iceberg.  Time Out, May 23 1985, exposed that the collaboration between the RSPCA animal-lovers and the biomedical community was epitomised at a House of Commons cocktail party organised by the Society to which were invited the bastions of the commercial animal trade (those who supply animals to laboratories).  This included the man who had designed the infamous monkey cage which figured prominently in a successful and historic cruelty case against the prestigious Royal College of Surgeons.  (Comprehensive report of which is seen in NZAVS Mobilise! No. 11, March 1985.)  It also revealed with outspoken criticism that the RSPCA Animal Experimentation Advisory Committee was composed of:

It was around this time that the New Zealand Animal Ethics Advisory Committee was established.  (The composition of which was published in Mobilise! No. 15, July 1986.)  For the benefit of the reader who believes that the British situation should not be dredged up because of geographics, the glaring similarities of the unlikely candidates chosen to advise on animal ethics in New Zealand is predictably repeated:

The RNZSPCA, soliciting support for the vivisectors, with whom this article has revealed it is so blatantly aligned, wrote to NZAVS on August 10 1987 inviting the N.Z. Anti-Vivisection Society to nominate applicants to be appointed to the newly-formed Animal Ethics Committees which were set up to decide which experiments are ethical and which are unethical.  On August 23 1987 the Society declined this dubious honour.  In a letter from John Blincoe, M.P. for Nelson, which resulted from a Parliamentary Question in the House we learn that the $8,130.35 of the taxpayers' money poured into the booklet ARSL by MAF was done so "on the recommendation of the National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee"... on which the RNZSPCA had two representatives!  Demonstrating yet again that instead of dis-associating itself from the vivisectors the respected RNZSPCA working hand in glove with them set its stamp of approval on the publication and distribution of ARSL.

Back to Great Britain and Judith Hampson, "Chief Animal Experimentation Research Officer" for seven years with the RSPCA, and now one of the Society's consultants, was a key figure in defending vivisection in Great Britain by helping draft the infamous Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, which received the Royal Assent on May 20 1986 and came into force on January 1 1987.  The Act controls all experiments carried out on animals in Great Britain which now permits by law, animals to be subjected to micro (experimental) surgery, the LD50 Test, repeated experiments on individual animals... and anesthetics to be used "whenever practicable"!  Consequently, this supporter and promoter of vivisection was in 1984 invited to Australia, her fare paid by the Australia and New Zealand Federation of Animal Societies to write the Submission to the Australian Senate Inquiry into Animal Experimentation.  This policy is now being used by the New Zealand Government to combat advocates of abolition.

The collective writers of ARSL are of course perfectly aware that the intensifying opposition to vivisection originates with medical doctors and is brought to the streets by the "fringe element" in the new abolitionist movement with whom these doctors work in tandem.  They are also aware that the abolition of vivisection is about human rights as much as animal rights.  But they focus on the "animals or humans" principle in order to get public support.  Abolitionist doctors claim that the greatest weapon used by the pro-vivisection community, which includes the formidable and experienced meat producers (MAF), in collaboration with their political, scientific and industrial allies is the concept of animal rights.  Championed by the infiltrated animal welfare groups this opposition holds no threat whatsoever to the vivisection industry for it is a platform which will never bring abolition.  The louder the battlecry of animal rights the softer the cry against the medical fraud - and the more complacent and confident the vivisectors, who sympathise, even agree with the concept knowing that under this agenda, the BABY WILL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER THE DOG!

The ARSL syndicate use the deliberate and calculated smokescreen of animal rights in the knowledge that the new abolitionist movement opposes vivisection because of the devastation it brings to human health, and that it opposes vivisection-based farming because it is responsible for sixty million people starving to death every year.  Using the deliberate ploy of "animal rights" they steadfastly refuse to debate the issue from the legitimate platform of scientific fraud.  For they know it is a debate they can never win.

Guinea pig a 'fossil'
  Guinea pigs, unfortunate furry animals synonymous with experimentation, suffer from a bad case of mistaken identity and are not suitable for medical research, according to an Israeli zoologist.  "The guinea pig is a living fossil, a survivor of a world that existed 100 million years ago," says Tel Aviv University's Dr Dan Gruar.  That makes them virtually irrelevant to medical research on human disease, Dr Gruar argues in the latest edition of the university magazine Ha'universita.
(Northern Advocate, November 1992.)
"Let us be under no illusions - the reputation of the guinea-pig is without foundation."
(Medical Press, 19 January 1955, page 45.)


1. These could be called the 53 "phantom" animal protection societies as exhaustive attempts to obtain their names from the RNZSPCA have been refused!


Photos and Videos 

 The above photo (produced by secret video tape) shows a baboon endeavouring to lift its head, showing it was inadequately anaesthetised.  Thousands of these animals were so brain-damaged they could no longer stand, sit or function.  The video tapes show them being laughed at and ridiculed by the experimenters at the infamous Gennarelli laboratory of the Pennsylvania's Head Injury Research Centre.

Currently the University of Glasgow's Department of Neuropathology in collaboration with the Gennarelli lab on 1 April 1991 commenced a five-year research programme involving four projects.  Glasgow is involved in three of them which involve:

Most of these animals will suffer massive head injuries.

(In a 1974 review of head injury research Gennarelli himself stated that animal experiments may have led researchers to an erroneous view of the cause of trauma-induced unconsciousness including concussion and coma.)

In September 1992 the Scottish Advocates for Animals launched a campaign against this "research", bringing pressure to bear on the authorities of the University of Glasgow, the Home Secretary and Members of Parliament.



ARSL PAGES 6, 14, 15

ARSL 2nd Edition Pages 6, 16, 17

The publishers of Animal Research Saves Lives criticise the videos being secretly filmed to expose today's "medical research" which is the premeditated, calculated mass slaughter of animals of magnitude difficult to comprehend by sane human beings.  Claiming that the films are meant to shock and outrage, perhaps they are fearful that the public, to whom vivisection (until the advent of undercover videos) has been a carefully hidden secret, will become sufficiently shocked and outraged to tear down today's vivisection laboratories as in a former era they tore down the horror camps of Nazi Germany.

The anger generated by viewing, by way of undercover video tapes, the chilling and gruesome revelations of the vivisection laboratories and the depths to which human beings working in them sink on a daily basis, will shock and outrage, not only because of the atrocities exposed, but because the publishers of propaganda like ARSL attempt to make the public believe it is for the good of their health.

It is to the video entitled No Unnecessary Fuss, filmed undercover at the University of Pennsylvania on June 3 1983 that we go to witness vivisection as it is applied for research into head injuries.

The University of Pennsylvania received one million dollars of the taxpayers' money every year for thirteen consecutive years to research human head injuries arising from vehicle and sports accidents.  To this end, instead of studying the many readily available human hospital patients, they took baboons (who do not drive vehicles, play sport, or have the same physiological mechanisms as humans) and simulated accidents thus:

In the presence of other baboons and to the accompaniment of loud rock music, joking and smoking, the vivisectors strap together the hindlegs and tail, then the forelegs are similarly bound.  Next a helmet harness is cemented to the shaved skull.  In this position, tearing at the bindings, eyes wide open, attempting to lift their heads from the platform, the animals wait until they are placed in a device which slashes the head over a 60 degree angle with forces up to what the vivisectors describe as "one thousand Gs".  (A fifteen force "G" they say can kill a human being.)  After the blow the vivisectors strike the helmet repeatedly with a hammer, using their full force in attempts to dislodge it from the injured head.  Thus the once healthy animals, helpless, salivaring, bewildered, reduced to brain-damaged wrecks are deemed prepared for a series of unscientific, brutal, unhygienic and crude experiments.

When this video was released to the public Dr Gennarelli head of the programme insisted that the experiments were legitimate, that there should be "no unnecessary fuss".  Nevertheless shock, outrage and the knowledge that these atrocities could not be relevant to human injury won the day, the experiments were stopped and the laboratory closed.

The sequel to No Unnecessary Fuss came on release of Hans Ruesch's book One Thousand Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection, for on page 55 of this indictment against vivisection there is a statement from Dr Paul Carrao, former head injury researcher in the Gennarelli lab, one of the vivisectors inflicting the head injuries witnessed on the video.  To wit:

"I just know what the literature shows, and I know what our results were, and I challenge anybody to show that any of that has advanced the cause of the treatment of human head injury one iota.  The knowledge that now exists and upon which the treatment of human head injuries is predicated is that which has been derived from head injuries in the past, whether in the civilian sector or in the military.  In many ways the results which were obtained with animals have been misleading, because in the case of quadrupeds the physiological mechanisms are different, so the kinds of data obtained from the different systems - circulatory, the blood pressure and so forth, respiratory, the cardiac - are different from those obtained from human head injuries."

The Gennarelli experiments are not a rarity, rather they are the rule.  In Animals, Men and Morals, Prof. Richard Ryder describes in sickening detail similar head injury experiments, the difference being that the monkeys were struck not one blow but multiple blows.  Many died.  Of the few that survived researchers concluded that their behaviour was "distinctly abnormal"!  As Hans Ruesch points out in Slaughter of the Innocent page 301:

"It gets wearisome to read vivisectors' conclusions over the past 150 years, all stating the same thing: That results obtained on animals cannot be extrapolated to man.  But it certainly isn't half as wearisome on the readers as on the animals involved."

"The spiritual malady that rages in the soul of the vivisector is in itself sufficient to render him incapable of acquiring the highest and best knowledge.  He finds it easier to propagate and multiply disease than to discover the secret of health.  Seeking for the germs of life, he invents only new methods of death."
(Dr Anna Kingsford, Britain's first woman doctor.)

On page 15 of ARSL its publishers condone, even promote, the merits of blow-torching fully-conscious pigs until the flesh falls off their bones; claim the authenticity of restraining animals in clamps, the better for them to be blinded with shampoos, and praise the efficiency of the stereotaxic device which holds animals rigid making it easy for the vivisectors to cut, probe, burn and destroy their victims.  ARSL attempts to smooth things over by lulling its readers into believing that

  1. these procedures are scientifically legitimate and
  2. they are no longer carried out.


ARSL is wrong on both counts, and the reader is reminded of the words of George Bernard Shaw who wrote:

"Those who wouldn't hesitate to vivisect certainly would not hesitate to lie about it."

The illegitimacy of vivisection has been substantially outlined throughout this work and in this paper the reader has learned that a contrite Dr Paul Carrao, who personally inflicted head injuries on baboons in car-crash experiments subsequently admitted that what he did was worthless (except to his pay-packet).  However in the vivisection industry the rewards far exceed the discouragements and the mere fact that their animal torture is invalid is no deterrent to the enthusiasm of those who carry it out.  Though the Gennarelli Laboratory was closed on the grounds that the injuries they inflicted on baboons were "different from those obtained from human head injuries" similar experiments are still being carried out today...

It has recently been revealed that at its plant at Warren, Michigan, U.S.A. General Motors is smashing the skulls and necks of pigs with pneumatic impactors like the ones used on baboons in the Gennarelli Laboratory.  PeTA News, Fall 1991, runs an article in which they report:

"In a typical current General Motors impact test on pigs, these intelligent, sensitive animals are restrained and hung in a cloth sling to await a crushing blow to the stomach or chest from a pneumatically-driven metal device."

"In the last decade General Motors has inflicted head, chest and abdominal injuries on hundreds of monkeys, dogs, rabbits, pigs and ferrets.  In 1988 General Motors fed 23 dogs with ethyl alcohol, the animals then had their chests and pericardiums cut open, and were hit directly on the exposed heart with an air-pressurised impactor."

These are the actions that ARSL spent the taxpayers' money endorsing as justifiable and beneficial.


(The above information from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's "Highest Death Rates" list, IIHS Status Report, Vol. 26, No. 4, April 13 1991.)



William R. Wittert, M.D., Pediatrics:

Richard Sax, M.D., Neurology

Roy Selby, M.D., Neurology

Joan Poster, D.V.M.

Thomas Gennarelli of the baboon-bashing laboratory at the University of Pennsylvania, in a paper "Controlled Cortical Impact: A New Experimental Brain Injury Model."

"This type of damage is not the same as that seen in man."

On January 12 1992 hundreds of anti-vivisectionists at the General Motors plant in Michigan, U.S.A. hit world news by chaining themselves to the cars on the assembly line in protest at car-crash experiments being carried out by this company.

[NZAVS Note, Year 2000: General Motors in 1993, following pressure from anti-vivisectionists, made the announcement that they "no longer have an animal trauma research activity".]

(As stated the author has received reports of a five-year programme being carried out at the University of Glasgow in collaboration with the Pennsylvania Head Injury Lab.  The infamous Penn II head injury apparatus will be used to inflict massive head injuries on "micro-pigs".  The Scottish society Advocates for Animals has lodged a Petition to the University against these senseless experiments.)


At time of writing this article the results of AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION of toxicity testing carried out on beagle puppies by major drug company SmithKline Beecham is exposed.  Posing as an animal technician the investigator wrote:

"One beautiful, young male dog was rendered unconscious by injection of phenol barbiturate until he was only just alive with a very slow heartbeat.  A rod was screwed into his sternum to obtain a bone marrow sample and then he was taken to the post mortem room.  Still alive he was placed over the sink.  A man then sliced into his neck and severed both the main arteries so that blood gushed away, draining the dog of his life.  Unbelievably, the atmosphere in the room was light-hearted and jovial as the team went about their work, cracking jokes as they hacked the dog apart.  Only a few minutes earlier this dog had been alive, looking around, and sniffing the air... now he was simply a lump of flesh.  All his vital organs were removed for analysis, including his eyes.  Each foot was sawn off with a hacksaw, as the anti-viral compound being tested was suspected of causing damage to the dog's pads."

"We have asked SmithKline Beecham to set the remaining 24 beagle puppies free.  We can find them good homes.  We have had no reply from SmithKline Beecham... but we do know that after their time in the laboratories at Stock they were due to be moved to another SKB laboratory for further experiments."

The same investigator then moved to the laboratory of a different company where she is currently involved in filming and photographing rats, mice, guinea-pigs and rabbits being used in similar experiments.  When leaving SKB for the last time she wrote:

"I am devastated as I write these notes this evening, for today was my last goodbye to the dogs.  I shouldn't think I'll ever see them again... I feel so full of guilt and remorse... I can walk away from that hell-hole whilst they are still there, hurting and defenceless, and no-one to see them as more than just another piece of equipment..."

(A more comprehensive reference to Louise Wallis' under-cover investigation of SmithKline vivisection laboratories is made in Chapter 15 Arthritis and Hip Replacements.)

Undercover video tapes of vivisectors at work have obviously hit a nerve.  As the truth of the medical fraud of vivisection and the hideous atrocities taking place behind the scenes are being exposed, the vivisectors' advertising and publicity is reaching hitherto unknown proportions.



ARSL 2nd Edition Pages 16, 17


ARSL's bland assurance that the animals immobilised in stereotaxic devices, or head clamps, are "kept unconscious with an anaesthetic during such operations" is merely an attempt to keep the public unconscious and anaesthetised to the legal torture taking place and the massive profits being made from the manufacture of torture instruments, the vast array and range of choice of which is of great magnitude.  (Refer Chapter 1 The Vivisection Industry.)  But the cat, so to speak, is out of the bag and the public slowly awakening to the fraud.  With the aid of such instruments of torture it is not only possible for the vivisectors to see the exposed brains of their victims but to see the degradation to which they themselves are prepared to stoop.

In his booklet CIVIS Bullet-In, Nr. 2, The Infiltration in Animal Welfare, Hans Ruesch reprints as an introduction, his own article translated from Germany's highest-circulation weekly Stern, Christmas 1983.  Entitled "Goodbye Stupid Little Kitten!".  It is about a kitten in a stereotaxic device obviously designed by an unbalanced mind.  Eyes wide open, the kitten's unsheathed claws desperately grip the board showing that it is fully conscious.  This is not an isolated case, but one of thousands.  In honour of Hans Ruesch, leader of the modern abolitionist movement, that article is repeated here in full:



No, you stupid little kitten, nobody's let you out, although your picture and cry for help were on display on all the news-stands of Europe, where millions of people saw them, and probably thousands couldn't sleep the following night.  But this is all they did - and we, too.  For a mad moment we hoped that some of those boys who liberate laboratory animals would rush to your rescue, but of course the odds were heavily against it, because the police protect the laboratory torturers and not their victims, heroes are few and far between, and the animals slated to die in the pseudo-scientific laboratories to provide alibis for the drug pushers are millions.

Soon you'll be immobilized in a stereotaxic device, so tightly that you can't move your head even by a hairbreath, maybe two steel rods will be inserted into the enucleated orbits of your eyes, and two clamps will press your ears so hard that your eardrums might burst - but don't worry if that happens, because its not going to influence the result of the experiment one bit, according to the catalogues of the manufacturers, Lab-Tronics and H. Neumann and Co., near Chicago, who ship such torture instruments to laboratories the world over.  What counts is to keep you absolutely still, while the real action gets underway.

White-robed devils, disguised as 'scientists', will drill holes into your little head, and stick cannulas, sensors and electrodes into your little brain, to repeat on your nervous system pointless experiments that are being done time and time again since the last century; experiments that have never brought forth any benefit whatsoever, neither to mankind nor to catdom, but only to the experimenters themselves, procuring them personal satisfaction, sometimes fame and honours, and maybe even a Nobel Prize as in the case of Prof. Walter Hess of Zurich University - before it was discovered that all his conclusions were erroneous and must have caused untold harm to an undisclosed number of patients.  Anyway, his and his colleagues' pseudo-scientific works still stand, largely unread, in some medical libraries, and stupid cats like yourself helped them get there.



For you see, you were only created to 'serve' mankind.  Don't you know that?  Even the Pope explicitly said so, probably on his assumption that you don't have a soul (which he can't prove, however), whereas your torturers have one (which he can't prove either), since they're 'made in the image of God'.  Some image!

And of course the chemistry boys keep repeating it too, the manufacturers of products that are poisoning the earth and killing people by the millions, the governments and politicians on their payroll, the faculty professors and presidents of universities, the mediamakers who earn a lush living not from reflecting public opinion but shaping it, and even heads of the big animal welfare societies like the RSPCA and WSPA and Eurogroup and HSUS et al who instead of widely advertising the evident, huge damage that accrues daily to mankind through its erroneous method of medical research, deliberately hide this fact in smokescreens of inane, philosophical babble - as the research community wants them to do, under the pretext that humanity has to be 'saved', and that only the sacrifice of you and your kind can do that.

Of course, stupid little kitten, by the time you are clamped down in one of the stereotaxic contraptions, you've probably come to the conclusion that humanity can't be all that it's cracked up to be, and darn right you are.  In fact, man is the only animal capable of killing his own offspring because it disturbs him in his sleep.  He is also the only male that beats the female, although some wags will argue that woman is the only female that deserves to be beaten.  And man is the only animal that murders all known species including his own, far beyond the necessity of survival, relentlessly fouls, erodes and scars his habitat to the point of inability, and yet considers himself - just because he can spread more death and mayhem than all the others combined - the most intelligent of all species, and the only one that deserves to survive.

What do you expect from such a species, stupid little kitten?  But maybe you just want to know why it's always your kind that is being used for the most painful, long-lasting experiments that exist.  That's because it's your misfortune that you were born with an extremely sensitive nervous system, far more sensitive than that of your tormentors, but at the same time you are more resistant than most other animals are.  That's why.

But don't cry out when it hurts, stupid.  If you do, 'they' will cut your vocal cords, because 'they' are tender-hearted and can't stand animals' cries.  In fact, many are not only great philanthropists, but also real animal lovers, who say that they suffer more than you do from the pains they have to inflict on you out of sheer philanthropy.

And now good-bye, stupid little kitten.  May you be dead before the Christmas festivities begin, because in those days you risk to remain for days even without water, immobilised in your device.  But don't count on it, because vivisectors like Prof. Konrad Akert, top dog at Zurich University, and Prof. W.D.M. Paton of Oxford - Sir William, knighted by her Gracious Majesty the Queen for his relentless work on cats' brains - and their colleagues have performed these experiments so incredibly often, with idiotic repetitiveness, that they have become quite proficient at prolonging the agony, even if not one of them has ever been able to name us a single patient they have cured of anything; whereas we can name any number of people who have been ruined for life, and even to death, by their obtuse, counterproductive method of pseudo-research.

But maybe you can get some kind of cold comfort from the following thought, poor little cat.  Just think: from a stupid little head like yours, big men like Sir William Paton - a Professor at Oxford University, knighted by the Queen! - actually hope to find out some day what to do about their own defective brains and the big black hole in them, which worry them so much that brain experiments have become a lifelong obsession with them.

Now we must really leave you, poor little kitten.  May you pass on quickly.  It's really the only thing we can wish to you.  Maybe we'll meet some day, in some other world, which can only be a better one."

Secretly photographed evidence of the stark reality of fully-conscious animals being done to death in stereo-taxic devices, the ingenuity of which defies description, is available in Hans Ruesch, Vivisection is Scientific Fraud.

Refer also to Chapter 10, Differences Between Cats, Dogs and Humans.

Select this link to find details of how to obtain CIVIS Bullet-In Nr. 2.




ARSL 2nd Edition Pages 16, 17

ARSL's claim that human lives continue to be saved because of pig-burnings demonstrates sick and stunted mentality, lack of logic, and total disregard, perhaps even a perverted enjoyment in witnessing suffering at its most extreme.  "Why think when one can experiment?" said the Greek vivisector, Galen.  Burning pigs requires nothing more than a blow-torch, sub-normality and the constitution of an inquisitor.  On the other hand the prerequisites for implementing new and valid systems are medical and scientific capability, sensitivity, a bent toward the ethical and the will and ability to change.  The potential of the human placenta, especially in the area of burn research is impressive and astounding.  Its application would be the death-knell of the vivisector whose skill and aptitude is limited to cutting up rats and rabbits... and burning pigs!

ARSL defends the burning of fully-conscious pigs with blow-torches on the premise that the world was at war with "many pilots and aircrews dying from burns".  The writer is acutely aware that the same war provided human burn casualties of such proportion to provide an abundance of requisite material, entirely suitable, to gain practical knowledge of how to treat burns, how to carry out necessary skin-grafts, and how to learn first-hand by accurate clinical observation and experience at the bedsides of thousands of human burn patients.

Medical literature abounds in the conclusions of such research:

"Preliminary work soon demonstrated that a burn on the skin of an experimental animal produced results differing from those commonly encountered in man."
(American Journal of Physiology, Vol. 95, 1930, page 302.)

Foremost in the field of burn research have been the contributions made by the workers at the Medical Research Council's Burns Unit, Birmingham Accident Hospital, under the direction of Professor Colebrook, who reached the conclusion that:

"Negative results in animals do not rule out the possibility that antihistamine drugs may influence the course of human burns.  We decided, therefore, to experiment on a group of human volunteers."
(British Medical Journal, July 7 1952, page 57.)

It is the clinical research of such burn units and their workers which led to the development of modern burn therapeutics.  Refer to Lancet, July 28 1951, pages 137-147.

Many nurses are now actively opposing vivisection to the degree that in Great Britain they have formed their own organisation, Nurses Against Vivisection.  In an article written on their behalf in Animal Aid's Outrage, Geraldine Dyson states:

"My message to you is - animal experiments can seriously damage your health."

Of using animals in burn experiments these nurses have this to say:

"In 1984, in the United Kingdom alone, over 1000 animals were burnt according to government figures.  They were burning animals 150 years ago - it is a scandal it is still allowed to go on.

But where are the scientists when burned patients are admitted to hospital?  I was a nursing sister in casualty for many years, and I have never seen any interest shown in observing our burnt patients.

Because animals are readily available and so commonly used, scientists prefer to inflict these injuries on animals and study them instead.  Government figures say that over 5000 animals in 1984 suffered other forms of physical trauma (and by trauma I mean violence to the body and other mutilations) to simulate human injury.

But where are the scientists when we receive daily in our accident units, patients who have stab wounds, severe head injuries, people who have been run over, or who are haemorrhaging?  One has to ask why there is so little interest in human suffering, and why so much government funding goes into reproducing these horrendous accidents in animals unnecessarily:  It is expensive to the taxpayer, agony to the animals, and impedes the real progress by using animal data which is often dangerously misleading.

The answer is:

  1. "The System", and all the vested interests allied to it
  2. There is no central computer bank of information
  3. The use of animals is encouraged by the system because the more experiments one does the more papers the researcher can publish, leading to career advancement, financial rewards and personal recognition."

(Neither is there a requirement by law to use other methods. Author.)

Dyson then quotes Dr Raymond Green who wrote in the Lancet:

"We must face the fact that the most careful animal tests may tell us little about humans - animal experiments may even prevent the use of excellent substances."

The author is in possession of a plethora of damning evidence supplied by Nurses Against Vivisection.

On December 6 1983, at a meeting of the Lands and Agriculture committee in Wellington (to implement animal ethics committees) at which the author was present, the Chairman of the Committee prompted by an article about the human placenta in the author's submission to the Committee, questioned Dr Maclaurin and Professor Fielden of the Royal Society about its capabilities as a tool of research.  Being aware of the versatility of the placenta, especially in the area of burns research, and the acclaim it was receiving overseas by doctors endeavouring to overthrow the vivisection system, the author was astounded by the evasive negativity with which the question was received.  Professor Graham Liggins of the National Women's Hospital in Auckland later said:  "The placenta is not used here in the same way as in UK research... there, it is seen in terms of human tissue, but here we see it solely as a placenta."  In palming the pig-burning atrocities off as science ARSL's publishers demonstrate the vivisectors' fanatical determination to prevent progress and illuminates the bigotry and fraud upon which the health of New Zealanders is based, merely in order to maintain its associated lucrative remunerations.

This work is designed to rebut ARSL's claims and is not intended to be a comprehensive index of valid medical research systems.  For further information on the limitless horizons offered to human medicine should the benefits of the placenta be applied refer The LD50 Alibi and the New Zealand Parliamentarian, authored by Bette Overell.

"Laboratory tests on animals are not reliable predictors of effects in humans... human tissue suitable for experiments may be being destroyed in vast amounts, for one of the most promising experimental animals of the future could be the human placenta."
(Anthony Tucker of the Guardian.)

Refer also to Chapter 10 Differences Between Cats, Dogs and Humans.

NOTE: The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, PCRM Update, March-April 1991 reports equally obscene experiments are still being carried out by the U.S. armed services.  One of which involves burning aeroplanes with animals tied inside.  (Doubtless ARSL would laud the ensuing "benefits to the human race" from such lunacy.)

Rabbits blinded in phoney shampoo tests.



ARSL PAGES 14, 15, 16

ARSL 2nd Edition Pages 7, 8, 16, 17, 18, 19

That ARSL is aimed at the lowest intelligence is made clear in this section as its comments on cosmetic testing are so ill-constructed and erroneous as to be unworthy of serious consideration.  For example on page 15:

"Research is being funded in the USA to find a reliable alternative [to the Draize test] but until one is found, Draize testing will continue for human safety reasons... At present the only way to conduct those tests is by using animals."

Had the writers of ARSL read NZAVS Submission in Support of NZAVS Petition to Abolish Vivisection 1989, and the Submissions supporting its previous Petition in 1984, or had they attended the phoney 'Hearings', they could have been saved the trouble of writing comments which will be recognised as blatantly false by a great many enlightened people.

The Draize Test (the application to animals' eyes of the test substance, wherein the normally docile and silent rabbit screams in agony and is sometimes blinded), is usually carried out in contract laboratories which are far removed from the manufacturers of the product.  This vivisection by remote control is one of the world's biggest businesses and those employed in it receive regular and lucrative incomes.  Behind the scenes in these places millions of animals are on a daily basis suffering degradation and horrific death under the false guise of protection for human beings, when in reality the real motive is a relentless pursuit of profits in an industry so gigantic it controls governments.

ARSL's condoning, even promoting the Draize test reveals its authors' complicity in perpetuating the myth that such procedures are scientifically valid.  It also insults the mentality of a growing number of people who are aware that extrapolations between rabbits and human beings cannot be made as the one bears no resemblance to the other.  In addition, many people are aware that the current obsession to support the major cosmetic companies to search for 'alternatives' is trickery.  Valid methods of testing have ALWAYS existed and the discriminating purchaser has for decades had access to cosmetics which were never, either in their formulae or in the finished product, tested on animals.  Innoxa, Beauty Without Cruelty, Blackmores, Weleda spring to mind and others are being marketed at a fast rate as new companies realise the value of the "not tested on animals" label.

If the law-makers insist on "animal testing" as ARSL claims then every means possible should be employed to demolish that law, the express purpose of which is not to bring a safe product to the consumer but to enable producers to say in a court of law in case of adverse effects, that they have "fulfilled all the necessary tests".

"It must be emphasised that it is impossible to extrapolate quantitatively from one species to any other species."
(Report of the Medical Research Council, 1956-7, pages 45-46.)

On page 16 of ARSL is repeated:

"To protect consumers, all new cosmetic, toiletry and fragrance products must by law be tested for safety before sale... At present, the only way to conduct these tests is by using animals."

This is incorrect.1  Beauty Without Cruelty (U.S.A.) New York, report in The Compassionate Shopper, Fall 1991 that the 200 and more companies using plant-based products which have NEVER been tested on animals are thriving, whereas 65 large cosmetic or household product companies still test on animals.

ARSL claims that "customers will not be placed at risk" however because of fraudulent animal-testing that is precisely what is happening.  Customers are at risk.  In December 1990 the Wellington Evening Post in a bold-headlined article titled "Suspect Suncream Removed From Sale" gave a report that 12 suncreams and moisturisers, 11 of which are sold in New Zealand, have been withdrawn from sale in Australia after claims that their ingredients may promote cancer.  "Cancer Society medical director Peter Dady advised caution about the results of laboratory tests in which animals were subjected to doses of the product."  The Evening Post, 9 January 1991, reported the products had been recalled from the market in New Zealand.

"History has shown that in the long run all dictators fail; and also for the dictatorial empire of the pharmaceutical speculation, built on the sufferings of animals needlessly tortured in the laboratories and on the sufferings of human beings, victims of iatrogenic (medically-induced) diseases, the day of redde rationem (final reckoning) is bound to come."
(Giornale d'Italie, February 20 1983.)

For any who believe the lies of ARSL despite the massive evidence against the authenticity of animal tests a Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, founded in 1984 in Washington, D.C. issued in 1988 a Declaration of Concern and Support, which demanded an end to animal-testing of consumer products on the grounds that such tests are neither scientific nor humane.  It was signed by countless prominent members of the medical profession, including the following, along with some samples of their statements:

Neil D. Barnard, M.D. Psychiatrist
Carlo Buonomo, M.D. Anaesthesiologist
Michael Klaper, M.D. General Practitioner
Richard M. Carlton, M.D. Psychiatrist
Murray J. Cohen, M.D. Psychiatrist
Donald E. Doyle, M.D. Surgeon
Stephen R. Kaufman, M.D. Ophthalmologist
James F. Grillo, M.D. Surgeon
Dallas Pratt, M.D. Psychiatrist
Kenneth P. Stoller, M.D. Pediatrician
Ulrich Fritzsche, M.D. Obstetrician/Gynaecologist
Daniel H. Siver, M.D. Internal Medicine
Herbert N. Gundersheimer, M.D. Internal Medicine
J. Herbert Fill, M.D. General Practitioner
Larry F. Kron, M.D. Psychiatrist
Richard S. Blinstrub, M.D. Dermatologist
Russel J. Bunai, M.D. Pediatrician
Donald C. Doll, M.D. Oncologist
Walter Nowak, M.D. Hematologist
Herbert M. Simonson, M.D. Orthopaedic Surgeon
Steven Tiger Physician's Assistant Certified
Nedim Buyukmihci V.M.D.

This information is taken from: Hans Ruesch, One Thousand Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection.


1. In USA there is no law stating cosmetics and household products must be tested on animals.  The Food and Drug Administration Regulatory Authority merely stipulates that some kind of safety test is carried out.  Like the publishers of ARSL for reasons of complicity it lobbies for tests involving animals.

On June 10 1992 the European Parliament voted 244 to 2 to support revised amendments to the EC Cosmetics Directive which would result in a ban of all cosmetics tests on animals from 1998.  At the final decision in November these Ministers veered away from a vote to ban outright all animal testing and voted that cosmetics tests be banned from January 1 1998 ONLY if "alternative" testing methods have been developed.

This ban would have prohibited imports into the European Community of cosmetics from outside countries such as the USA if the products were tested on animals.  For this reason the US Cosmetic, Toiletries and Fragrance Association CFTA sent an emergency delegation to the EC to lobby for continued animal testing.  In addition, Japan will not in some cases accept cosmetics that have not been tested on animals.  At the final analysis only Germany and Denmark supported a ban.

It is important that readers understand that this issue is not about the safety of products but about the continuance of industries which can now hang the "BUSINESS AS USUAL" sign outside their doors.  Not only the lucrative contract "testing" labs but the many other powerful vested interests... see Chapter 1, the Vivisection Industry.  This is all the more reason why we must recognise and admire the agenda of the doctors against vivisection in Italy who have founded a Scientific Committee (with Prof. Croce as President) in OPPOSITION TO ABOLITION OF VIVISECTION BEING SUBORDINATE TO FINDING "ALTERNATIVES" TO ANIMALS.

Financial Times, November 4 1992; Reuters International Securities Report, November 1 1992; PeTA Cruelty Free Shopping Guide, 1992; The Campaigner, October/November 1992.

(Meanwhile the entire page 7 of UK's Sunday Express, December 13 1992, is devoted to a major article titled "AGONY OF CHILDREN IN SKIN CREAMS SCANDAL" which gives details of "tens of thousands of people, mainly children, throughout Britain who are suffering terrible side effects" of steroid-based skin creams for eczema.  There is no mention however that the products were all declared "safe" after testing on animals by manufacturer Glaxo.)


Evening Post

27 December 1990

Suspect suncream removed from sale

By Jay Louisson, Health Reporter

Withdrawal of the products in Australia was recommended last week by Consumer Affairs Minister Senator Tate, The Australian newspaper reported.  Spokesmen for the companies said the products had been "vol-...


Evening Post

9 January 1991

Sunblock makers recall products

Sunscreens and moisturisers linked with the development of skin cancer have been voluntarily recalled.

Health Department scientist Dr Trevor Nisbet said the New Zealand companies that market-...

Victims of Vivisection




ARSL 2nd Edition Pages 7, 15

An old Welsh proverb says "Truth is better than law".  The publishers of ARSL say - the law is better than the truth.

"It would be morally wrong to sell drugs, vaccines and other treatments for human or veterinary use without first testing them on laboratory animals.  This testing is requires by NZ law."

SECTION 1 - The conspiracy

The above comments are of great significance for they expose ARSL's derelict and empty case for continued vivisection, whilst inviting, even urging, the alert reader to actively oppose this erroneous law.  To wit:

  1. The Morals
    That the publishers of ARSL
    (who profit from vivisection by peddling the incalculable suffering of animals used as test subjects, and the equally incalculable anguish of human beings who are the victims of the horrific consequences) resort to basing their case for its continuance on moral grounds reveal that case to be without substance;
  2. The Law
    That the publishers of ARSL
    , who use the law which demands medicines be tested on animals as a shield and a bulwark against public criticism and dissent, being a powerful arm of the New Zealand pro-vivisection hierarchy, and therefore directly responsible for such law, vehemently guard and contest all legitimate attempts to change it.

The author can think of no-one more qualified to rebut ARSL's foolhardy attempt to shelter behind the law of its own making, than Hans Ruesch, and does so with his kind permission by copying pages 9 and 10 of his dramatic Naked Empress as follows:


"It is not only scandalous but also tragic that the Drug Trust is permitted to flood the market with its products on the grounds that they have been thoroughly tested for effectiveness and safety on animals, and that the Health Authorities, meaning the Government, abet this deception, which is nothing but confirmed fraud.  For both sides are well aware that animal tests are fallacious and merely serve as an alibi - an insurance against the day when it is no longer possible to conceal the disastrous side effects of a drug.  Then they can say that "all the required tests have been made" - that they have obeyed the Law.  But they don't say that they themselves have imposed those laws, because the Lawmaker has no choice in all medical questions but to submit to the dictates of the 'medical experts'.  And who are they?  Agents of the Chemo-Medical Syndicate, whose links to the Health Authorities are so close that they usually overlap.  So they, and no one else, impart binding orders to the mysterious and omnipotent individual, identified anonymously as 'The Lawmaker'.

It is this outrageous state of affairs that once caused Dr James D. Gallagher, Director of Medical Research of Lederle Laboratories, to declare:

'Another basic problem which we share as a result of the regulations and the things that prompted them is an unscientific preoccupation with animal studies.  Animal studies are done for legal reasons and not for scientific reasons.  The predictive value of such studies for man is meaningless - which means our research may be meaningless.'
(Journal of the American Medical Association, March 14 1964.)

In fact, the so-called 'medical experts' that have imposed animal tests as the touchstone of medical research are among the principal participants in the greatest fraud that has ever been perpetrated, mainly for profit motives, to the detriment of mankind in all history.  To bring exhaustive proof of this assertion, with which a growing number of medical people are in full agreement, is the purpose of this expose."

In every country of the world without a single exception those who decide on the necessity of vivisection, and which way it is to be applied are ultimately the vivisectors themselves, always with the willing aid of governments and, as we have seen in New Zealand, Chapter 19 the "Protection" of Animals Used in Research, with the stamp of approval of the principal animal protection agencies.  This has been aptly described as being as absurd as allowing a thief to decide when or whether a theft is necessary and how it is to be committed.

The protection and safeguards bestowed upon the vivisector by the lawmakers is described by Professor Croce on page 114 of Vivisection or Science - a choice to make:

"Incomparable examples of legal barbarism, put forward by people who are distinguished only by a surprising inability to perceive the mood of a public whose sense of civilised values continues to grow, slowly, but irresistibly, in spite of them and in opposition to them."

ARSL's absurd statement that it would be morally wrong to sell drugs, vaccines and other treatments for human or veterinary use without first testing them on laboratory animals is strikingly at odds with the advice reverberating around the world from doctors, scientists and veterinarians, who at their scientific congresses and in their writings, which are becoming increasingly intense are warning that animal tests are guaranteed to give confusing and conflicting results which cause more medical problems than they are supposed to cure.  The doctors' evidence is strongly borne out by the increasing number of drugs being removed from the market for causing havoc.  Seemingly never a day goes by without some drug or other being criticised for causing problems or being removed from the market altogether.  One must assume that either the publishers of ARSL are oblivious of the medical challenge taking place against them, or, aware of the mounting criticism, in attempts to bolster their credibility and save their jobs, the distribution of ARSL is their way of countering it.  Either way, its publication reveals that they are determined to continue brain-washing the public through whatever blatant lies it takes to do so.

The scientific weight of evidence against the claims of ARSL is unarguable.  In the past ten years there have been a steady stream of major articles under bold headlines about the many drugs being withdrawn for the damage they cause.  In New Zealand the sagas of drug catastrophes continue in issue after issue of publications as diverse as Truth, Listener, women's magazines and the newspapers.  In addition there have been several television programmes criticising the adverse effects of drugs, like the asthma drug Fenoterol on April 24 1989 and T.V. 3's Sixty Minutes on the dangers of tranquillisers on September 23 1991, and on October 2 1991 the expose of Halcion, since removed from the market.

These programmes and articles have exposed the hundreds of thousands of people whose health has been wrecked by prescribed drugs, like Valium, Lithium, Ativan, Mogadon and Halcion, which far from helping patients quickly assume a stranglehold over them.  T.V. 3's Sixty Minutes' statement: "It is only now that we know these drugs are dangerous" reveals the censorship of NZAVS' evidence of the past 13 years as the Society has attempted, through Submissions to Parliament supporting its Petitions to Abolish Vivisection, to expose the dangers associated with legal drugs which is the consequence of formulating them on animals.  During the 13 years that the abolitionist message has been deliberately stifled in this country increasing numbers of people have been made into drug addicts through legal prescriptions, which, as Dr Vernon Coleman, Great Britain's outspoken abolitionist says in Life Without Tranquillisers, "perhaps suits the politicians and multi-national bureaucrats as well as the drug companies for it ensures an uncomplaining and docile community which is easy to administer, manage and manipulate."1

The drugs so widely criticised today are all formulated and tested on animals.  For this reason a terrifying percentage of today's populations are hooked on mind-altering, addictive and extremely dangerous legally-prescribed medicaments.  Drug prescription is the present approach to health, not because it is successful, but because it is profitable.  ARSL wants new drugs - but the World Health Organisation warns that there are already far too many drugs.  Each new drug that appears from the pharmaceutical companies, says the WHO, is almost certainly a carbon copy of a previous drug.  It is not an exaggeration to say that drugs are doled out like chocolate drops for all our aches, pains and dis-ease.  Through these drugs millions of moderately unwell people are turned into helpless zombies.  Modern drugs are more dangerous than tobacco, and, says Dr Coleman, "more addictive than illegal drugs such as heroin"2.

However doctors, and not the patients, are the worst drug addicts as thousands of them take the comfortable and easy way out, reaching for their prescription pad without investigating their patients' problems.  Several times in this work the writer has criticised doctors for shelving their responsibilities through their unswerving alignment to chemical cures which results from the take-over of medicine by the pharmaceutical giants.  Each medicine taken off the market for damaging the patient reflects the power and effectiveness of the drug-industry lobby and their public relations and marketing advisers, who, quite often using unsavoury tactics, have succeeded in persuading doctors to prescribe their products.  These drug companies expend careful strategy, cut-throat competition and millions of dollars in winning doctors over to prescribing their particular brands of poison, some here in New Zealand were recently criticised for financing struggling medical students on the understanding that when qualified they prescribe the company's products.  Again and again, from a range of motives; lack of time, lack of interest, powerful enticements and high-pressure methods of drug companies' representatives, doctors accept the glossy brochures and leaflets from agents of the pharmaceutical empire believing their claims, promises and assertions.3  But these doctors should be aware that the supporting data on the benefits of drugs is extremely unreliable as drug companies are able to entice with a fee the writers of research papers to submit opinions of this or that drug - the results of which will obviously be favourable and laudatory.  It is also extremely fortuitous for the doctors to believe that remedies for all their patients' ills are available by instant hand-outs of drugs, for in believing what they are told by the manufacturers they are absolved of the responsibility of investigating the reason for the unwellness of their patients and with consciences dulled dole out the palliatives which treat the symptoms without addressing their cause.

Brandon Reines, D.V.M., now Founder and President for the Centre for Health Science Policy in the United States of America, brilliant young modern abolitionist, is challenging dogmas that are accepted without question in the upper echelons of the contemporary medical and scientific establishments.  He has been referred to several times in this work.  In a series of articles under the title "Animal Research: Behind the Facades of Consensus", Reines, in the Spring Issue of the Journal of the International Society for Animal Rights claims that contrary to popular belief the research community has never been of one mind about animal experimentation.  He writes:

"That the medical community has managed to convey the impression of unanimity on vivisection is among the lesser-known public relations miracles of the 20th Century."

Reines goes on to expose the American Medical Association's "insidious pressure on the medical professions to conform by directing social and political influence on medical researchers providing that they toe the line on vivisection".  He claims that animal researchers not only control the funding machinery at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) which donates funding to vivisection laboratories in many countries including New Zealand, which in turn must follow its pro-vivisection principles4, but that they are "perceived as the elite in the very rigid caste structure within the research community".  This will come as no surprise to members of the N.Z. Anti-Vivisection Society who read in the December 1991 issue of the Society's journal Mobilise! that animal experimenters CONTROL the Federal agencies for health science funding.  (See "Vivisection is Big Business" in the Open Letter to the American People.)

It is apparent and extremely encouraging to those involved in the abolitionist movement that the trickle of medical professionals which a handful of years ago began actively consolidating against vivisection on the grounds of fraud and conspiracy, is becoming a torrent that will never now be dammed.  Similarly it is increasingly obvious to all but the novice that leaders of anti-vivisection societies who do not inform their members of the fast-changing state of affairs in the medical and research arena, and continue their phoney policies of seeking: accountability of numbers of animals used in experiments; better conditions in the laboratories; reduction of the numbers of animals used; introduction of animal ethics committees; funding for "alternatives"; abolition of non-medical experiments; or, like one group which the author is familiar with, funds for purchasing toys for the vivisectors to put in the cages for the animals (!), are manipulating their unwary subscribers and donors, just as those who control and dispense the lucrative vivisection tradition are manipulating the thoughts, actions and attitudes of those entering the medical professions by forcing them to place animal experimentation on a false pinnacle.

It is certainly advantageous for medical schools, research laboratories, universities and people like the producers of ARSL to perpetuate the myth that animal experiments are useful and not useless, for, as Reines says in Cancer Research on Animals (Impact and Alternatives) about such institutions:

"If truth prevailed the dollars would diminish... and though they may claim to love the truth, when it is a matter of truth versus the dollars they love the dollars more."

Or as put even more succinctly by Hans Ruesch:

"No ignorance is so stubborn as the ignorance of the learned."

An article in Time Magazine, February 28 1977, which lists the recipients of "donations" to politicians from U.S. Medical Association, may help us to understand why politicians become glassy-eyed when the word "vivisection" is as much as whispered:

Senate Candidates  
Vance Hartke (D., Ind.) $245,700
Harrison Williams (D., N.J.) $244,373
Lloyd Bentsen (D., Texas) $229,299
John Tunney (D., Calif.) $219,419
William Green (D., Pa.) $216,660
House Candidates  
John Rhodes (R., Ariz.) $98,620
Jim Mattox (D., Texas) $85,310
Mark Hannaford (D., Calif.) $81,368
Lloyd Mees (D., Wash.) $80,078
Thomas L. Ashley (D., Ohio) $76,337

Many examples of the ignorance of the learned, in the New Zealand news-media and political arena could be related, however to ensure the reader is not rendered as insensible and glassy eyed through repetition as the politicians are through conniving, their resurrection is minimised to the following which occurred in recent years, and which in the author's view are as subtle as they are convenient:

  1. The (almost, but not quite) incomprehensible ignorance of no less than the learned Rt Hon. Helen Clark, then N.Z. Minister of Health, now Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who, on February 7 1990, in full knowledge, through NZAVS' evidence, of the founding of strong leagues of doctors active against vivisection which are now operating in the United Kingdom, U.S.A., Switzerland, Italy, Israel, France, West Germany, Japan, Sweden - and other countries, (if not in full possession of her wits) wrote to one Isla Dight, a shrewd and professional Australian acclaimed internationally for her vast knowledge and support of the new abolitionist movement, the following words, which unfortunately dealt the good lady such a reeling blow that though the saying is that time heals all, the writer has reason to believe that her full recovery is extremely doubtful:
    "I am not aware of reports indicating that increasing numbers of doctors are opposed to experiments on animals."
  2. The ignorance resulting from a timely state of amnesia which struck Mr Jack Elder M.P. for West Auckland, member of the N.Z. Primary Production Committee and member of the Parliamentary Select Committee at the phantom "hearing" of the author's evidence in support of NZAVS Petition in the New Zealand Parliament on March 20 1991, and who, in possession of the facts emblazoned on the Prayer of the Petition and in NZAVS' Submissions to the Select Committee, was fully aware that neither document referred to the "suffering of helpless animals".  This did not however prevent Mr Elder from writing on December 18 1990 to one of his constituents thus:
    "You may rest assured that we will be very keen to get an honest appraisal of the situation and to recommend any changes which we see as necessary to reduce the suffering of helpless animals." (Words which before they were settled on the paper carefully swept into eternity the billions of human victims of vivisection - along with case for abolition.)

Since New Zealand has such a bad history of drug damage which has been widely publicised in the media, and aware as they are that this damage is a consequence of their own immoral and invalid business of vivisection, it is astounding that the publishers of ARSL have the temerity to talk of morals.  That the public does not vehemently challenge the law which demands drugs be tested on animals reveals the extent of brainwashing that we are unwittingly put to on an ongoing basis.  Consider the following:

In New Zealand it was reported in Dominion Sunday Times, October 15 1989 that Dr Charlotte Paul, Auckland Hospital Researcher, published in the N.Z. Medical Journal that more than 20,000 women every year had been prescribed Depo-Provera, an injectable contraceptive, many without their knowledge or consent, despite the fact that the drug had always been banned in the U.S.A. where it caused cancer of the breast and uterus, loss of bone density and anaphylacsis (an allergic reaction which causes the patient to stop breathing) and other damage.  Similar tragic effects of Depo-Provera appeared in Truth, Listener, Dominion Sunday Times as well as the dailies.  These massive front-page articles which carried bold headlines over months of that year and which continued right through to 1989 read: "Women at Risk"; "Ban These Drugs"; "N.Z. Women in Trial to Satisfy U.S. Watchdog"; "I Was a Guinea-Pig"; "Study Shows Cancer Link"; etc etc were followed by the lists of names and details of the many women whose lives were ruined by the drug.  (Other drugs have similarly been prescribed with horrifying results to New Zealanders to shatter their health, however it is on Depo-Provera the author focuses to make the point.)

The method of testing Depo-Provera carried out by its producers Upjohn (which also produced Halcion, banned in 1991 for the damage it caused) prior to prescribing it to women in hospitals, birth control clinics and doctors' surgeries, was, according to information circulated to doctors by Upjohn on Form No. A1.030.1 as follows:

"Endometrial response tests on immature and ovariectomized rabbits."

"Subcutaneous injections in experimental animals."

"Tremendous doses in chronic toxicity studies on intact female and spayed immature rats" and "beagle dogs".

The following is an extract from "Side Effects" as stated in the circular:

The following is an extract from "Cautions" on the same circular:

"Large doses have been found to produce some instances of female foetal masculinization in animals.  Although this has not occurred in human beings, the possibility of such an effect, particularly with large doses over a long period of time, should be considered."

At the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Public Board of Enquiry into Depo-Provera in 1983 which unsuccessfully attempted to lift the U.S. ban on the drug, in questioning the relevance of beagle dog trials to human users of the contraceptive, Upjohn argued as follows:

  1. "Beagles are not appropriate animals for use for such trials."
  2. "There is no perfect animal model."
  3. "In a sense the final animal model for a drug to be used on human beings has to be the human."

Obviously the public should be asking:

Why  pharmaceutical companies on a regular basis do not heed the results of their own animal experiments?
Why  governments insist on legal requirements that drugs are tested on animals when firms like Upjohn admit that such tests are "not appropriate"?
Why  drugs that do so much damage can slide so easily on to the market - when the regulatory system demands absolute proof, which sometimes takes years, before they can be removed when found unsafe?

Interestingly at time of writing this paper a report in Wellington's Evening Post, May 15 1992, from the researchers responsible for investigation and restriction of the asthma drug Fenoterol, claims that since the restriction was placed, the asthma epidemic which gave New Zealand the highest death-rate in the world appears to be over.  Says the group:

"A halving of the death-rate since restrictions were placed on the drug has taken place."

All the evidence reveals that animal tests, far from being carried out to protect the health of the people in reality protect the profits of the drug companies, who, with the complicity of governments who are subservient to them can market drugs the safety of which is based on an animal alibi, the very inconclusivenes of which is the vital factor essential to getting the product marketed.  For, were valid methods of testing used the products would be revealed for what they are, worthless at best, or at worst killers like Depo-Provera, Fenoterol (including all the asthma aerosol inhalers), and Debendox, the latter, an anti-nausea drug which caused birth defects all over the world including New Zealand until it was taken from the market in 1983, produced by Merrell Dow who also ironically produced the deadly spray 2,4,5-T which had the same devastating effect.5

To return to the Upjohn enquiry into Depo-Provera, the company stated:

"New Zealand was an ideal place for research because of its long-term Depo-Provera use adequate data collection should be feasible and the incidence of neoplasias (cancers) of the breast and endometrium (lining of the uterus) are comparable to those in the United States."

And so, the New Zealand Government, which ARSL claims requires animal testing to protect its population, allowed New Zealand women to be prescribed regular doses of an extremely harmful drug in full knowledge that the drug was banned in the U.S.A. - thus allowing the company to use New Zealand women as test subjects.

There are many indictments against vivisection, the most damning coming, as it did in the Depo-Provera trial, from its champions and not from its challengers.  For example:

The British Committee for the Safety of Medicines (which advises the Government on the granting of licenses to new drugs and circulates information to doctors), in its December 1990 Publication Report No. 30 titled Current Problems, under section "Advice About Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting: What to Report", requests doctors to report adverse effects thus:

"There is often some debate on what constitutes a serious reaction.  For this reason we hope the list below will provide guidance on serious reactions for which we would hope to receive reports."

Thereafter follows a list of no less than 84 "serious" reactions to drugs, which include: cardiac failure and arrest, drug fever, abortion, congenital abnormalities, uterine haemorrhage, perforation, cataract, hearing loss, visual loss, circulatory failure, coma, epilepsy - and many more "current problems" including sudden death!

Prof. Bill Inman who heads the Drug Safety Research Unit at Southampton University (hardly an advocate of abolition), is critical of the above committee for he wrote:

"The committee relies heavily on the drug companies for safety information and most of its members are linked to the industry as consultants or receivers of research grants.  In a move to make the committee independent, that is without links with the industry - THERE WOULD BE NO-ONE TO SIT ON THE COMMITTEE!"

A revealing article in the U.K. Independent, December 15 1988, written by Health Services Correspondent Nicholas Timmins headed "Drug Firms' Links With Watchdogs" disclosed that "more than half the members of the two key committees which oversee drug safety and licensing have direct interests in the pharmaceutical industry".  That "nearly 40 drug companies pay members of the Medicines Commission and the Committee on Safety of Medicines for consultancies, work on particular drugs and advice, whilst other members hold shares in companies such as ICI, Boots and Wellcome".  Dr J. Collier, consultant pharmacologist at St George's Hospital in Tooting, South London, who has campaigned for the interests to be published, said the information "confirms our worst fears... There always has been a question of whether the members who advise on drugs can be impartial and this report indicates they are not".  Robin Cook, Labour's health spokesman, said:

"Where a body has a policing and regulatory job it should be independent in a financial sense from the people they are monitoring... Until impartiality is established, the drugs that we use and the information doctors get will remain tainted."

"Tainted" is perhaps a delicate if not bizarre choice of word to describe legal medicaments which maim and kill.  The British Daily Mail, February 13 1992, in an article "Secrecy Over Drugs for Doctors Helps Put 10,000 in Hospital" exposes just how "tainted" they are:

"Thousands of people are made so ill by the side-effects of drugs prescribed by doctors they need hospital treatment... At any one time they occupy around 10,000 hospital beds."

Charles Medawar, an expert on drug safety policy and director of the research group Social Audit says in the above article that "more than 12,000 people are claiming compensation through the courts for problems linked to prescription drugs".  He goes on to say: "The secrecy about drug damage protects the product more than it protects the conscientious prescriber or the patient."  He also makes the staggering confession that "the law makes it illegal for drug companies to release some information that would help patients".  "It aids and abets misrepresentation and misunderstanding and lack of accountability.  It is as dangerous as it is pervasive."

As we have learned in Chapter 19, The "Protection" of Animals Used in Research, the same situation thrives in N.Z. where the country's leading vivisectors, through the ethics (and other) committee systems, monitor, regulate, perpetuate, protect and congratulate their own activities with the benevolent approval of the RNZSPCA.  That prestigious society, which, when submitting to Parliament that it seeks no change to the present rotten state of affairs, sanitised them with a veil of respectability purchased by public donations from those who think they are helping animals, thus demonstrating its complicity.

Another excellent parallel of the phoney British CSM which is taking place under our noses in New Zealand is the N.Z. Pesticides Board, shown in Chapter 22 Living 25 Years Longer Than our Great Grand Parents.

A further accusation against the validity of animal experiments comes from the very bastion of vivisection, the British Toxicology Society, in a submission to the British House of Commons Agriculture Committee enquiry into pesticides and human health.  Chaired by Sir Richard Body M.P. on July 23 1987:

"There is no reliable method to extrapolate data between different laboratory animal species and man.  Animal testing can produce misleading results."

In New Zealand, which was the last country to produce the chemical 2,4,5-T, when the product was found to have the same deleterious effects on people as it did on rabbits in Dow vivisection laboratories, the firm was publicly chastised for continuing its distribution, upon which, like its relative the British Toxicology Society, it did an about-face and defended continued production of 2,4,5-T arguing that animal experiments were not conclusive!

"There is no known means of extrapolating between rabbits and humans."
(Mr J. Plunkett, Agricultural Products Manager for Dow Chemicals (Australia), Wellington's Dominion, September 4 1987.)

Thus the vivisectors, time after time, promote animal experiments to their advantage when they wish to continue production of material which is harmful - yet this is the precise system they use to create the alibi that a product is SAFE.

The same double-standard principle applies in the following conclusions taken from Pesticides: Issues and Options for N.Z., 1989, which resulted from a one-year investigation of environmental pollution in New Zealand commissioned by the Ministry for the Environment and conducted by Lincoln College.  (Which partially financed by the U.S. National Institute of Health is reputed to be one of the largest agricultural animal experimental laboratories in the world.)



1. Five hundred and seventy-eight million dollars of the taxpayers' money is spent every year on pharmaceuticals in N.Z.
(M. Williamson, Associate Minister of Health, in a letter to NZAVS.)

2. "Drug induced illness has become a public health hazard of alarming proportions, 25 percent of all hospital admissions are due to medicines."
(Dr Vernon Coleman, then President of the International League of Doctors Against Vivisection.)

3. "It is estimated that each GP in New Zealand receives 13 kilograms of high-gloss unsolicited advertising from drug companies every year."
(Evening Post, May 1 1992, page 5.)

"Drug companies in N.Z. spend 30 million dollars a year on advertising... They own the health service."
(Sarah Boyd, National Radio, April 10 1989.)

4. The prescription in New Zealand of drugs banned in the U.S. is not the sole extent of the U.S. drug companies' manipulation of New Zealanders.  In 1986 the N.Z. Veterinary School, Palmerston North reported receiving "more than half a million dollars from overseas".  The only overseas institution mentioned on the list of those giving grants to Massey is the U.S. National Institute of Health, which is described as a major funding body.

By coincidence, in 1986 a series of major articles began appearing in Wellington's Dominion and other papers, and the radio reported widely that controversial agricultural experiments banned in the U.S. were taking place at the N.Z. Veterinary School (otherwise known as Massey), Palmerston North, and Wallaceville.  Funded by the American drug companies and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, researchers from Oregon State University were carrying out procedures, which were not allowed in the U.S., under N.Z. MAF "supervision" though no N.Z. guidelines had been obtained for field testing of genetically-engineered organisms.  (The author again emphasises that N.Z. MAF is co-producer of ARSL.)

In interviews with the Dominion the Oregon researchers said they were attracted to New Zealand as a testing ground for their products "because they perceived fewer problems with red tape than in the U.S. where health, environment and agricultural agencies would not approve the trials".

The issue was reintroduced by N.Z. Listener on June 17 1991 which commented on an article in the New Internationalist by journalist Carol Grunewald thus:

"At an agricultural research station in New Zealand in 1986 American researchers inoculated cows, chickens and sheep with live genetically-engineered vaccine against the sindbis virus, an insect-borne virus which causes flu-like symptoms.  One of the members of the U.S. team bluntly stated the reason for conducting the experiments so far from home as follows:
'In the U.S. these tests have been held up by inadequate regulations, lack of government agency coordination, court injunction and public protests'."

The Listener commented thus: "He might as well have said that the lack of public awareness and government regulation of bio-technology in New Zealand made this country an ideal open-air laboratory."

Page 90 of Naked Empress by Hans Ruesch reveals that U.S. NIH funds of $600,000 were spent sending an American scientist, Dr Peter Adam, professor of pediatrics at Case Western Reserve University and Director of Pediatric Metabolism at Cleveland Metropolitan General Hospital, to Finland to conduct experiments on live human fetuses.  The fetuses were kept alive in incubators and transported to a hospital in Finland where they were cut open whilst alive and their livers removed.  Other experiments involved chopping off the heads of the fetuses.  The brain matter along with the liver was then processed into nutrients "to help premature babies".

5. Known in the U.S. as Bendectin, in Great Britain and Australasia as Debendox, and in other countries as Lenotan and Merbental, this drug was prescribed widely from before 1960 to 1983, in all a period of 27 years, to alleviate morning sickness in pregnant women.  In New Zealand doctors prescribed 1.5 MILLION Debendox tablets every year, 30 for each pregnancy.   Debendox caused cleft palates, congenital heart disease, bowel abnormalities, club feet, lack of limbs, deformed limbs and other extremely severe congenital abnormalities.  The damage caused by Debendox was widely reported in 1983.  That year production of the drug was halted and all remaining stocks destroyed.

In 1987 an American District Court found Merell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. of Cincinatti, Ohio, a subsidiary of the Dow Chemical Company "negligent in marketing and testing the drug" and so began an avalanche of applications for damages.  At the trial the company stated:

"This drug had the most thorough animal tests of its kind."

$US 120 million were paid out in damages to the victims in the U.S..  Thousands of women in the U.K., 800 in Australia, and thirty in New Zealand gave birth to severely malformed babies for which they received damages.  Though some were approached, the mothers of the drug damaged babies in New Zealand would not communicate with the N.Z. Anti-Vivisection Society who sought their cooperation in exposing the dangers of drugs declared safe after animal trials.  (Perhaps it would be fair to assume that the victims' collaboration with an active anti-vivisection organisation could jeopardise their dealing with the company from whom they sought their redress.)  That year, on July 23, T.V. Eye Witness News screened a programme on the victims of Debendox and again widely reported the damage caused by the drug.  The Auckland Sunday News and most daily papers published leading articles and radio stations reported the issue widely, these included Christchurch's The Press, August 27 1986; Wellington Dominion, July 16 1987; and Sydney Morning Herald, July 25 1987.  Sadly as with the Thalidomide malformations, in some countries women would not claim compensation at all believing the deformities were acts of God, or afflictions sent by the Devil in punishment for their sins.

Readers are directed to Chapter 6 Thalidomide, which records the unhappy saga of Australian Dr William McBride, who discovered the link between Thalidomide and birth deformities, and who, a key figure in its subsequent removal from the market, went on, using money he was awarded in Paris (along with a gold medal for excellence in medicine), to form a company he named Foundation 41.  Through his Foundation Dr McBride investigated the effects of prescribed medicaments on the first 41 weeks of life.  It was Dr McBride, as a result of these investigations who found the link between Debendox and the malformations.  Dr McBride was the principal accuser of Merrell Dow and representing the victims at the trial he assessed and gave evidence on their behalf.  After the trial Dr McBride stated his intention of furthering his investigations, through Foundation 41, of the dangers he claimed were inherent in other drugs being doled out to pregnant women.

The insistence of this outspoken dissenter of the vivisection establishment's insistence that animal trials are authentic, and which cost Merrell Dow so dearly in compensation, also cost Dr William McBride his career and proved his downfall.  Readers are referred to the section on Thalidomide if they wish to follow-up the sorry end to Dr McBride's brilliant medical career, which was the inevitable result of speaking out against the official system of basing human safety on animal trials.  (N.B. Dr McBride regularly conducted animal tests, was not an anti-vivisectionist and to the writer's knowledge had no link with any anti-vivisection society.  The writer makes this point to emphasise that once again the critic of vivisection is the vivisector himself who having such little faith in its principle ignores or challenges its results.)



As far back as 1979, before the public became as knowledgeable as they are today about the great dangers associated with prescribed drugs, the N.Z. Anti-Vivisection Society commenced attempts to inform New Zealanders of the malformations being caused by Depo-Provera and Debendox.  Over a period of 14 years all the Society's campaigns have been consistently trivialised, distorted or ignored altogether by a media, which relying for its life-blood on advertising revenue from the vivisection industry, must of necessity work in complicity with it.  The New Zealand Government which co-produced ARSL, did not conduct legitimate hearings for the Society's two massive petitions, did not read the Society's submissions, refused to hear its witnesses.

These days, owing to the increasing number of drug tragedies, it is difficult for the pharmaceutical companies, in collusion with their government relatives, to continue sweeping the wrecks of people's shattered lives under the carpet.  Further, the public, now beginning to realise that the pill for every ill is nothing more than a money-making myth is more inclined to take its dis-ease to the valid medical practitioner who does not poison them with drugs, than to fall into the clutches of those dishonest and irresponsible puppets of the pharmaceutical giants, the legal pill-pushers.  Owing to the relentless censorship of the truth by the media and the government, and the latter's attempts to reassure and mollify the people about the sanctity of vivisection by publishing and distributing widely the flimsy and worthless Animal Research Saves Lives, the public, though aware that drugs cause damage, has not yet recognised that the reason for that damage lies in the fact that by government decree all drugs being "tested" on animals for an inconclusive alibi prior to marketing, it is the human being (as the vivisectors themselves have pointed out time and time again in their defence when tragedy strikes) who is the ultimate test subject.

The writer wonders, as the reader who has persevered thus far surely must, how the bitter pill of realisation will be swallowed and digested by the public when it eventually learns, as it inevitably must, that in placing its health and well-being second place to profits, the government, hand-in-glove with the pharmaceutical empire, has made it the victim of the greatest hoax in modern history.

SECTION 2 - Vivisectors condemn "animal research"

As has been belaboured throughout this work much of the criticism that vivisection is unworkable, unjustified and unnecessary comes straight from the vivisectors.  The following evidence reveals they also unashamedly, repeatedly insist that it takes rather than saves lives!

Recently in the United States of America the General Accounting Office announced that 51.5 percent of drugs introduced between 1976 and 1985 had to be relabelled because of "serious side effects" discovered after they were marketed.  These included heart, liver and kidney failure, severe blood disorders, birth defects, respiratory arrest, seizures and blindness.
("Postapproval Risks 1976-1985", FDA Drug Review.)

Though doctors openly refuting vivisection are growing in number, and, working in conjunction with abolitionist groups around the world are becoming a force to be reckoned with, the author wishes to demonstrate yet again that the greatest critic of the present reliance on "animal research" is the vivisector himself, and accordingly the author uses today's leading vivisectors to counter ARSL's claim that animal testing is the correct method for developing drugs designed for human beings.  The following condemnation of vivisection, freely given and published by researchers working from vantage points within the industry equates with the constant, seemingly endless incidence of drugs withdrawn from the market because of the damage they cause the unwitting patient.

Vivisector Ralph Heywood, formerly scientific director of the infamous Huntingdon Contract Research Laboratories (now a consultant toxicologist), in 1990 compiled an analysis of the major drug side-effects occurring since the Thalidomide disaster which reveals that 85 percent were NOT predicted and could never have been predicted by animal experiments.  The following example of his comments is taken from the analysis:



An arthritis drug.  Given to over 500,000 patients.  Withdrawn in 1982.  Serious side effects over 4,000, include skin rashes, liver and kidney-damage and 61 deaths in Great Britain alone.  Produced by Eli Lilly which noted in its literature:

"The effects of Opren in the Rhesus monkey were studied for a year.  There were no apparent adverse effects of survival."

Heywood's Comment... "Symptoms experienced with humans could never be detected in animals."



A heart drug.  Produced by I.C.I.  Given to thousands of patients.  Caused severe damage to eyes, blindness and many deaths.  In 1976 Great Britain's chemical giant announced that it had started paying compensations to the victims (or their survivors) of Eraldin which had had "seven years of very intensive tests".

(I.C.I. carried out toxicity tests on Eraldin in rats and mice, in monkeys and rats for 2 weeks, in 70 rats and 24 dogs for 13 weeks, in 100 mice for 18 months and in 3 groups of 13 pregnant rabbits.  Results from these tests led them to believe that Eraldin "is remarkably free from toxic effects".  In just over 5 years, June 29 1970 to October 1 1975 it claimed 7,000 victims in the United Kingdom alone.
(Liberator, August/September 1984.))

Heywood's Comment... "No-one has been able to reproduce the harmful effects in animals - even after the drug was withdrawn in 1976."



The antibiotic drug Chloramphenicol was responsible for causing leukemia and fatal aplastic anaemia in human beings.

Heywood's Comment... "Damage not predicted by animal experiments."

From his analysis and supporting data Heywood concluded that there is only a 5 to 25 percent correlation between harmful effects in people and the results of animal experiments.  Apart from failing to reveal many of the hazards of drugs thus "tested" on animals, such "tests" must also lead to the rejection of potentially valuable medicines because they produce side-effects in animals which never occur in people.  Many long established drugs show sufficient toxicity in animals to make it extremely unlikely they would be marketed today were they submitted to animal tests now required by law.  For example penicillin which is lethal for guinea-pigs, Frusemide which causes severe liver damage in mice but which is a valuable diuretic for human beings and iron sorbitol which causes cancer in rats and rabbits but which is used successfully in treating iron-deficiency anaemia in people.

The following further examples of the dangers inherent in extrapolating effects in animals to the human patient are taken from Heywood's analysis:


Chloramphenicol fatal blood disorder (aplastic anaemia)
Clindamycin often fatal intestinal disease
Clioquinol nerve damage
Domperidone heart problems
Eraldin eye damage (blindness)
Halcion amnesia
Halothane liver damage
Isoprenaline aerosols asthmatic deaths
Opren fatalities, skin rashes, light sensitivity
Oral contraceptives blood clots
Phenacetin kidney damage
Phenylbutazone aplastic anaemia
Zelmid nerve damage, liver toxicity


Phenacetin analgesic 1980
Clioquinol anti-diarrhoeal 1981
Phenformin anti-diabetic 1982
Opren anti-inflammatory 1982
Propanidid anaesthetic 1983
Zelmid anti-depressant 1983
Zomax analgesic 1983
Flosint anti-inflammatory 1983
Alphaxalone anaesthetic 1984
Merital anti-depressant 1986
Suprol anti-inflammatory 1986

 Vivisector of the highest order, Dr Miles Weatherall, former Director of Wellcome Research Laboratories berates the vivisection principle thus:

"Every species has its own metabolic pattern, and no two species are likely to metabolise a drug identically."
(Nature, April 1 1982, pages 387-390.)

Yet another gives good reason why vivisection should be abolished... American drug researcher Bernard Brodie went as far as saying in his Acceptance Speech of the Winner of the 1963 Torald Sollman Award, California, 1963:

"It is often a matter of pure luck that animal experiments lead to clinically useful drugs."

M.H. Briggs wrote in Biomedical Research Involving Animals, Editors Z. Bankowski and N. Howard-Jones (CIOMS 1984):

"Animal suffering could be eliminated, and the safety of medicines improved, if governments adopted a new point strategy for the introduction of new drugs."

In Outrage December/January 1992 Dr Robert Sharpe writes that this new strategy should involve replacing animal experiments by in-vitro tests with human tissues and computer prediction methods, the adaptation of more effective monitoring of drugs once they reach the market, and restriction of new drugs to those for which there is a medical need.  He claims that the idea that a combination of in-vitro (test tube) methods can correctly predict the general toxicity of chemicals is a basic assumption behind a multi-centre trial recently initiated by the Scandanavian Society for Cell Toxicology.  Dr Zucco of Italy's National Council of Research has demonstrated that "the inability of extrapolating data from animals could be solved by the use of the human cell culture".  In trials carried out at Denmark's Roskilde University Centre the lethal concentration of chemicals to human white blood-cells shows "very good correlation"... the white blood-cells being obtained from volunteers' blood samples.  In the U.S.A. a California-based company Marrow Tech Inc. has introduced complete culture systems for human bone-marrow, liver, oral mucosa and skin for in-vitro safety evaluation.  Dr Sharpe says that such human tissue tests could have warned doctors about the harmful effects of drugs like Thalidomide.

Though prominent in today's growing medical dissension against vivisection, Professor Croce is not alone but one of a long line of defectors from the vivisection camp.  In the Introduction to Vivisection or Science - a choice to make, Hans Ruesch writes that in 1912 a well-known German MD, Wolfgang Bohn, states in the medical journal Aerztliche Mitteilungen:

"The proclaimed purpose of vivisection has not been achieved in any field, and so it can be presumed that it won't be achieved in the future either.  On the contrary, vivisection has caused enormous damage, has killed thousands of people... But generations of researchers have been taught to use no other than the vivisection method."

Ruesch also writes:

"A change had to come sooner or later within the ranks of the medical doctors themselves, and this started manifesting itself in the course of the 1980s, and, a remarkable phenomenon, in various countries simultaneously, on the initiative of doctors who at first had had no contact with one another.  Their number is growing so rapidly that the mediamakers will probably not be able to stifle them all as heretofore.  The book Vivisection or Science - a choice to make is so far the most prominent medical voice of what already promises to grow into a chorus.  It will always remain the first in time.  An historic event."

As we have learned in Chapter 1 Introduction to ARTL, Hans Ruesch abandoned forever his lucrative and highly successful literary career on the day his investigations led him to the discovery that vivisection is an international plot and conspiracy that only the most brave and remarkable medical professionals dare to contest.  Unfortunately for billions of today's populations the majority of doctors, neither brave nor remarkable, aware that dissent from the mainstream of official thinking leads to professional suicide choose, perhaps understandably but at great cost to their patients' health, to be guided by the instinct of profitable survival.


SECTION 3 - Animal based medicines: LETHAL - yet legal

The following expose of the widespread universal damage resulting from "testing" on healthy animals, drugs designed for sick and diseased human beings, and human beings suffering the effects of preventable pollutants, is brought about by a law so deviant in logic, and barbarous and unlikely in practicality it could be conjured by the devil himself.  This law epitomises the criminal and immoral activity which is legally established and maintained despite expert evidence and massive public criticism, and standing accused of the sometimes heart-rending chaos which ensues from it are governments which are subservient to the might of the multi-nationals for which this law conveniently represents gilt-edged security.

"The pharmaceutical industry controls government by their contributions to their political campaigns... We are all at the mercy of politicians and the pharmaceutical industry."
(Louis Bon De Brouwer, MD, noted researcher and medical author, France, Member of the International League of Doctors Against Vivisection.)

Perhaps this is why neither of NZAVS' petitions to abolish vivisection were heard or considered by the New Zealand politicians, who, with the exception of Mr John Terris (then Labour M.P. for Western Hutt and for years a sympathiser and ally of NZAVS and perhaps because of this no longer a politician), were all markedly hostile to the petition and the petitioners.  Investigation into the way the Government handled, by ignoring totally, the 1989 petition signed by 100,640 New Zealanders brought the following written comments to the Society:

At this point the author wishes to make it quite clear that those campaigning to abolish vivisection are not against medical research, but against medical research using animals.  The diligent and observant reader will understand why, and for those who are not yet convinced, the following examples of drug failures, attributed to the faulty and grotesque law that drugs must be tested on animals are picked at random from thousands of drugs that are having serious ill-effects.  These examples are not to be construed as a comprehensive list for dangerous medicaments are so numerous that no book of normal size could accommodate all their names - or list all the devastations they are causing on a daily basis.


Found to increase the risk of blood-clots leading to heart attacks, lung disorders and strokes.  By 1980 over 400 deaths reported.

"Not only had the animal tests failed to identify the hazard, but in rats and dogs oral contraceptives produced entirely the opposite effect, making it more difficult for the blood to clot."
(Z. Bankowski and N. Howard-Jones, Biomedical Research Involving Animals.)



Seventeen deaths between January 1 and end March 1982.  Medical Journal Annual Reports claim 787 deaths.

"This is less than usual probably owing to drop in reporting by doctors rather than improvements in drug safety."
(Committee for the Safety of Medicines.)



Phenacetin, withdrawn in 1980, is one of many analgesic drugs that cause kidney damage in people but not in laboratory animals.  Since human studies first identified the link between kidney problems and analgesics there have been many animal experiments to investigate the effect.  All so contradictory that a major review of the subject by Iulius Rosner of the Institute of Pharmacology in Paris concluded that:

"Animal researchers would never have suspected, foreseen or predicted the phenomenon."
(I. Rosner, CRC Critical Reviews in Toxicology, Vol. 4, 1976, pages 331-352.)



In the 1960s almost four thousand deaths resulted from Isoprenaline aerosol inhalers.  In 1974 seventeen hundred deaths, and between 1975 and 1985 asthma deaths doubled as the use of aerosol pressured dilators trebled.

"The effects had not been predicted by animal experiments and even after the dangers were revealed it was impossible to reproduce the damage in animals."
(Reported in a BBC debate entitled Vivisection is Scientific Con, June 22 1987.)

In New Zealand not until the Fenoterol investigations reported on April 24 1989 (World Day for Laboratory Animals) were asthmatics informed of the danger of these drugs.  (In its submission to Parliament supporting its petition to abolish vivisection, the N.Z. Anti-Vivisection Society had given written evidence that thousands of deaths had resulted from these prescriptions.)  (An address by Dr R. Sharpe at a congress organised by IAAPEA in Philadelphia, June 24 1989.)  Dr Paul D. Stolley, of Johns Hopkins Hospital who found in July 1972 that the aerosol-pressured dilator Isoproterenol killed "thousands of asthma sufferers" and described it as "the worst therapeutic drug disaster on record".



Clioquinol, also marketed as Mexaform, Enterovioform, Intestopan, Sterosan and approximately 168 other trade-names, caused, in Japan alone, 30,000 cases of blindness and paralysis and thousands of deaths in Tokyo in 1978, the common-denominator to the tragedy being the inclusion in the formula of the drug Oxychinol.  Marketed by Ciba-Geigy, Clioquinol caused a hideous new disease called Subacute Myelo-Optic Neuropathy, or SMON.  Though Ciba-Geigy claimed "there is no evidence Clioquinol is neuro-toxic" in its tests on rats, cats, beagles and rabbits, subsequent experiments at the Okayama University Medical School reproduced the effects in mongrel dogs.  The experimenters however added that "different species respond differently to the drug, with monkeys, hens, cocks and mice only mildly affected, even after higher doses", and that "beagle dogs were 3 to 4 times less sensitive to Clioquinol than mongrels".  Hans Ruesch reveals on pages 19 and 21 of Naked Empress that Ciba-Geigy had been fully aware of the dangers of Oxychinol prior to marketing, even to the extent of the firm circulating a warning among veterinarians not to use the drug in veterinary treatment and publishing a warning that "it should not be administered to house pets"!  Damage and deaths from Oxychinol also occurred in Holland, Denmark, Germany, France, Great Britain, Belgium, Italy and Sweden.  On April 28 1980, at the Hotel Penta in Geneva, a press conference on SMON was held for 37 international reporters, organised by a Japanese committee.  Participants included lawyers and medical authorities from Japan, Malaysia, Australia, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Sri Lanka, U.S.A., France, Sweden, Norway and Italy.  It was concluded from the conference that "Ciba-Geigy had disregarded the ill-effects of its Clioquinol in animals knowing full well that animal tests are of no value", and proceeded to market the drug worldwide for human consumption.  Present-day sufferers of multiple sclerosis are said to be suffering from Clioquinol-induced SMON.



Both the U.S. Department of Justice and the Food and Drug Administration are investigating charges of alleged impropriety by Swiss-based Hoffman-La Roche in connection with its liquid anaesthetic Versed which is linked to more than 40 deaths from respiratory failure.  Time Magazine, February 17 1992 in an article titled "Can Drug Firms Be Trusted?" highlights charges of fraud which "have struck an industry already reeling under allegations of deception, greed and insufficient attention to product safety".  Dr Sidney Wolfe, a consumer activist who heads Public Citizen's Health Research Group, a medical-industry watch-dog based in Washington contends, that "the heart of the drug companies' credibility problem is the dangerous amount of control the industry has over testing.  Hundreds of people have been killed and thousands injured because data have been falsified".  Other companies accused of fraud are:

The anaesthetic Halothane causes liver toxicity but prior to marketing "produced no evidence of liver damage in animals".  Anaesthetists at Edinburgh's Royal Infirmary reported that "early attempts to produce an animal model of halothane hepatitis (liver damage) proved disappointing".

The April 1973 issue of Anaesthesiology pointed out that Fluroxine, a form of ether, when used as an anaesthetic in man produced no untoward results, yet when used in dogs, cats and rabbits, they all died of ataxia, hypotension, seizures etc.
(Hans Ruesch, Slaughter of the Innocent, page 255.)

Incidence of breast cancer in female anaesthetists is 50 times higher than normal.  Anaesthetists' children suffer from a disproportionate number of neurological problems.
(P.J. Tomlinson, "Health Problems of Anaesthetists and Their Families in the West Midlands", British Medical Journal, March 3 1979, pages 779-784.)



"Phenylbutazone produces an extremely high incidence and wide variety of toxic effects, many of which are potentially lethal."
(British Medical Journal, July 20 1957, page 146.)

In the U.K. The Guardian, February 27, March 5, March 7 1984 reported that painkillers made from Phenylbutazone, marketed by Ciba-Geigy are to be banned from general use.  Brand names are Butazone, Butazolidin and Butacote.  Other painkillers containing Oxyphenbutazone are also under threat of removal, brand names being Tanderil and Tandacote.  These drugs were associated with more than 1,500 deaths in Britain alone since 1962.  The drugs were given to approximately 500,000 arthritis sufferers in 1982.  According to one authority (Martindale, The Extra Pharmacopoeia, Pharmaceutical Press, 1977) "side effects occur in some 25 to 40% of patients taking the drug".  In Pharmacology: Drug Actions and Reactions, R. Levine, 1978 it reports that "the chances of adverse effects of phenylbutazone in people compared with laboratory animals are heightened because it takes much longer for human beings to metabolise the drug.  In people it takes 72 hours for the body to break down half a dose of the drug, and in animals the corresponding times are 8, 6, 6, 3 hours in rhesus monkeys, dogs, rats and rabbits respectively".  When the tragedy of the deaths occurring from Phenylbutazone was reported in Dominion, January 6 1983, Dr Treadwell was reported as saying:

"All drugs have side effects... This is a safe drug in relation to other medicines."

Butazolidin (caused 575 deaths in 1983) which had no adverse effects on hundreds of thousands of rats, mice, monkeys or dogs, which was removed from the market in early 1984 with the admission that "human side effects dangerous and drastic... We know these things do happen" commented Dr Boyd, Asst Dir. Clinical Services, Wellington.  (Chairman of the Drug Assessment Advisory Committee and the Restricted Drugs Committee, who commented about Benoxaprofen, with 81 deaths and 3,000 seriously ill "symptoms experienced with humans could never be detected in animals".

Another painkiller Flosint resulted in 217 reports of serious reactions which caused gastrointestinal damage and at least 7 deaths.  British Medical Journal, January 7 1984, page 77 reported:

"The original animal tests on Flosint revealed an LD50 of 700mg/Kg (700 milligrams of drug per kilogram of the animal's body-weight) in mice but 84 mg/Kg in rats.  More prolonged toxicity tests in rats showed 'excellent tolerability'.  In addition, tests indicated the drug to cause less gastrointestinal damage than aspirin.  The drug was also well tolerated in the dog and the monkey in medium-term toxicity trials; to date the compound has caused no sign of toxicity in both these species in long-term trials.  As a result of these 'animal experiments' the drug was entered for clinical trials and subsequently marketed... animal tests obviously do not ensure safety for human beings."



Tagamet (Cimetidine) produced by Smith, Kline & French in 1977 after extensive testing on dogs, rabbits, hamsters, mice and rats, none of which gave signs of stomach cancer.  By 1981 the British Committee for the Safety of Medicine had received 2,459 reports of adverse reactions which included headaches, dizziness, skin disorders, psychiatric disorders, liver disorders, tremor, abdominal pain, nausea and diarrhoea and 21 reports of stomach cancer.  By December 1981 there had been 31 reports of joint pain due to Tagamet (Cimetidine) with other patients suffering joint-swelling and muscle pain.

The New Scientist, September 17 1981, in an article titled "Ulcer Drugs May Increase Risk of Stomach Cancer", and Lancet, Vol. 2, September 12 1981, page 550 published details of studies carried out by Doctors Reed, Haines, Smith, House and Walters of the Gastrointestinal Unit, Wexham Park Hospital, Slough, Berkshire; the Biochemistry Section, Leatherhead, Surrey; and the Department of Pharmacology, Guy's Hospital Medical School, London.  The conclusions of which reveal that "despite there being no signs of stomach cancer in animals on which the drug was tested, there could be an increased risk of stomach cancer on the human patients to whom it is prescribed".  Discussion at the conclusion of the study included the following statements:

  1. "For long-term Cimetidine treatment the toxicological data from the drug developers for rat and dog exposure at high concentrations appear reassuring but disagree with current clinical experience."
  2. "We can envisage at least one major pathway whereby Cimetidine could increase the risk of gastric cancer in man."

Further evidence against Tagamet (Cimetidine) came from a doctor, who alarmed that some of his patients taking the drug had developed stomach cancer, reported it to the Committee on the Safety of Medicines which wrote:

"I and many of us, hope that this whole business turns out to be a red herring: If not, it would cast doubt on the whole basis on which we determine drug safety."

This should set the astute reader seriously considering how cushioned from the hazards of reality is this powerful Committee which entrusted with the responsibility for public health, appears ignorant of the many doctors on every continent, who, for the past couple of decades have not merely "cast doubt" but vociferously shouted and vigorously rallied forces in an international challenge of the basis used for judging the safety of medicines, namely vivisection.  At time of writing, the author is studying the itinerary of the forthcoming International Scientific Congress of the Doctors in Britain Against Animal Experiments, which being held in London on September 24 1992, titled "A Renaissance for Scientific Medicine?", hosts leading prestigious medical men of the highest order in many facets of medicine from ten countries to address the gathering.  In contrast to the open agenda of these doctors which is the ABOLITION OF VIVISECTION BECAUSE IT IS AN INVALID METHOD OF JUDGING THE SAFETY OF MEDICINES, the agenda of the Committee for Safety of Medicines may be a hidden one which guarantees there will be no change to the colour of the afore-mentioned herring.  To adequately substantiate the authenticity of this statement we remain down under and meet the Committee's first cousin the Therapeutic Goods Administration Drug Evaluation Branch (Australia), the Director of which, one Brewster Ashley, was reported in Auckland Star, March 7 1991, page 7 under World News as telling an international conference on drug regulation:

"We have to remember that the main aim of pharmaceutical companies is not to make drugs for the good of mankind, but to make profits for their shareholders."1

On the prescribing information issued by SK & F in 1981 the firm boasts that "over eleven million patients have been prescribed Tagamet (Cimetidine)... The control it gives you is backed by a lot of experience.  Tagamet (Cimetidine) puts you in control of gastric acid".

Animal toxicity tests of Tagamet (Cimetidine) conducted by SK & F included "the highest doses in rats, mice, hamsters and dogs which caused tremor, convulsions and death which yielded no sign of joint problems... Studies over 12 months in dogs, mice, rats and rabbits which gave no sign of stomach cancer".  The observant reader will be bearing in mind that headache, dizziness, psychiatric disorders, nausea etc. could not be predicted from animal tests anyway!  The Committee for the Safety of Medicine now accepts that Tagamet (Cimetidine) causes stomach cancer.

"They (gastric and duodenal ulcers) never occur naturally in animals, and they are hard to reproduce experimentally.  They have been so produced, but usually by methods of gross damage that have no relation to any possible causative factor in man; moreover, these experimental ulcers are superficial and heal rapidly, and bear little resemblance to the indurated chronic ulcers we see in our patients."
(Dr W. H. Ogilvie, Consulting Surgeon to Guy's Hospital, Lancet, February 23 1935, page 419.)

"The hypothesis that acid acting on nerve-endings in the floor of the ulcer is the primary cause of ulcer pain is based upon unnatural experiments, false anatomy and faulty pathology2... Many patients with 'ulcer pain' have no nerves in the ulcer floor, some have no acid, and some even have no ulcer..."
(Dr V. J. Kinsella, Sydney, Lancet, August 22 1953, page 361.)



In December 1985 the anti-inflammatory drug Suprofen also sold as Suprol, produced by the drug company McNeil (parent company Johnson and Johnson), dispensed to over 500,000 patients in the U.S.A. alone, caused over 100 cases of kidney damage and 25 percent of the patients had to be hospitalised.  The Health Research Group alleged negligence on the part of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for approval of the drug because it is "it is a similar drug to Smith Kline's Selacryn which the FDA banned in 1980 which caused kidney and liver damage... The FDA do not appear to be unduly worried however because they have only received 270 reports of kidney damage"!
(Scrip, 1143, October 8 1986.)

Flenac, brand-name for the anti-inflammatory drug Fenclofenac (Reckitt and Colman, makers of Janola) was reported in Lancet to have incurred over 15,000 injurious effects including 7 deaths.  Removed from the market in 1984 Flenac had been "tested extensively" by being injected into the paws of rats to study "paw-swelling", an enormous range of toxicity tests, mainly on rats and pigs, and "coldness tests" which involved keeping animals alive in 15C temperatures for 45 minutes.  These ludicrous and ill-conceived tortures did not however prevent the volunteers in a clinical trial from suffering skin-rashes, stomach problems and vomiting.  When withdrawn from the market for "severe side-effects" the British National Formulary said:

"There is no orthodox drug which does not cause some type of unwanted side-effects.  In the case of Flenac, these were described as relatively mild, and included intestinal discomfort, bleeding, nausea, rashes, headache, vertigo, hearing disturbances, and effects on the blood."!
(Outrage, March/April 1986.)



Ketoconazole, produced by Janssen Pharmaceutical Ltd in 1981 after "extensive animal tests for effect and toxicity", by 1983 warnings of adverse reactions to Ketoconazole appeared.  By July 1984, 700,000 prescriptions had been dispensed and four months later the CSM had received 82 reports of liver damage and 5 deaths.  Many patients were given the drug for skin, nail and vaginal infections.  In January 1985 Ketoconazole was still being prescribed, the CSM advising doctors to "carefully weigh the risk of liver damage and to monitor their patients".
(Outrage, October/November 1986.)



Cordaronex, introduced in 1982 by Labaz Sanofi U.K. Ltd, as a drug to dilate the coronary for angina.  This drug had "the full range of animal tests over the period 1968 to 1981".  It was "tested" on dogs, rats and cats for its effect on the heart; on guinea-pigs and hundreds of rabbits to see the effect on the thyroid gland.  In 1982 "serious adverse reactions including 4 cases of hepatitis" were reported to the CSM.
(Outrage, October/November 1986.)



Zomax, introduced in 1981 by Ortho-Cilag Pharmacutical Ltd was withdrawn voluntarily by the company in March 1983 after 5 deaths from allergic shock, in the U.S.A."The full range of animal toxicity tests were carried out".

Osmosin, by Merck, Sharp and Dohme.  A drug for rheumatism introduced in December 1982 after "extensive animal tests".  This drug was withdrawn worldwide on September 2 1983 when the Committee on Safety of Medicines admitted there had been 18 deaths and 400 reports of serious side effects which included bleeding and perforation of the intestine.



In September 1991 doctors in Great Britain and New Zealand were advised that the drug Mictural (Swedish pharmaceutical company Kabi Pharmacia AB) had been withdrawn after causing the deaths of eight people.
(Evening Post, September 17 1991.)



Diethylstilbestrol, "tested without adverse effects on animals" for years.  Caused cancer in girls whose mothers had been prescribed the drug in pregnancy (because it passes through the placental barrier and triggers cancer in the fetus).  Six million women were given DES in pregnancy.  Hundreds of women developed vaginal cancer because their mothers were given DES, thousands of female offspring were in pre-cancerous conditions.  Time Magazine, March 23 1980 reported that cancer, miscarriages and stillbirth as well as ectopic pregnancy was caused by DES (the fetus growing outside the uterus).  The New England Journal of Medicine and other medical publications reported that DES extends to the third generation and also affects the genital organs of the male offspring!



Diethystilbestrol (see above) prescribed to prevent miscarriage (which it causes), was also doled out to whole populations as a morning-after pill though the dangers were known.  Causes still-birth, infertility, congenital defects, malformations, breast cancer, asthma, arthritis, diabetes.  Worldwide thousands of legal claims made against Eli Lilly and other pharmaceutical companies.  A Dutch DES Report estimates that in the European community alone up to 9 million people could have been exposed to DES in the womb.  That ninety percent of women prescribed DES now have problems in their reproductive organs.  A support group for New Zealand victims is being set up by:

Mrs A. Gibbs, Private Bag, Tokomaru.  (Always send SAE.)  Full page article Palmerston North, Evening Standard, December 12 1992.



Clofibrate.  Introduced in 1960 to lower blood cholesterol levels.  The World Health Organisation claims it causes death from several diseases including cancer.  Is still on the market.



"Tranquillisers impair memory and intellectual functions, hazardous for elderly people, cause distressing and dangerous side effects.  Consumers 5 times more susceptible to accidents."
(U.K. National Association for Mental Health.)

Refer to Chapter 22, Living 25 Years Longer Than Our Great Grand Parents.



Abbott laboratories has voluntarily recalled its new anti-infection drug Omniflox following three deaths and 50 serious reactions, including low blood-sugar, linked to the drug.  The drug was given FDA approval in January 1992 and was marketed from February to June 5.
(New York Times, June 6 1992.)



At time of writing, July 17 1992, the Dominion newspaper drug of the day to be avoided is the anti-histamine Teldane, otherwise known as Seldane, which is commonly taken by people with hay-fever or allergy symptoms.  The article claims that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration gave reports of four deaths and 60 cases of "sudden heart problems""The drug", says Dr B. Boyd, N.Z. Health Department Spokesman, "will still be sold in New Zealand"!



The London Newspaper Group publication Fulham Post, August 8 1991, in a bold front page article "Doctors Say 'No' To Diabetes Pills: Tests Show Capsules Are Not What They Seem" say that doctors at Charing Cross Hospital were sceptical of the safety of a diabetic drug which supposedly makes patients improve their condition.  Four patients from West London took part in the trials at Charing Cross Hospital after which the drug Glibenclamide was withdrawn.



The drug Camoquin, widely distributed to travellers going abroad, in order to prevent malaria was found to cause "severe, sometimes fatal agranulocytosis".  The condition involved bone marrow damage which leads to the loss of white cells from the blood.  "Sufferers become open to a variety of life-threatening infections against which they have no natural defence."  Parke-Davis faced a $5 million law-suit over deaths and injuries in the United States and similar actions in Great Britain.  When sought by Dominion journalists the New Zealand agents for Parke-Davis could not be contacted.
(Dominion, December 1 1987.)

JAMA, August 5 1992, runs a full-page article reviewing a book titled Japan's Dark Side to Progress: The Struggle for Justice for Pharmaceutical Victims of Japan's Post War Economic Boom.  Takanori Goto the author was the plaintiffs' attorney in the Chloroquine retinopathy trials which lasted for many years.  The drug, which discovered in 1945 to have anti-malarial activity was used in U.S.A. in 1957 in long-term treatments of patients with arthritis.  When it caused irreversible retinopathy, which often progressed to blindness, even when the medicine was discontinued, warning letters were sent to physicians and the drug was withdrawn.  From 1961 to 1974 Chloroquine was prescribed widely in Japan without application to the Japanese Regulatory Authority on the grounds that it had previously been approved to treat malaria.  In this account of the court case for the victims of Chloroquine, Takanori Goto says the Japanese Court System is as corrupt as the Regulatory Authorities who are described as pawns of the pharmaceutical industry.  "Pharmaceutical companies" he says are "driven solely by profits, to the degree that falsifying or witholding data is common".  Goto goes on to describe the system whereby the "drug companies have begun setting aside amounts of money proportionate to sales, to use to compensate victims when drug-caused damage occurs... A sort of industry insurance".



The drug Papaverine, prescribed for male impotency "could have dangerous and long-term side effects" a United States specialist told the AAP in Sydney.  Used by being injected into the penis as a means of producing an erection Dr Zasler said "doctors who did so could leave themselves wide open to lawsuits... It could lead to severe penis scarring as well as problems such as gangrene... which the drug sometimes induced".
(Evening Post, May 11 1988.)



If governments are guilty of instituting immoral and incorrect laws, either to suit their own ends or in subservience to higher powers, or both, Professor Croce puts it very succinctly on pages 85-87 of Vivisection or Science - a choice to make, that others on massive scale are in on the conspiracy:

"Whole teams of people are active in an institute, that is, a complex entity comprising imposing buildings, sophisticated scientific apparatus, and staff of various professional disciplines such as doctors, biologists, chemists, physicists, administrators and subsidiary personnel.  All of these are to be found in the prestigious National Institute for Cancer in the U.S.A.."

He is referring to the revelation in an article by Giuliana Dego in the Washington Post headed "Treatment for Cancer in the U.S.A. Worse Than the Disease Itself".

This article gives horrific details of tens of thousands of patients, including many children, who have been prescribed more than 150 experimental drugs, many of which "have caused more painful deaths than the illness itself would have done".  The Washington Post revealed that the number of deaths attributable, not to cancer but to the experimental drugs which were supposed to cure it, amounts to 620.  Robert Young, administrator of the Food and Drug Administration admitted:

"There is at times little regard for human life.  In Boston a hospital used a new drug from the National Institute for Cancer on some children and in the space of a few days their kidneys failed.  Some of these drugs actually stimulate the development of tumours and cancers."

(Which means as Prof. Croce is quick to point out, that this refutes the supposition that the experimentation was carried out only on those suffering from cancer.  If patients developed cancer because of the drugs it means that they didn't have it before!  This Prof. Croce accuses is "purely and simply experimentation... blind, violent, genuine vivisection".

Prof. Croce when investigating this issue at the National Institute for Cancer was told by an official:

"Our theory is that there really must be a chemical that cures cancer.  We decided that the only way of discovering it is to keep pumping millions of these substances into the veins of human beings."

At this point it must be emphasised that the key factor in the above affair is not that the highest, most sacrosanct and affluent institutions on Earth, namely the cancer institutions, are using human beings to test their drugs, but that THEY ADMIT TO IT, for insodoing they simultaneously admit that experiments on animals are erroneous.  Abolitionists are aware that all drugs are tested on human beings and that the animal "tests" are merely a legal alibi, but the most valuable weapon in their possession is the confession, freely given by the vivisector himself, and it must be used against him over and over again.  Assuming that the reader is interested in Prof. Croce's reaction to the vivisectors' confession, and since it reflects precisely the author's belief that it must be the premise which supports all moves to end vivisection, it is copied below.  It could surely have been written with the New Zealand circumstance and NZAVS' exhaustive efforts of the past 14 years in mind:

"One might despair of struggling against such an 'establishment', or of ever undermining its dogmas.  But the Lord always lends a hand to the weakest and does so in 'unforseeable ways', as the Scriptures say.

The most unexpected help has been rendered to anti-vivisectionists by vivisectionists themselves at the very moment they decided to cross the threshold from experimenting on animals to experimenting on humans.  That amounts to confessing that experimentation on animals is useless and is precisely the affirmation which forms the basis of all anti-vivisectionist thinking.  Therefore we should like to thank our unwilling allies: we despise you for your crimes but we are grateful to you for helping us to fight you more effectively."

By coincidence whilst writing this section a timely documentary was screened on Foreign Correspondent, July 23 1992.  This gave details of a proposed controversial trial on healthy women of a breast cancer drug Tamoxifen (ICI), which regardless of its dangers, has been prescribed for years to women recovering from breast cancer surgery.  Dr Craig Henderson, Chief of Medical Oncology at the University of California in San Francisco claims the trial is "in response to public demand for a drug to prevent breast cancer".

The head of the U.S. National Women's Health Network, Dr Adrienne Fugh-Berman, with the support of 25 scientists who oppose the trial, has organised a protest to be submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, on the grounds that the proposed trial on healthy women of experimental drugs cannot be compared with surveys of diet, fluoride in the water and other factors.  Further, those alarmed at the trial claim that studies of the drug showed that it has caused serious health problems as follows:

The programme went on to say that whilst the U.S. debates the issue doctors in the United Kingdom "are conducting experiments with Tamoxifen using healthy (i.e. those not suffering from cancer) older women as guinea-pigs"Dr Trevor Powles, of Britain's Royal Marsden Hospital, cancer specialist who is conducting the trials said in defence of his experiments:

"We may be able to show that Tamoxifen does things in test-tubes, we may be able to show that it does things in rats, and we may be able to show that Tamoxifen does things in other animals, but in the end we do not know what it does in humans.  That's it - we've got to do the experiment."

At conclusion of this documentary the presenter said "There are no plans to do the trials in New Zealand", upon which he made the astounding announcement that "healthy New Zealand women are however being used in special tests of Tamoxifen, using normal post-menopausal women, with their consent, to see if Tamoxifen will prevent bone loss".

In other words New Zealand women are being experimented upon with a drug which is known to increase risk of bloodclots and cancer of the lining of the uterus and suspected of increasing risk of liver cancer and abdominal tumours and the promotion of new cancers!

Three points spring to mind from this programme:

  1. The bonanza of profits for the drug company and their vivisectors if multitudes of healthy women can be enticed or frightened into taking their daily wonder pill to "prevent" cancer.
  2. The money that should be spent on legitimate surveys of life-style, environment, pollution, diet etc. to seek the reason for the increasing incidence of cancer - in which unfortunately for the drug companies there are no such profits.
  3. If such a trial is approved and promoted - how long before similar ones are taking place as normal practice, with or without the consent or knowledge of the participant?  Pills to prevent all ills, or perhaps a single one to prevent all our sickness, which history has revealed will only serve to create further disease on large scale.

As pointed out by Professor Croce, trials of drugs on healthy human beings is the natural progression of vivisection.  It epitomises the fact that vivisection, which a few years ago conjured up thoughts of experiments on animals, now means experiments on people.

For experiments on the mouse, without a shadow of a doubt leads directly to experiments on the man (or, in this case, the unsuspecting woman).

"Animal experiments inevitably lead to human experiments."
(Dr Moneim Fadali, taped interview with Kathy Ungar.)

A substantial resume of vivisection on human beings which is horrific in content is noted in People and Animals, by Dr J. D. Whittall, published by the National Anti-Vivisection Society, London.  But warning, it pales the foregone into insignificance.

No resume of the use of animals in cancer research can be made without referring to the evidence of that giant on the subject, Dr Irwin D. J. Bross mentioned elsewhere in this work:

"From a scientific standpoint, what is pertinent is that what are called 'animal model systems' in cancer research have been a total failure... Not a single essential new drug for the treatment of human cancer was picked up by the animal model system... Thus, the tens of millions of animals killed in the mass screening for new cancer drugs died in vain... Two high-powered promoters were pushing a study which used a particular drug called '5-FU'.  They presented animal data to support their claims for using this drug on human breast cancer.  In our studies which included 5-FU, the doctors had unanimously decided to drop it because there was no sign of benefit but very serious toxicity.  In my experience it is the worst anti-cancer drug in wide use.  However, the American Cancer Society owns a piece of 5-FU.  Since the American Cancer Society hands out the dollars it isn't surprising that many physicians swear by 5-FU... While I ended up losing my ACS-paid trips to conventions at resort hotels (where research may involve wine, women and golf), this isn't why the episode rankles.  My efforts to head off the poisoning of hundreds of women with breast cancer, with a dangerous drug that could destroy their host defence systems failed.  The National Cancer Institute went right ahead with its plan to fund this deadly study and others like it.  Not a few women with breast cancer have paid with their lives for this stupidity... animal model systems not only kill animals, they also kill humans.  There is no factual evidence to show that the use of animals in cancer research has led to the prevention or cure of a single human cancer."
(Irwin D.J. Bross, PhD, Director of Biostatistics, Roswell Park Memorial Institute, Buffalo, New York, "Animals in Cancer Research: A Multi-Billion Dollar Fraud", Reprinted from Fundamental and Applied Toxicology, November 1982, Ack. to K. Ungar, U.S.A.)



Clomiphene, marketed under various trade names including Clomid and Phenate in New Zealand, is reported by Leigh Parker, Health Reporter for Wellington Dominion quoting from an article in New Scientist, likely to damage the reproductive tract of a fetus, so the female, when she reaches child-bearing age would be prone to miscarriages and premature deliveries.  Her vagina, uterus and fallopian tubes may also be malformed.  United States and Japanese researchers say these drugs are "used by thousands of women worldwide though they may affect the development of female fetuses".

The N.Z. Health Department's Medicines and Benefits Unit Principal Medical Officer, Ralph Risley says that "the risk of taking such drugs were discussed fully with patients before use".  (A tall story and highly unlikely, the volunteering of major detrimental information about drugs, by doctors prescribing them is totally outside the author's experience.)

aeroplane (2k) "FREQUENT PRESCRIBER PLAN Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories gives doctors 1,000 points on American Airlines' frequent flyer program for each patient they put on the hypertension drug Inderal LA.
cash (2k) PROFITABLE RESEARCH As part of a 'study', Roche pays doctors $1,200 if they prescribe the antibiotic Rocephin for 20 hospital patients.
television (2k) BIG-SHOT PROGRAM In return for purchasing vaccines, Connaught Labs awards points redeemable for VCRs, personal computers and TVs.
computer (2k) COMPUTER FREEBIE Consortium of 10 drug companies provides doctors with free $35,000 computer systems if they spend 20 minutes a week reviewing 'promotional messages' and 'clinical information' and complete four continuing medical-education programs a year.
palm tree (2k) BEACHSIDE BONUS Ciba-Geigy offers free Carribbean vacations to doctors in return for sitting in on a few lectures about Estraderm, an estrogen patch."
(Senate Committee on Labour and Human Resources hearings, December 1990, Time Magazine, March 18 1991.)


Liberator (BUAV), March 1988, reported development of over 80 different AIDS drugs and 25 vaccines - all by rival drug companies.  Wellcome's Retrovir claims to hold the "virus" at bay although with risk of serious side effects.  The Independent, U.K. wrote:

Refer also to Chapter 9 AIDS.



Refer to comprehensive article in Section 1 of this Chapter.



"The drug prescribed to combat the outbreak of meningitis has a number of unwelcome side-effects, including inhibiting the effectiveness of oral contraceptives."

In an article titled "Meningitis Drug has Side-Effects", Evening Post, April 23 1992, the drug Rifampicin was highly criticised.  Along with other adverse effects it "turns urine bright orange, similarly tears and perspiration".  Prescriptions of Rifampicin have been discontinued across the country.



"The chief credit for the conquest of the destructive epidemics ought to have been given to the social reformers who had campaigned for purer water, better sewage disposal and improved living standards.  It had been their efforts, rather than the achievements of the medical scientists which had been chiefly responsible for the reduction in mortality from infectious diseases."
(Brian Inglis, Diseases of Civilization, Paladin, 1983.)

By surveying different communities, social reformers discovered that people who lived in dirty, overcrowded and insanitary conditions with little food or clean water were the most likely to die of infectious disease.  These human population studies were used to influence sanitary reforms with the result that deaths from almost all the infectious diseases were declining long before specific drugs or vaccines were produced.
(Dr R. Sharpe, The Cruel Deception: The Use of Animals in Medical Research.)

In 1971 Edward Kass, President of the Infectious Disease Society of America described the decline of infection disorders and the correlation with improving socioeconomic conditions as "the most important happening in the history of man".
(E.H. Kass, Journal of Infectious Disease, Vol. 123, 1971, pages 110-114.)

In 1952, 4,000 chronic bronchitis sufferers died within 4 days in London.  Human epidemiological studies had shown the link between atmospheric pollution and sickness and deaths from chronic bronchitis, and in 1956 the Clean Air Act was passed.  Following this date deaths from bronchitis started to decline in line with the reduction of smoke in the atmosphere... by 1970 deaths from bronchitis had fallen by 80%.
(W.W. Holland and A.H. Wainwright, Epidemiologic Reviews, Vol. 1, 1979, pages 211-232.)

"It is estimated that in 1977 - 120,366 patients were discharged from or died in hospital in the U.K. due to the adverse effects of medicinal agents."
(Sir George Young, U.K. Health Minister, 1980, Outrage, February/March 1990.)

The following is taken from the medical textbook Iatrogenic (Doctor Induced) Diseases:

"It is now widely reported that 18% of hospital beds in Great Britain are occupied by people suffering toxic damage from drugs and in excess of 7,000 prescription drug deaths are reported each year.  In the United States it was reported as far back as 1985 that one in seven hospital beds are taken up by patients under treatment for adverse reactions caused by drugs."

The following tables are taken from Animals Defender, November/December 1985:



(JAN 1964 - JUN 1976)
Oral Contraceptives 7,017
Sulphamethoxazole 1,424
Phenylbutazone 1,364
Ampicillin 1,122
Practolol 1,037
Paracetamol 859
Methyldopa 837
Nalidixic Acid 811
Aspirin 709
Diazepam 698
Amitriptyline 689
Chlorpromazine 584
Frusemide 576
Chlordiazepoxide 567
Measles Vaccine 559
Ibuprofen 546
Propanolol 530

"It is commonly known that only 16% of doctors report adverse effects on their patients."
(Outrage, October/November 1986.)


(Evidence from "yellow card" data issued by DHSS)

Oral Contraceptives 332
Phenylbutazone 217
Chlorpromazine 102
Corticosteroids 94
Isoprenaline 84
Phenacetin 77
Acetylsalicyclic Acid 72
Oxyphenbutazone 69
  • "Medicaments do not function the same way in humans as in animals."
  • "They can not possibly be dosed appropriately for such a function."
  • "Animals differ from one another in their sensitivity to medicaments."
  • "Animals do not suffer from the illness for which the medicaments are intended for in humans."
  • "In most of the experiments they are simply not ill.  It is plain that there are sources of error inherent in the method itself, and that false conclusions can be drawn from it."
    (Professor Theophilius Parvin M.D., Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, U.S.A., President of the Academy, Annual Address to the American Medical Academy, Washington, May 4 1891.)

"When a medicine has been shown to be harmless for 15 different animal species, including primates, who is to say it will also be harmless for man?  But to put it the other way round is also valid: when a medicine has been shown to be poisonous for 15 animal species, who is to say that it will be equally poisonous for man?"
(Dr A.L. Bachrach, Research Laboratories of Wellcome Chemicals, quoted in Quantitative Method in Human Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Edition Pergamon Press, 1959.)

On December 13 1975 under the title "The Medicine Bluff" an interview was published in the French weekly Paris-Match with Dr Henri Pradal, a specialist in pharmaceutical toxicology of whom Paris-Match stated:

"Henri Pradal spent twelve years in the camp of the industrial laboratories before leaving it in order to say what he could no longer keep silent about."

Hans Ruesch, who reproduced extracts of the above interview on pages 88-89 of One Thousand Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection, says that what Dr Pradal told Paris-Match applies to all the industrialised nations:

"The medical profession is not informed, or, rather, it is instructed almost exclusively by the journals and brochures from the laboratories, and thus by advertising.

A certain messianic belief in progress has persuaded us that increased use of them represent man's victory over disease, a proof of his power, a sign of progress.  Whence comes this blind trust, when intelligence should in fact lead us rather toward mistrust?  It stems from an illusion which has been imposed on us by the all-powerful pharmaceutical industry, by a giant brewing house that makes billions out of it.  The guilt for all this lies with the powers-that-be in the Public Health Department, the Government Ministry and the health insurance associations, whose apathy and negligence have resulted in the sanctioning of no less than 11,000 medicaments, although [on average] only a couple out of [every] 100 are of provable worth, as has been confirmed by the World Health Organisation.

The doctors can't see further than their own noses.  They have become convinced by the laboratory-financed medical literature that medicines have turned them into demi-gods, and that attacks on the pharmaceutical industry mean attacks on medicine.

When the people finally discover the cause of the illnesses, the sale of medicaments will abruptly drop.  But we must first get them to understand it."

Ruesch, in his usual inimitable style comments of the above:

"Dr Pradal forgot to explain that the fraudulent 'safety-tests' on animals were what lay behind the whole swindle."



At this juncture it should be obvious from the foregone, even to the sceptic, that vivisection as an institution exists solely for the benefit of the vivisectors and their satellites, despite mass holocaust of animals and the inherent tragedies suffered, sometimes unknowingly, unacknowledged and unidentified, by the human race.  Out of context, but perhaps relevant at this point the author will now deal with ARSL's statement which reads on page 7 thus:

"Much as we love animals, no human being should ever be put at risk because of a reluctance to do the tests on animals that are needed."

And so true to form, the publishers of ARSL in refusing to acknowledge that the ongoing world-opposition to vivisection is based by doctors against vivisection on the fact that its results are disastrous to the human race, they perpetuate the myth that such opposition springs from widespread concern about animal suffering.  A very convenient error which will never be effective in ending vivisection but absolutely guarantees its continuance.

The author allows Professor Croce to give the official answer on behalf of the new abolitionist movement of medical professionals, of which he is a leading figure, and with whom the author, has the honour to work in conjunction:

"Though the movement against vivisection stems from an impulse of compassion for animals the new anti-vivisectionists are NOT animal lovers, or at least not necessarily so.  They are for the most part experts who have had the mental clarity to ask fundamental questions: For whom are these experiments carried out?  What results do they produce?  Our demand for the abolition of animal experiments is not based on love of animals but a concern for the health of our fellow human beings."


1."SmithKline Beecham is the 4th largest (in sales terms) pharmaceutical company in the world.  The company is optimistic that one of its drugs, cimetidine (sold as Tagamet) will be the first ever 'billion dollar a year medicine'; its 1985 sales were just under $900 million.  In the past ten years SmithKline's investments in the U.K. has increased 10-fold and exports have increased six-fold.  SmithKline & French ranks eighth among British drug companies with domestic sales of 55 million pounds sterling per year and exports worth another 30 million pounds sterling."
(SCRIP 1142, October 1 1986.)

A more recent article titled "Drug Firms On A High" in Observer, February 3 1991 which reviews the profits of drug companies and their shareholders, SmithKline Beecham's Tagamet (for ulcers) is described as "a single blockbuster and forerunner to Zantac, which achieved revenues of some $2.77 billion in 1990".

The article goes on to say that "growing trends for long-term maintenance treatments means that patients will become accustomed to their brand, extending its sales life".  (A bonanza of profits which cannot be accomplished without continuance of the growing trend of doctors to insist their patients become dependent on prescribed medications, thus ensuring

  1. a solid gold investment for the drug companies
  2. encouragements, rewards and perquisites, some of great substance for the doctors, and
  3. a continued life of addiction, often with disastrous consequences for the patient, who far from having his life extended more often find it cut short!
- Author.) 
"Who cares about the people we administer them (drugs) to?"

"How do these deadly drugs act?"

"They cause hundreds of deaths due to liver, kidney and heart failure, respiratory diseases, destruction of the bone marrow, brain damage, paralysis, apoplectic strokes and coma."
(Prof. Croce, Vivisection or Science - a choice to make, page 86.)


A major full-page article in the British Sunday Times, January 5 1992, titled "The Rise of the Pill Pusher", and with the bold heading: "The drug industry is the darling of the stock-market with its world-ranking companies and best-selling pharmaceuticals", reveals that though there is a world recession, with the banks in deep trouble, the drug industry, trading in animal and human misery and with total disregard of the disastrous consequences, goes from strength to strength.  The article says:

"A report in the Lancet or other medical magazine can make or break the fortunes of a new drug and spark a wild rise or fall in the manufacturer's share price... Last week's stock-market gyrations showed how high the stakes are in a global industry estimated to be worth more than eighty billion pounds sterling a year."

The article, which goes on to list "miracle drugs which can transform a company's fortunes", list the world's twenty best-selling and profitable drugs.  In order that the reader can compare these medicaments and their often shady manufacturers, with what has been reported in this section about drugs doled out for specific diseases, the damage they cause, and what the medical experts have to say about them, the list is repeated below:


1990 Figures


1 Zantac Peptic Ulcer Glaxo
2 Adalat-Procardia Angina Bayer-Pfizer
3 Renitec Hypertension Merck
4 Capoten Hypertension Bristol-Myers-Squibb
5 Kefral-Ceclor Antibiotic Lily-Schinogi
6 Tenormin Hypertension ICI
7 Tagamet Peptic Ulcer SmithKline Beecham
8 Voltaren Arthritis Ciba-Geigy
9 Cardizem-Herbesser Angina Marion
10 Ventolin Asthma Glaxo
11 Naprosyn Arthritis Syntex
12 Gaster-Pepcid Peptic Ulcer Yamanouchi
13 Mevacor Cholesterol Merck
14 Augmentin Antibiotic SmithKline Beecham
15 Isoptin-Calan Angina BASF
16 Rocephin Antibiotic Roche
17 Prozac Antidepressant Lilly
18 Zovirax Antiviral Wellcome
19 Feldene Arthritis Pfizer
20 Ciprobay Antibacterial Bayer

(Acknowledgement to Elsie van der Steen, Great Britain)

Though the figures are not recent, the following additional intelligence reveals the enormity of the financial aspect:
  1. Profit for Boots Ltd: approx 120 million pounds sterling per annum, 40% which comes from drug manufacture.
    (Daily Express, September 2 1982.)
  2. Profits for Glaxo Holdings Ltd, year to 30 June 1982 was 133,636,000 pounds sterling.
    (Daily Express, October 12 1982.)
  3. Total profits for the U.K. pharmaceutical industry for 1981 was 570 million pounds sterling.
  4. The Director of Beechams Group, Sir Graham Wilkins, had a salary of 115,157 pounds sterling in 1981.
  5. The Director of Distillers Co. (the British company who made and marketed Thalidomide under Licence from Grunenthal) had a salary of 86,000 pounds sterling in 1981.

2. (And false profits based on the phoney pretences of animal experimentation - Author).


The author wrote in her Society's newsletter Mobilise! No. 30, August 1991:


Ten witnesses, each with a specialised carefully prepared and substantiated unrepetitive case on ten crucial aspects of vivisection were tricked into believing they would be "Heard" by the Primary Production Select Committee.  It had taken a whole year to receive this assurance.  Of the group Bette Overell and Lawrence O'Halloran were "Heard" under duress with constant interruptions from the Chairman Ross Meurant, who visibly antagonistic from the onset, said he had "matters more pressing".  In the meagre time allotted Bette Overell, principal petitioner gave an overview of the case for abolition emphasising the medical catastrophes resulting from the vivisection-based health service, the activities of the leagues of doctors campaigning for abolition under the policy of "scientific anti-vivisectionism" and the inadequacies of the peer-review system.  She introduced the nine witnesses to the Committee and the aspects of the cases they would present.  Of these Lawrence O'Halloran presented his evidence on the obsolescence of vivisection-based farming.  The remaining eight witnesses, one of whom was a drug-damaged victim of animal research, were ignored along with their submissions.  None of these knowledgeable abolitionists have been "Heard" to this day.  Hundreds of public submissions were never registered.  A series of hearings were held for representatives of the pro-vivisection community to discuss the Petition.  Neither Overell nor her Society were informed, much less invited to these meetings and were unaware of them until after the event.

Despite numerous enquiries to the Primary Production Select Committee and to the Prime Minister the Society never received a report of the outcome of the Petition.  Despite correspondence between Bette Overell and the politicians which lies in files feet thick.  Despite the politicians being in possession of medical proof that the established health service is based on error.  Despite the Government being informed of the growing movement of doctors against vivisection-based medicine.  And despite 13 years' bitter struggle for the legitimate case against vivisection to be heard through the Parliamentary system, it was made crystal clear (by their contrived silence, their hostility and their determination not to expose their shaky ground by asking questions that would be easily answered and expounded upon), that politicians, including four consecutive Prime Ministers and two Ministers of Health, are a key factor in the vivisection conspiracy.

With their respective cases gathering cobwebs in files they were never allowed to open, and in possession of answers to questions that were deliberately never put to them, these pioneers of abolition are pictured outside the New Zealand Parliament on 20 March 1991 prior to the "Hearing".  The farce at which all hopes to effect change through legal channels were shattered for decades to come, when inevitably others will rise to overthrow along with its profiteers, this greatest, most evil and calculated fraud of our times.

New Zealand Parliament.  The 'HEARING' of N.Z. Petition to Abolish Vivisection 20 March 1991

Photo: Dominic Hammond

Left to right: Fiona Tait, Deborah Garrett, Sandra Mattiassi, Vivienne Sands, Lawrence O'Halloran, Ross Gardiner, Bette Overell, Dean Golding, Anita Spencer, Simon Cottle.
Holding Banner: Paula Feehan and Zane Hookham.


Photo: Wellington Dominion

At the N.Z. Parliament 20 March 1991.  The frustration clearly visible on the faces of anti-vivisectionists, who, being constantly advised to "go through the proper channels", systematically have every legal channel closed to them when attempting to do so.


SECTION 4 - The hypocrisy of The New Zealand Law

If vivisection is criticised by those employed in the industry itself, who, as we have learned, openly admit that they have no faith or reliance in its principle apart from its guaranteed financial and academic advantages, and if it is actively opposed by thousands of doctors who are campaigning widely for abolition on the grounds that it is a grievously flawed method, the following questions must be asked:

Whereas the astute reader will be champing at the bit with answers, the slow-learner is directed to Chapter 1 Introduction to Animal Research Takes Lives, which draws attention to the recent petition launched to the Congress of the United States of America, which opposes abolition on the grounds that it would mean losses of jobs for millions of people.  And Chapter 18 Spinal Cord Injury, which reveals the invisible and insidious connection between the U.S. biomedical community, which, through the U.S. National Institute of Health, channels funds to many countries, and the stranglehold of subservience accompanying such funds.

The U.S. Petition to maintain continued vivisection, registers the apprehension of its signatories that abolition means the loss of jobs, however it is important to emphasise that the adverse effects of abolition will only be felt by those whose careers centre on, or are linked with, the vivisection industry.  When the animal laboratories are closed the massive finance being squandered by manufacturing sickness, misery, dis-ease and death in animals will be directed to creating employment for a greater number of people in the advancement of human health.  An excellent example of this was publicised in New Zealand in 1989 with the closure of Middlemore Hospital vivisection laboratory which reported that "a saving of $87,000 per year made by the closure would go towards treating patients".
(Dominion, October 21 1989.)

And so exposing a chink in the rotten and crumbling edifice of vivisection, the Middlemore Hospital laboratory and others that are closing, admit that though it provides jobs for vivisectors no amount of inflicting dis-ease into healthy animals will make sick people well.  All the evidence reveals that when funds are diverted from creating sickness, to acceptance and promotion of the many valid, harmonious, non-invasive and compatible therapies, vast multitudes of people will benefit.  All over the world in the past few years, recognising the error of conventional vivisection-based drugs, an increasing number of people are turning to acupuncture, homeopathy, chiropractice, osteopathy, hypnotherapy, aromatherapy, hydrology, psychosomatic medicine, reflex therapy, and other drugless remedies, all of which, whilst being valid ways of combating and preventing dis-ease, make employment.  In addition, without the suction pump of vivisection draining away money, the funds will be applied to employing skilled and caring staff to care for the handicapped and elderly, providing physical and mental stimulation in their homes, as distinct from keeping them drugged and more dead than alive in institutions.  When vivisection goes, sick people will have the benefit of diet and exercise programmes, massage, education into self-esteem and responsibility, colour, water, music treatments, and many others.  All of which spell improved health, happier and healthier populations and funding for community responsibility to assist troubled and dis-eased people instead of funding the vivisectors.

The abolition of vivisection means the release of a large percentage of the five hundred million dollars per year currently spent on New Zealand's pharmaceutical bill, not to mention the thirty million dollars annually wasted on "bio-medical research" (the trade-name for vivisection) which will be used to prevent State-induced disease and illness which kept hospitals full to overflowing.  For example, the Wellington Contact, April 16 1992, reports in bold headlines "Metal Concentrations Alarm Expert".  This major article voices the concern of Dr Michael Sturm, visiting environmental sedimentologist from Austria, who is currently visiting the DSIR Oceanographic Institute at Greta Point.  Dr Sturm says he is horrified at the levels of zinc, lead, copper, cadmium and mercury concentrations at sewage outfalls around Wellington which are "10 to 15 times worse than in lakes in the most densely populated parts of Switzerland where it is strictly forbidden to put such waste down drains".

Yet another example of the idiocy and perversion of the vivisectors' lies that cures for human ailments are to be found through vivisecting animals, is in the report in N.Z. Listener, October 10 1992, that "a very high mass of dioxin is contaminating Lake Rotorua (New Zealand's tourist mecca) to a degree that environmentalists rate worse than in highly industrialised areas like the Lower Rhine and Lake Ontario".  That large quantities of deregistered pesticides from the Waikato in the north to the scenic Southland and from most of New Zealand's landfill sites are quietly leaching toxins into nearby waterways.  That the developed world's increasingly chemophobic consumers could have second thoughts about our clean, green food products.

It cannot be over-emphasised that dis-ease, preventable and avoidable, is being manufactured and self-inflicted, through our food, air, water and erroneous chemical medicaments.  That funds wasted on vivisection should be used in eradicating and preventing such dis-ease.


Prof. Croce wrote in the Foreword to Vivisection or Science - a choice to make:

"The Nation that first abolishes vivisection will be to the world what renaissance Italy was."

Although only in one province, this has already come about, the honour again falling to Italy as the law dated July 8 1986, No. 16, of the Province of Bolzano reads:

The Provincial Council has approved, and the President of the Provincial Council has promulgated the following law...
Article 1
The autonomous Province of Bolzano has decreed that within its own sphere of competence animals of all kinds should be protected...
Article 7
The same penalty applies to anyone who carries out experiments on living animals even just for scientific or teaching purposes."

The triumph won by Italy could, and should, have been New Zealand's, which government for the past decade was the target of intense NZAVS legitimate, substantiated and well-evidenced calls for abolition, which had overwhelming public support.  Instead however of giving consideration to NZAVS' two petitions, the New Zealand pro-vivisection alliance manoeuvred a system whereby vivisection is established, conducted and sanctified within the law.  This was followed by the publication and distribution of Animal Research Saves Lives, with the motive of reassuring New Zealand's uneasy populace and chivvying waverers back into the fold of established thought.  We now look at how this law evolved:

The New Zealand Animal Protection Act 1960 had no protection for animals in the country's laboratories.  They were exempt from the Act until a law change in 1983 which resulted from NZAVS petition to abolish the Lethal Dose 50 Test.  This petition was unique for New Zealand, not because it reflected the feeling of extensive apprehension being voiced by the New Zealand public, but because it was based on scientific, as distinct from moral grounds.  The petition was presented to the Government with evidence, much of which came from the vivisectors themselves, that toxicological tests on animals are scientifically and medically worthless... except for their legal and technical advantages and benefits, whilst making jobs for the vivisectors and others in the industry.

In order to safeguard its combined interests from further challenge on the dangerous ground that vivisection is scientific fraud, rather than on ethical considerations (which the vivisectors are prepared to debate interminably, knowing it represents no threat), in 1983 the New Zealand pro-vivisection community, headed by the Minister of Agriculture set up the National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee (NAEAC).  With the enthusiastic collaboration of the RNZSPCA, NAEAC formulated a code of ethical conduct to which vivisection carried out in New Zealand laboratories must adhere.  The code took four years to write and put into effect, that is to contrive to be sufficiently ambiguous to ensure protection of vivisectors and their activities.  To this end each laboratory must form its own ethics committee at which those experimenting on animals decide, in the peer review system, which experiments are ethical and which are unethical.  Proposed experiments are then submitted to the NAEAC for scrutiny and agreement prior to being passed to the Minister of Agriculture for final approval.

Undoubtedly the ethics committee system can truly be called a relic of a bygone age.  Written by, for, and to protect the vivisectors, it has the necessary convenient loopholes, the same ambivalence and the same safeguards for the animal experimenters as did the absence of law prior to 1987 which merely suggested they adhere "to the spirit of the animals protection act".  With vivisection protected by a law which is as flawed as vivisection itself it is worse for the animals, and for abolitionists, than if no law existed, for a token law is merely a legal bulwark against dissension.  "Everything is being carried out to the letter of the law."

Unlike the honest law of the Province of Bolzano in Italy which consists of an uncomplicated, straightforward, twenty honest words which need no decoration or embellishment, the New Zealand law in its high-gloss, artistically presented 35 page fancy package is distinguishable at a glance as a phoney designed to protect not the animals but the vivisectors.  Titled Guidelines for Institutional Animal Ethics Committees, initial suspicion is confirmed when the reader examines the Foreword... prior to tackling the work's top-heavy, superfluous and contradictory content.  The following extracts from the document (hereafter referred to as The New Zealand Law), will be brief but the author, who adds her comments, trusts sufficiently enlightening to set readers forming their own judgement:


FOREWORD TO The New Zealand Law

"Animal Ethics Committees provide an important means of working with the scientific community to bring about improvements in the way laboratory animals are used..."

Author's Comment

ETHICS: "The science to which right action must conform."
(The Concise Oxford Dictionary.)

Established to "Bring about improvements in the way laboratory animals are used", The New Zealand Law is a contradiction in terms.  At the onset the work is technically invalid.  That vivisection is unethical is an escapable and immovable fact which millions of people find self-evident.  The "laboratory animal" does not exist any more than does the laboratory human being.  It is a technical error to use the word "ethics" to legitimise exertion of power over the weak, whether the victim on the receiving end is horizontal with four legs or vertical with two.

Would ethics committees have legitimised slavery in the cotton-fields, children labouring down the mines and up the chimneys, or the use of experimental human beings in Dachau and Belsen?  Perhaps technically but never morally.  The use of ethics committees to legitimise the vivisection of animals under The New Zealand Law reveals the New Zealand Government's willingness to shelter behind a questionable technicality on the first count as it is impossible on the second.

The author of the Foreword to The New Zealand Law is the National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee Chairman, Mr Ian L. Baumgart, who, perhaps from modesty, but more likely from shame, omits to add his credentials.  Mr Baumgart is:

Past senior scientist at the N.Z. Department of Industrial Research Laboratories and past Chairman of the Toxic Substances Board, which exposes, as elaborated in Chapter 1, The Vivisection Industry, that, unlike most trades and professions, a career in vivisection lasts long after retirement.  It is a guaranteed enclosed, water-tight and solid-gold brotherhood.


PAGE 1. The New Zealand Law

"Though the public demands research, testing and teaching be continued and improved to enhance the quality of human and animal life, there is growing concern about the ethical and philosophical implications of using animals in the ways they have been traditionally used."

Author's Comment

The public demands research, testing and teaching be carried out without the use of animals.  To this end forty thousand people marched through the City of London on April 24 1992, similar marches took place in most American cities, and for the past 12 years NZAVS has marched through New Zealand's capital city annually on World Day for Laboratory Animals.  Two Petitions to the New Zealand Parliament demanded abolition on grounds of scientific fraud.  Ethical and philosophical implications aside an exploding international movement seeks abolition because of vivisection's grievously illogical methodology.

"It is clear the public is concerned about animal research and that ultimately the decision as to what is and what is not moral in animal research must include public as well as scientific, animal welfare, and philosophical input."

Author's Comment

Animal research is morally bankrupt.  Since the founding of the first anti-vivisection society in London, 117 years ago, the vivisectors have been philosophising about morals and ethics with which they are obsessed, in the knowledge that to do so will not save one mouse from their clutches.  Three things are made crystal clear in the above statement:

  1. that The New Zealand Law is a public pacifier;
  2. that it refuses to acknowledge the scientific opposition to vivisection; and
  3. that it uses "willing" animal welfarists and "tame" members of the brainwashed public as pawns to maintain the vivisection establishment.



PAGE 2. The New Zealand Law


"The New Zealand Law requires that any research, teaching, experimental, diagnostic, toxicity, or potency testing work or work for the purposes of producing antisera or other biological agents involving the manipulation of live animals must be carried out in accordance with a code of ethical conduct to be submitted to NAEAC by the director or chief executive of the institution and approved by the Minister of Agriculture."

Author's Comment

The use of animals as described above is unethical, see previous comment, therefore The New Zealand Law is technically invalid.


PAGE 3. The New Zealand Law


"'Manipulation' in relation to any live animal, means interfering with the normal physiological, behavioural or anatomical integrity of the animal by deliberately:
(a) Exposing it to any parasite, micro-organism, drug, chemical, biological product, radiation, electrical stimulation, or environmental condition;
(b) Subjecting it to enforced activity, unusual restraint, abnormal nutrition, or surgical intervention;
(c) Depriving it of usual care...
but does not include any therapy or prophylaxis necessary or desirable for the welfare of the animal."

Author's Comment

Any member of society carrying out any one of the above manipulations on an animal without the extortionate exemption from The New Zealand Law bestowed on the vivisectors would be liable for fines or prison sentences.


PAGE 4. The New Zealand Law


"The use of animals in research has an ethical cost that must be outweighed against the potential benefit to be obtained."

Author's Comment

The sole potential benefit of vivisection lies in the legal, technical, financial, academic and industrial areas where it is used as an alibi to prove whatever point the donor of the funds for the research wishes to establish.  This is achieved by choosing the appropriate animal species.


PAGE 5. The New Zealand Law


"The Commitees' objectives are:
To ensure the humane treatment of animals used in manipulations..."

Author's Comment

There is no humane way of treating animals manipulated in vivisection laboratories.  The inhumanity begins before the manipulations commence... in the breeding, capturing, procuring, caging, preparing etc.

"To outline principles regarding the choice, supply and maintenance of animals."

Author's Comment

If the procedures in the manipulations are as humane as The New Zealand Law insists, the vivisectors should obviously form a pool of volunteers from their own ranks.  This would ease public concern, cost less, there is an abundant supply, they are dispensable and more importantly it would solve their ethical concern for the animals.


"Experiments involving the manipulation of animals are carried out to achieve educational objectives."

Author's Comment

The use of animals in education is inefficient, time-consuming, expensive and blunts the sensitivities and manual dexterity of the pupil, and similar to The New Zealand Law is light years behind the times.  Refer Chapter 18, Surgical Techniques.  (Also refer NZAVS submission to Parliament titled The LD50 Alibi and the New Zealand Parliamentarian, dated February 5 1985.)

The manipulation of a computer requires talent and brains, neither of which are necessary for cutting up animals, and for the diehard vivisector, daunted by the thought of change, it is tantamount to expecting a kindergarten infant to undertake an honours degree.  However many overseas teaching institutions have come out of the dark ages, closed their animal laboratories and installed computers which doctors say younger students prefer for their practical superiority and ethical compatibility.

Dr Julius Melbin and his associates at the University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine write:

"We devised a computer simulation that replaced conventional physiology laboratory work, instead of students dissecting animals and watching various factors, blood-pressure, glucose tolerance and so on, they operate on a computer terminal by typing in information about what they intend to do.  The digital computer quickly calculates how the animal will be affected and displays the results on oscilloscopes, chart recorders and print-outs.  The screen mimics heart-rate, nerve impulses, body temperature, brain-waves and other vital signs of the living animals.  The sound of the beating heart and the beep of a recorded nerve impulse adds drama and reality to the proceedings.  As with other computers of this kind the 'operation' can be stopped anytime, backtracked to any given point, or even fast-forwarded.  All impossible when using live animals when, should the student hold up proceedings to ask questions, the animal dies."

Dr Michael of the Department of Physiology, Rush Medical College, Chicago wrote:

"Computer simulations of student animal experiments do not require animals."

Over a decade ago, in correspondence with the author, Dr Michael was coordinating a clearing house to foster the exchange of programs produced throughout the world for the American Physiology Society.  At this time the author attempted unsuccessfully to induce the New Zealand Government to contribute a computer grant towards this revolutionary work which benefits animals and humans and from which New Zealand research institutions would have reaped great advantage.

Dr Kurt Enslein of Health Designs Inc., New York, ten years ago, created programs which "could isolate dangerous chemicals at the earliest stages of testing".  When the computer told him that piperine, an ingredient in black pepper, was a carcinogen, he searched through his literature and found a report that linked piperine to cancer.  A further interesting point is that incorrect information fed into the computer which resulted from experiments on animals was rejected by the computer.

Dr Charles De Lisi, Biophysicist at the National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland wrote that:

"Every year laboratories introduce thousands of new chemical compounds to the marketplace and using rats to test each individual substance can run into thousands of dollars... Dr Enslein's computer can test each chemical for $150."

(Dr De Lisi omitted to add that the rat tests are dangerous and invalid whereas the computer rejects false conclusions.)

Dr James R. Walker at this time had pioneered the installation of computers in the Integrated Functional Laboratory at the University of Texas Medical School, which replicated physiological functions which had hitherto been observed in living animals.  Dr Walker wrote to the author that:

"The computers paid for themselves in two years, reducing the high cost of buying, housing and feeding animals.  They also save pupils from a moral dilemma.  They do things faster, better and differently.  Of the few things animals and computers have in common, one similarity allows the students to study living systems without the necessity of using animals."

Dr Walker closed his animal laboratories saying:

"The computers are so successful that to provide such an experimental animal for use in the student laboratory would be impossible.  The cost of computer maintenance after initial purchase is low, the computer can simulate not only the animal systems under study but waits for the students rather than the student waiting for developments to take place in the animal."


Dr Walker generously donated (to the author on behalf of NZAVS) two software programs of standard experiments commonly carried out by students.  On World Day for Laboratory Animals, April 24 1985, these were presented to Labour M.P. for Western Hutt, Mr John Terris, for onforwarding to the Minister of Health, Dr M. Bassett, who wrote to the Society that "the programmes had uses in training of medical students" adding that he would see that they were distributed.  To this end Dr Bassett passed the programs to New Zealand's greatest protector and advocate of vivisection Dr B. Boyd, (then) Deputy Director of Health who held them for over six months until they were retrieved by Mr Terris and returned to the Society.  By using funds donated by its members NZAVS copied and distributed the diskettes to medical schools, universities and agricultural and veterinary laboratories, which use animals in their training, conducting a survey which extended almost two years.  The result of this expensive and time-consuming exercise, which is registered in detail in Mobilise!, No. 16, October 1986, concluded as follows:

  1. New Zealand laboratories did not have the individual computers (much less a uniform inter-laboratory link-up system).
  2. Many of the vivisectors admitted to not having learned how to use the software and were extremely reluctant to come to grips with new-fangled innovations, which they correctly interpreted as a threat to their hitherto unchallenged routine of cutting up animals.
  3. Funds were not available to install the new technology (which would have been, had funds for vivisection been terminated and given to the implementation of sound and ethical methods).

The Society summarised its survey thus:

Though superior replacement techniques exist - the vivisectors' will to adopt them does not.

That the New Zealand teaching establishments have still not, eight years later, replaced teaching methods from the animal to the computer reflects the continued derelict attitudes and perhaps also the commercial behind-the-scenes advantages of adhering to the animal-system with its inherent profits.  (Refer Chapter 1, The Vivisection Industry.)

Author's Comment

The professed "respect and care" for the animals stated in The New Zealand Law should be demonstrated by closing vivisection laboratories and the installation of valid, medically approved and ethical teaching methods.  Animals are proven to be inconclusive, expensive and inefficient in experimental work and teaching.


Author's Comment

The importance of this statement is what it omits, namely that animals in all the following categories can be experimented on in The New Zealand Law.  Each one of which, like the specifically-bred laboratory-animals industry, represents a lucrative business:

  1. Lost, stolen or strayed pets sold to vivisection from pounds.
  2. Old and worn out greyhounds.  (NZAVS has reports of a tidy trade in "finished" greyhounds to laboratories.)
  3. Abandoned circus animals.  (Which have no protection of any description at any stage of their lives.)
  4. Former racehorses.
  5. Surplus animals from breeders and pet shops.  (Substantial routine trade of excess or "imperfect" animals to laboratories.)
  6. All species of birds, native and otherwise.
For example:

The obsolescence and archaism of The New Zealand Law was exposed by the nationwide announcement on September 4 1992 that the Ministry of Agriculture had managed to overcome its ethical concern for the victims of vivisection sufficiently to plan trials of the dreaded myxomatosis on the country's increasingly rare and dwindling national emblem, the kiwi.  Neither does its concern about ethics prevent The New Zealand Law from allowing pound seizure, which is banned in many countries, or from being part of the lucrative animal-breeding industry, by sanctioning and advocating the use of specifically-bred laboratory animals.  Refer Chapter 1, The Vivisection Industry.


PAGE 6. The New Zealand Law


"Both the person carrying out the manipulation and the organisation or institution concerned must accept responsibility for the work undertaken.  Such responsibility will include the selection of an appropriate animal species, the choice of the number of subjects, the nature of the procedures and all matters related to the continuing welfare of the animals and their ultimate disposal."

Author's Comment

As pointed out in a previous section the selection of the animal species can be manipulated to suit the desired objective of the experiment - which will in turn be determined by the funding source.


PAGE 7. The New Zealand Law


"Endangered or threatened species should not be used unless the findings are expected to assist the survival of that species."

Author's Comment

Thus rare, endangered or threatened species can be poisoned to death with myxoma virus - or otherwise done to death in any way the vivisectors desire providing funds are forthcoming for the experiments.


PAGE 8. The New Zealand Law


"The following points must be taken into consideration:


Author's Comment

Thus if it is impossible to achieve the vivisector's "desired result" without imposing great or maximum stress or pain BOTH FACTORS OF WHICH ARE DETERMINED BY THE VIVISECTOR, such stress and pain is permissible in The New Zealand Law.

The vivisector's "adequacy" to carry out the technique, hinging on the vivisector's own judgement, means that, notorious for their self-determined confidence, any vivisector who fancies a quick workout on animals will claim he is "adequate" to carry out the technique to do so, knowing that the animal's protestation to the contrary is unlikely to be considered.

The use of anaesthesia, the minimisation of distress, the necessity of subjecting animals to further procedures and the necessity of terminating experiments, again all hinge on the vivisector.  The reader is urged to turn to the Foreword at Chapter 1 which exposes that the British Law which is supposedly the most stringent in the world fails to protect animals from routine torture AS THE NECESSITY FOR ALL THE ABOVE DEPENDS ENTIRELY ON THE VIVISECTOR CARRYING OUT THE EXPERIMENT.  (Three hundred million animals are done to death annually in the world's laboratories, in excess of eighty percent without anaesthesia or pain relief.)

The foregone extracts were highlighted from the first eight of 35 pages which comprise The New Zealand Law, the remaining 27 pages which consist of the same contrived phrases are meaningful only for their purpose of camouflaging and padding the important operative words to enable them to slide through their smokescreen unnoticed.  For example:


Author's Comment

This is an established fact, therefore consider the following:

Author's Comment

Contentious to whom?  As society is unaware of the proceedings it is unlikely to contend them; and the proceedings are unlikely to be contended by those involved in animal experiments!

Author's Comment

Thus a protocol does not always and must not necessarily comply with the code.  "Should" merely states an unbinding 'intention'.  This does not constitute a law.


Author's Comment

From what do vivisectors require "protection" if experiments are ruled ethical and legal?

Author's Comment

This is precisely their function.

Author's Comment

Consequently they must be chosen carefully for the function they perform for the Committee - not for the function they perform for the animals:

Author's Comment

An anti-vivisectionist, no matter how well-rounded, respected, trusted or independent, would be most unsuitable as such a person's concern would be for the animals rather than for the credibility of the Committee.  Only the brainwashed or ambitious is "suitable" to act as a public pacifier between vivisection and the public conscience.  A "suitable" candidate is one who, conditioned in primary school, then through higher education, and finally by the media, retains at all times his safe position in the majority.  No person who has conceived through study that vivisection is unethical and invalid, as he has conceived that the world is round and encircles the sun would be considered "suitable": Because the ethical and scientific invalidity of vivisection has not yet (because of propaganda like ARSL) been accepted by the majority.

Author's Comment

Appropriate to what?  This means the sanctioning committee could be far removed from the experiment.

Author's Comment

This was the purpose of establishing the ethics committee system.  Whilst The New Zealand Law, written by and for the vivisectors and funded by the public, ensures that vivisectors' activities are widely reported to their advantage by a friendly media which benefits financially from vivisectionist advertising, anti-vivisectionists' attempts to bring the scientific fraud of vivisection to the public remains diligently and systematically censored.

Author's Comment

Who and what must the lay member suit?  The vivisectors of course!  At onset this rules out the candidate who is opposed to vivisection.

Author's Comment

Why the confidentiality?  If vivisection is ethical and scientifically valid, procedures should be heralded from the rooftops.

The guidelines to The New Zealand Law came from the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies.  An outline of "ethical principles and guidelines for scientific experiments on animals" from the Swiss Academy of Sciences.  Other information came from the UK RSPCA and the Swedish Board of Agriculture, and a smattering of assistance from U.S. affiliates... All of whom profess "ethical concern" for laboratory animals, none of whom promote abolition of vivisection.

This the writer mentions for the sole purpose of emphasising the international syndicate which, linking the vivisectionists transcends all geographical, religious and other boundaries more soundly and efficiently than do any connections based on brotherly love.  A baffling and unwieldy amount of space is devoted to the vivisectors' obsession with the definitions and classification and categories of pain levels, categories of biomedical experiments based on increasing ethical concerns for non-human species, sections on monitoring experiments, and others on statistics.


The conclusions reached on studying The New Zealand Law, which having ruled that animal experiments are valid will accept no legal contradiction, is that: the most slip-shod and inadequate pursuers of academic titles in New Zealand, only requiring peer approval, have full licence to carry out any and all procedures on animals according to their own ambitions.  The necessities, requirements, actions, monitorings and limitations for so-doing being self-imposed!  That the vivisectors enjoy total freedom and complete peace of mind knowing that they are functioning legally within the guarantees, protection and shelter of The New Zealand Law.

When a law is so clearly unethical
it obviously merits disobedience.

(A belief being increasingly accepted by those the world over whose legal attempts to effect change will not be considered or debated by the lawmakers.)
(Bette Overell, March 1993.)


"Those who decide on the 'undeniable necessity' of vivisection and in what way it is to be carried out, are the vivisectors themselves, which means that the potential transgressors of the law can decide on both its application and its interpretation.  Which is as absurd as allowing a thief to decide when or whether a theft is necessary and how it is to be committed."
(Kim Buti, in Prof. Croce's Vivisection or Science - a choice to make, page 115.)

"To regulate/control vivisection by law means giving the vivisectionists and the vivisection method a legal and moral dignity, granting it the same status as morally and scientifically legal activities, and conferring on the vivisectors a security protected by the law.  In other words, a limited law is worse than no law at all."
(Prof. Croce, Vivisection or Science - a choice to make.)

"We demand not regulation and control, but abolition of vivisection being practised in the name of science."
(Dr Albert Poret, Paris.  In Hans Ruesch, One Thousand Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection.)


Though the writing is on the wall for the end of animal-based medicine, propaganda like Animal Research Saves Lives threatens the reader with the dire consequences should vivisection be stopped...





The British law says all "alternatives to animals used in vivisection laboratories must be tested on animals before they can be called alternatives."
(Letter from the British Secretary of State, on NZAVS file, September 12 1979.);
(See Chapter 1 Foreword.) (Ack. H. Turtle.)


Report on the LD50 Test presented to the British Secretary of State by the Advisory Committee on the administration of the Cruelty to Animals Act of 1876, Home Office, London 1979, ISBN 0 903727 75 7, page 18:
The suggestion was made to us by CREAE that the LD50 Test should be abolished or phased out.  Having regard to the worldwide use of LD50s this is hardly a realistic proposal.  BUT EVEN IF IT WERE WE COULD NOT SUPPORT IT."

(Hans Ruesch, CIVIS Bullet-In, Nr. 2, page 24.)


In the U.S.A. House Resolution 2407, a bill designed to guard federally-funded vivisection prohibits anyone from giving details of research to unauthorised persons.  The bill establishes criminal penalties against the press for publishing said information.  If, for example, a whistle-blower leaked information to a newspaper, the newspaper and reporter could be prosecuted for publishing the story.
(Dr Dobb's Journal, May 1992.)





ARSL 2nd Edition Page 5

"The maximum life-span has not changed at all.  Old people become increasingly prone to illness.  No matter how much medicine they take, no matter what care is given to them, life expectancy of 65 years has remained practically unchanged over the last century.  Medicine cannot do much for illness associated with aging, and even less about the process of aging itself.  It cannot cure cardiovascular diseases, most cancers, arthritis, advanced cirrhosis, or the common cold.  It is true that some of the pain which the aged suffer can sometimes be lessened.  Unfortunately though, most treatment of the old requiring professional intervention not only tends to heighten their pain, but, if successful, also protracts it."
(Ivan Illich, Medical Nemesis, Calder & Boyars, 1975, page 45, from One Thousand Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection, by Hans Ruesch.)

"It has been historically proved after a couple of centuries of vivisection and after billions of experiments carried out on animals, neither the number of people who have fallen sick nor the number and kind of fatal illnesses has in fact fallen.  Only for bacterial and parasitic diseases (but not for viral ones) have medicines been found capable of acting on their causes, by killing the micro-organisms which produce them.  All other serious or fatal illnesses are constantly on the increase and all we have available against them are some drugs which, in some cases, seem to have, on certain symptoms, an effect which however, is not always amenable to evaluation, and too often is not proportionate to the damages (euphemistically: 'side effects') that some medicines are capable of causing.  Furthermore, the 'placebo' effect is never taken sufficiently into account.  Everyone can see what is happening at the present time.  Human experimentation is growing at an amazing rate.  And it is not a question of simple, legitimate clinical experimentation, but of real vivisectionist experimentation."
(An excellent example of human vivisection experimentation is documented in "Drugs for Cancer", Section 3 of Chapter 21, Drugs and the Law.)
(Prof. Croce, Vivisection or Science - a choice to make, pages 91-92.)

Prof. Croce goes on to present:

  1930 1978
Cancer 5,994 13,802 (+132%)
Diabetes 445 1,207 (+171%)
Leukemia 95 340 (+257%)
Cardiovascular Disease 5,074 18,071 (+260%)
Liver Diseases 382 839 (+108%)
Population 4,066,000 6,298,000 (+50%)



U.S.A. 1971 1981
Cancer 330,000 420,000


Italy 1940 1969
(mortality per 1000 inhabitants)
80 184 (+130%)


The millions of unfortunate people currently under the sentence of premature death conveniently attributed to "the AIDS virus", (Though specialist investigators1 warn that AIDS is in reality the collapse of the human immune system from saturation of chemical pollution, some self-administered, but most legally prescribed by the health services in vaccines and prescribed drugs, and by industry which has licence to do as it pleases with our food and water), will be fascinated with ARSL's assurance that we are living 25 years longer than our great grandparents.  Like the writer, they will be surely anxious to discover from whence the book's publishers acquired this attractive but astonishing statistic.  Are ARSL's creators not aware that because of human carelessness and abuse a question-mark hangs over the future of the entire planet?  That the populations being born today have no guarantee of a future?  That all life as we know it hangs in the balance?

Also puzzled by ARSL's luring but devious statement which cannot stand up to scrutiny, will be the victims of drugs like Valium, Ativan, Mogadon, Dalmane, Halcion and other profitable but lethal benzodiazepines, which, claimed 60 Minutes, T.V. 3, September 22 1991, are "destroying the lives of thousands of New Zealanders".  Likewise, the twenty-five million people who have had their lives cut short from irreversible brain-damage resulting from their doctors' prescriptions of La-Gactil tranquilliser (courtesy Roche), and the twenty-five million victims of that drug who are ticking and twitching with tardive dyskenesia as a result of it, not forgetting the one hundred and fifty million others worldwide, who, along with their La-Gactil fix are likely to receive added extras to impair or imperil their chances of longevity, for example epileptic fits, allergies, delirium, liver complications, thrombosis or other calamity.  (According to the Guardian, July 16 1985 which claims this information was reported to the World Mental Health Congress in Brighton on July 15 1985 by Dr David Hill, Senior Clinical Psychologist at Walton Hospital, Chesterfield, U.K.).  (And which, as an aside, could be our just desserts for "testing" those tranquillisers by driving cats insane with powerful electric shocks... which merely reflects the addled state of the brains of the animal "researchers", who conveniently in receipt of their lucrative "research grants" fraudulently claim that such insanity saves or prolongs human lives.)

Similarly opposing ARSL's claims that because of animal research (vivisection) we are feeling better and living longer will be the thousands of families in U.S.A., Australia, Japan and half a dozen other countries, including 30 in New Zealand, who sued Merell Dow for "hideous birth defects" resulting from the Debendox morning sickness pill.  Others who will never see the alleged additional 25 year span are the women the world over, including New Zealand, who have had their lives ruined through prescriptions of Diethylstilbestrol, Depo-Provera and other drugs taken in good faith never realising they were being administered cancer, in other words, being duped.  (Refer N.Z Truth front page headlines on four consecutive weeks from August 25 1987, and all radio news and newspaper bulletins.)  Similarly missing the extra 25 years' bonus will be the bewildered and devastated parents of the healthy infants dying of SIDS which is known for over 30 years to be the direct result of DPT vaccine, erroneously tested on mice, though human babies are not mice, or the victims of Fenoterol and other asthma aerosol dilators which have killed thousands of people all over the world2, (NZAVS has given the facts to the Government which it ignored) and which was finally removed from the market in New Zealand on March 13 1991 because it was shortening the lives of those to whom it was prescribed.  (Dominion, March 1991.)  And on the subject of longevity NZAVS draws the attention of ARSL and its readers to the thousands of otherwise healthy elderly people, who, needing nothing more than companionship, a little interest and basic assistance (which would cost the State less) are fobbed off in institutions where they are doped until they are zombies, eventually shuffling off prematurely from a mixed brew of State medication, neglect, despair and hopelessness.

Hard on the heels of the armies of today's populations who will be deprived, by the insidious pollution of their food, water, medicine and environment, of anticipating their birthright of three-score and ten years, and who would certainly question the shallow claim of ARSL were they capable of so-doing, would be the victims of arthritis medicaments, who, counted in their hundreds of thousands are crippled and otherwise rendered helpless by Proxicromil, Opren, Benoxaprofen, Closic, Tanderil, Phenylbutazone, Butazolidin and many more brands of poison-under-the-guise-of-medicine, and for their pains, if they have survived at all, will have developed ulcers, tumours, liver and kidney damage and other maladies.  And, for the sceptics who question this work... "We know these things do happen" commented Dr Boyd (then) Assistant Director of Clinical Services, Wellington (Chairman of the Drug Assessment Advisory Committee and the Restricted Drugs Committee) when commenting on 575 Butazolidin deaths in 1983.

Eight years later Dr Boyd continues championing the chemi-medi-vivi cause.  As the sleeping tablet Halcion is currently being removed from the British market because of deaths, in Dominion, October 4 1991, he gives the classic: "There is no immediate danger from the drug" and on National Radio for the past week when the drug withdrawal was being discussed: "Do not stop taking Halcion."

Tested on animals, all drugs, from diarrhoea tablets (Ciba Geigy), which in one stroke paralysed thirty thousand people in Japan alone, to pills for high-blood-pressure (which according to Dr Robinson of Michigan City, Indiana, who has spent a life-time studying the illness: "should not be on the market doing their dirtywork"), without exception shorten the life expectancy of today's citizen.  In comparison, our great grand parents, who ate sparingly of plain unadulterated foods, (free from pesticides, chemicals and other added extras) enjoyed hard physical labour and without the interference of today's conniving vivisection industry, lived longer and enjoyed healthier living than today's populations which, rubbing shoulders with scores of deadly poisons to which they are unknowingly subjected, never really robust, live half-lives in dread of contracting one or the other of today's sicknesses - for example cancer:

As statistics for New Zealand were not available the writer presents those of the United Kingdom which show that in that country (on average) one in three of today's population will have their lives cut short by cancer.  That two hundred and fifty thousand new cancer cases appear each year.  That with an annual increase of approximately three percent, United Kingdom cancer sufferers now number one and a half million.  That four hundred people die of cancer every day in the U.K..  That the disease has long been out of control.

Since the founding of the British National Health Service (with its cut, burn and poison remedy) rates of cancer deaths have risen by over 75 percent in the one to nine age-group and by over 90 percent in the 10 to 19 age-group.  The five year survival rates for the major cancers are: breast 50 percent, large intestine 22 percent, stomach, trachea, bronchus, lung and oesophagus five percent, pancreas four percent and liver two percent.  The following graph shows the continuing explosion of cancer in the United Kingdom.

UK Cancer Registrations (12k)

(O.P.C.S. MBI Series)

(death rate per million)
TYPE 1971-75 1981-85 %CHANGE
All cancers 2,721 2,970 +9%
Lung, trachea and bronchus 1,084 1,093 +1%
Stomach* 296 254 -14%
Prostate 176 239 +36%
Colon 177 193 +9%
Rectum 131 134 +2%
Bladder 117 128 +9%
Pancreas 117 124 +6%
* Treatment has not improved survival since 1950 and reduced death rate is due to fewer people contracting the disease.

(death rate per million)
TYPE 1971-75 1981-85 %CHANGE
All cancers 2,207 2,514 +14%
Breast 447 505 +13%
Lung, trachea and bronchus 247 363 +47%
Stomach* 201 164 -18%
Colon 242 237 -2%
Ovary, fallopian tube etc 141 148 +5%
Uterus 147 136 -7%
Rectum 108 107 -1%
Pancreas 100 113 +13%
* see note under the chart for men.

(Cancer Patient Survival: What Progress Has Been Made, U.S. General Accounting Office, 1987.)


According to the World Health Organisation most cancer is occupational and environmental.  Evidence certainly abounds that the terrifying incidence of today's cancers which shorten the life-span of millions, including an alarming number of children3, is the result of saturation of the planet and its inhabitants with pollution.  Fluoride and other hidden, silent, and insidious additives is placed against the wishes (and knowledge) of the people, in their drinking water4.  Deadly sprays are applied to crops which leach into ground water.  Antibiotics, growth hormones, drenches, worm-killing chemicals, fungicides, tranquillisers and the like lodge in the food-chain.  Cancerous-forming tid-bits (like Aspartame which also causes Alzheimer's disease) unashamedly lace today's much advertised confectionaries and soft drinks.  Similarly in toiletries like sun-screens, so toxic that in certain parts of the U.S.A. the public is asked to remove it prior to entering the water at public beaches as it destroys marine life.  And last, but by no means least, that most diabolical and dangerous of all pollutants vivisection-based medicines.

"Seventeen out of every 20 cancer victims shouldn't have cancer, they have been murdered by the callous indifference of the people with power."
(Dr Vernon Coleman, F.R.S.M., Sunday Independent, November 1987.)  (Dr Coleman went on to become President of the International League of Doctors Against Vivisection.)

As cancer is the end result of greed and lack of concern for the health of the people, so is the 'cure' as in the English-speaking world alone the cancer research fundraising syndicate has received over 25 billion pounds sterling... with armies of volunteers bringing in approximately 60 million pounds annually.  The vast fortunes to be made from the cancer industry are too numerous to include in this work but one example is the induction of artificial and irrelevant, though lucrative, tumours into animals.  Meanwhile valid preventative measures have long lain stagnant because they present no profits.

Many honest doctors5 criticise today's cancer therapies as the devil's triangle: surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy.  For example: In 1979 many concerned medics expressed concern that today's life expectancy was placed under even further threat when the U.S. National Cancer Institute project "War on Cancer" conducted a massive X-ray screening for breast cancer on 280,000 women, investigating newsmen Robert Houston and Gary Null concluded a series of in-depth reports with the following:

"Women were encouraged to affirm their virtue on the altar of technology by exposing themselves to periodic radiation known to increase the risk of the disease... emphasis was placed on radiating women over 50, the very age-group that would be most vulnerable to indication of cancer by radiation..."

Dr Irwin Bross, well-known and highly qualified outspoken campaigner against health based on vivisection agreed:

"The X-ray screening programme would create the worst epidemic of iatrogenic (doctor-induced) breast cancer in history.  In my view this entire matter has become so serious that the National Cancer Institute would be better off putting the money allotted for future screenings into a trust fund for the victims of the programme who will develop cancer in 10 to 15 years time."
(Dr Irwin Bross, Director Biostatistics, Roswell Park Memorial Institute.)

"Cancer victims should not squander the years they have left by being made into hopeless invalids through radical medical intervention which has zero chance of extending their lives."

"Many surgeons abandoned the masectomy, yet in the USA over 1,000 women per week are persuaded to part with their breast, underlying muscles and lymph nodes, but the scalpel spivs omit to tell the victims that the average survival period is around twelve years without the mutilation and three years with it."
(Prof. H.B. Jones, Dept of Medical Physics and Physiology, University of California, in an address to the American Cancer Society in 1975.)

"There will be a medical edition of the Nuremberg trials.  The atrocities now being committed in the name of orthodox medicine, the suppression of life-giving scientific data, the needless loss of lives, the mutilation of bodies and excessive suffering... will not continue to be tolerated... ultimately these criminals and their political lackeys will be brought to trial."
(Dr Bruce Halstead.)

"As an exercise in mass human and animal cruelty, wasted lives, effort, time and money, arrogance, deception and dereliction of duty, the cancer business is in a class of its own with no rival anywhere in sight."
(Patrick Rattigan.)

The writer disagrees.  One rival that springs to mind is that which opened this paper, namely AIDS... described in Rappoport's AIDS Inc. The Scandal of the Century as:

"An international operation, a business, a bureaucracy".

The AIDS industry pales the cancer business into insignificance.  And, in turn, lurking in the wings to shorten our longevity even further is its competitor CFS... or Chronic Fatigue Syndrome for which it is predicted6 that terrified people everywhere will soon be blackmailed by fear to "dig deep into your pockets for a life-saving donation".

"All the other wicked medical fakes, firing hope and darkening it to despair, pale beside the savagery of the cancer charlatans."
(Patrick Rattigan, The Cancer Business, available from Nemesis, 294 West Parade, Lincoln, LN1 1NB, United Kingdom.)

In the United Kingdom alone in 1989
animals suffered and died in vain in British Cancer Research.
(Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, G.B., 1989, HMSO, 1990.)
(Picture courtesy of Forsogsdyrenes Vaern, Copenhagen.)



People who trade in illicit drugs such as heroin and cocaine are regarded among the most unscrupulous devils of modern civilisation.  In contrast the pushers of legalised fixes who shorten the lives of their victims by getting them hooked on prescribed sleeping pills, tranquillisers, pain-killers of which there is a selection too many to mention, are regarded as white-coated gods, saints, revered, honoured, lauded as Jesus Christ himself.  Studies have shown there are few households not affected by one or more members hooked on soul-crippling legal drugs... that is, without a drug addict in the family!  In Great Britain there are three million tranx addicts, the victims of companies making vast profits worldwide, administered by doctors, condoned by governments.

Far from anticipating longer lives, vivisection-based medicine which prescribes chemical fixes for any physical, mental or even spiritual problem has created a pill-popping culture, that, provided the patients get good and hooked make billions of dollars for the producers.  La Roche, the Swiss patent holders of the tranquilliser Valium made sales of over 200 million dollars in 1972 in U.S.A. alone.  The shock-horror stories in the press of the evil drug pushers... pale into insignificance beside the perils of the legal fix and the legalised pushers.  The publishers of ARSL are all in the business of profiteering from the legal fix and they are all legalised pushers whose tins jingle on collection days.

Thousands of doctors are acknowledging the giant fraud behind vivisection, and how vivisection is shortening rather than lengthening our life span.  Dr Martin Fincke of the University of Passau, after investigation, wrote a book saying that the entire medical profession should be brought to court on a charge of multiple murder.

For the grave danger inherent to the consumer of legal medicines the reader is directed to The LD50 Alibi... Do You Know the Truth? produced by NZAVSSelect this link for details of how to obtain a copy.  Published in support of the Society's Petition to Abolish the LD50 Test in 1983 it is still an excellent documentation of what one can expect to receive from one's doctor along with one's legal fix.  The following is taken from that document:

"If the general public were to pause and contemplate that the filthy cruelties that the regulatory agencies are so quick to demand on animals - are being transferred right back to our own species - they would panic and scream out for a dropping of such regulations.  These vested interest groups are a danger to society: Their approach to healing and public welfare is fatal to animals, fatal to students schooled in invalid methods, fatal to patients who are fobbed off with poisonous pills and potions and fatal to future generations."
(Refer also to Chapters 8 Cancer, 9 AIDS, and 21 Drugs and the Law.)




A morbidity survey of British National Health Service patients showed that British health was declining alarmingly since the previous survey in 1971/72.  The survey, which examined the consultations carried out by 143 doctors in 48 practices revealed the following:

Musculoskeletal disorders in general up by 46%
Backpain up by 36%
Osteoarthritis up by 24%
Rheumatoid arthritis up by 24%
Heart attacks up by 14%
Hypertension (high blood pressure) up by 91%
Circulatory disorders up by 28%


A further report, recently published by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, compares the death rates of people according to their social class.  For skin cancer, men in the top social class have a death rate 33% above average, for the lowest class the skin cancer death rate is 18% below average.  The upper class tuberculosis death rate is 68% below average, lowest class 187% above average.  Top bracket women are more likely to die of breast cancer, 40% above average.  Lowest social class men are more likely to die of hypertension, 90% above average and gastric ulcers 178% above average.  For unemployed men the figures are even worse, they are more likely to die of mental disorders, 493% above average, "congenital abnormalities", 628% above average, kidney disease 503% above average, "ill-defined conditions", 803% above average and suicide 173% above average.
(Morbidity Statistics from General Practice, 1981-82, HMSO; New Scientist, August 7 1986, page 19.)

Animal research - or to give it its correct name vivisection, is instrumental in cutting lives short.  A fact any honest investigator will quickly discover.  Health Department statistics reveal that New Zealanders have the third lowest life expectancy in 23 OECD countries surveyed and has the highest incidence of heart disease among women and third highest for men.  This despite increased vivisection.  Though the U.S.A. uses more laboratory animals than any country in the world other than Japan, the American male can only anticipate 17th life expectancy of all other countries.  The U.S. spends $600 billion per year on illness treatment yet their health care system is in shambles.  Similarly in New Zealand the health system is in chaos.  Meanwhile this country spends $578,000,000 per year on pharmaceuticals and speaking on National Radio recently the Minister of Health announced that "we can no longer afford a health service".

As childhood cancer and leukemia increases to alarming proportion, so does multiple sclerosis and genetic disorders.  ARSL could not provide the source of its claim, for which it gave no evidence, that people can now expect to live longer by 25 years.  Conversely NZAVS has more evidence than it can digest that vivisection is responsible for sickness and early death:

"Even when a drug has been subjected to a complete and adequate pharmacological investigation on several species of animals and found to be relatively non-toxic it is frequently found that such a drug may show unexpected toxic reactions in diseased human-beings.  This has been known almost since the birth of scientific pharmacology."
(Dr E. K. Marshall, Baltimore, Journal of the American Medical Association, January 28 1939, page 353.)

"Drug induced illness has become a public health menace of major and alarming proportions, producing more deaths annually than are caused by cancer and is among the top cause of hospital admissions."
(Dr Vernon Coleman, Britain, Medicine in Society, Vol. 7, 1981.)

There have been ample reminders of drug disasters in New Zealand in recent times: The removal from the market of Mictural, Halcion, Fenoterol, and the measles vaccine Pluserix to name a few.  "The easy answer to the rising incidence" (of asthma), says Dr Stewart Clarke, head of the department of thoracic medicine at the Royal Free Hospital in London, in an article titled "Treatment: More Damage Than Good?" (Evening Post, May 8 1991) "is the worldwide increase in air pollution".  However there are no profits in prevention and vast fortunes to be made in the lucrative vivisection industry.

As drug disasters are now the rule rather than the exception, and the mountains of data on these common-place occurrences so overpowering, abolitionist groups do not collect it but instead they collect doctors against vivisection.  There are now leagues of abolitionist doctors in Europe, Great Britain, U.S.A., Israel, South Africa and Japan.  In their ranks are biologists, surgeons, pharmacists, physicians, veterinarians, in short doctors from every conceivable field of medicine, and they are being supported by laboratory technicians.  Operating under a unified policy of scientific anti-vivisectionism the new movement claims that no animal species can be accepted as an experimental model for any other species, and that experiments intra-speciem (between the same species) are only valid when the disease is spontaneous and not artificially induced.

(Refer to the chart outlining the policy of SCIENTIFIC ANTI-VIVISECTIONISM and to the Open Letter to the American People.)

Clearly the weight of medical and scientific professionalism opposing ARSL's claims that vivisection equates with life... is responsible for its ill-conceived attempts to sell vivisection to sell vivisection to the N.Z. public.  Animal Research Saves Lives is an unscientific, illogical and emotional attempt by the vivisectors to save their jobs.  It will not however, as will this rebuttal, stand up to scrutiny, neither will it survive the test of time.




Human sperm counts are said to be falling alarmingly in some industrialised countries.  According to Dr Ralph Dougherty of Florida State University the culprit is the foam mattress in which there is traces of Fyrol FR 2, a fire-retardant used to cut down the fire risks associated with foam-filled furniture.  (Refer also to TRIS (fire-retardant) sleep-wear in Chapter 8 Cancer, and in Footnote 3 in this chapter.)  This led to other studies which concluded that the increasing exposure of modern man to a growing number of industrial chemicals is producing drops in male fertility leading to sterility.  Dr Dougherty analysing his findings reported that over 25 percent of males tested were sterile.  Friends of the Earth working in conjunction with Dr Dougherty sent to all members of Congress information taken from scientific literature which showed the alarming drop in sperm counts.  Throughout the studies polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) flame retardants and three kinds of polychlorophenols, a family of chemicals used as insecticides and fungicides found in the sperm "caused measurable biological effects".  Dr John MacLeod, Prof. of Anatomy, Obstetrics and Gynaecology at Cornell University Medical College in New York joined in the study as did researchers at the University of Iowa and the University of Texas.  The studies concluded:

"Something has altered the fertile population to depress the semen analysis remarkably... which would tend to incriminate an environmental factor to which the entire population has been exposed."
(John Elkington, The Poisoned Womb.)



As fire retardant sleepwear is responsible for 45 million children being exposed to cancer and PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) flame retardant foam mattresses and foam-filled furniture is found to cause alarming drops in human sperm counts and sterility in mature males, so PCBs can be passed from the nursing mother through to the infants by way of breast milk.  Dr David Kinlock, of Canada's Health and Welfare Department as reported after investigation that PCB contamination can cause cancer, damage the immune and reproductive systems and the brain as it enters the food chain, settles in the fat cells of living creatures, and passed to infants through mothers' milk.  Dr Eric Dewailly of Laval University reports that PCBs do not biodegrade, and once dispersed, cannot be cleaned up.  Developed in 1929 to cool electrical transformers, PCBs are indiscriminately carried on the wind from industrial countries and whilst men cannot rid themselves of PCBs accumulated in their bodies, women can only do so through their breast milk.
("Mother's Milk Poison Potion", N.Z. Herald, April 26 1989.)

Combined with many other similar factors, this obviously shortens, rather than lengthens today's life expectancy and lowers rather than heightens our quality of life.



Massive evidence abounds that continued use of pesticides threatens our health and contaminates our environment concluded a report by three Lincoln College scientists commissioned by the Ministry for the Environment in 1989.  (Pesticides: Issues and Options for N.Z., Ministry for the Environment, May 1989.)  Ian Blincoe, spokesman for the Agricultural Chemicals and Animal Remedies' Manufacturers Association (AGCARM, one of the publishers of ARSL), in defence of the use of pesticides claimed that if products are used in accordance with the label there is "little likelihood of danger to people's health".  The author disagrees.  The so-called "stringent tests" of chemicals are based on results on laboratory animals which are invalid because:

  1. there can be no extrapolation of results from animals to the human circumstance
  2. a large proportion of animals die from injury during the test procedure rather than from toxic poisoning, for example the stomach can explode with the force and weight of the material pumped into it, the gut can burn and shrivel away, the animals can die of shock and
  3. the animals do not live long enough to give long-term results.  (See Chapter 1 Foreword to ARTL, Asbestos.)


"Toxicity tests of pesticides on laboratory animals do not reliably settle matters."

"Negative laboratory results do not mean a chemical will not adversely affect human beings."

"Correlations are far from perfect between known human cancer agents and animal results."

The above taken from Pesticides: Issues and Options for N.Z., May 1989, the findings of which were upheld on Frontline, nationwide T.V., 14 May 1989, does more than expose that animal tests are dangerous and useless.  It reveals yet again how those who carry them out have no hesitation in condemning them as such when it suits them to do so.  There are however vast fortunes to be made in the contract laboratories where animals are done to death by the millions in order to obtain a label on the product!  It is quite unarguable that pesticides and other sprays, especially when considered in conjunction with other toxic substances like prescription drugs, food additives, colourings, radiation and the zillions of other chemicals to which we are exposed, including zinc in the humble white loaf, and the chemical brew in flea-sprays, household cleaners, plastics, vapour from certain types of clothing, and in the Pandora's box of our cosmetics... are known to represent a serious threat to our health and to our longevity which no amount of vivisection can cure.  Further, all the above being "safety tested on animals" are direct products of vivisection.

The N.Z. Pesticides Board (a QANGO of 12), which decides which pesticides to be used in this country and what levels are permissible, has ten members with direct interests in the use or sale of pesticides, some work for pesticide companies.  The Board is not accountable to the public or to Parliament.  John Reeve, toxicologist, Head of the Pesticides Board, with sole responsibility for decisions on pesticide levels on export markets and for home use, though employed by the Health Dept... is (at time of writing) contracted back to the Pesticides Board!

Meanwhile Dr Mann of the N.Z. Health Dept who has campaigned for years for stricter controls on pesticides said (Dominion, front page article) that he was "up against a secretive and manipulative chemical industry that is suppressing the terrible facts of chemical poisoning".
(Refer also to Chapter 21, Drugs and the Law, Section 1.)



At the Congress of Doctors in Britain Against Animal Experiments held in London in April 1991, Dr Bjorn Ekwall denounced toxicity tests on animals as crude, primitive and scientifically poor.  Dr Ekwall told the Congress that we are surrounded by 4 million chemicals with another 100 added to this mountain every month!  The toxic interaction between a chemical and the human body, warned Dr Ekwall, is highly complex and can cause malfunction of the heart, brain, kidney, nervous system etc.  He said it is almost impossible for a doctor to identify, let alone deal with, the effects of chemicals.



Only the foolhardy - or the profiteers - would make assumptions or predications about today's increased life-expectancy without heeding the following environmental warnings:

  1. The following is taken from The Survival of Civilization by John D. Hamaker and Donald A. Weaver, 1982:
    Hamaker-Weaver Publishers
    PO Box 1961
    CA 94010

    "We have an unprecedented crisis situation: we can expect serious crop losses in the first few years of the decade, the calamitous losses in the last half of the decade.  The chaos of widespread famine and the violence of the weather will by then render soil remineralization ineffectual.  If soil remineralization is to be done, it must be done in the next six or eight years.  Our forests and jungles are fast disappearing while our use of fossil fuels is increasing.  This is sure prescription for mass suicide."

  2. The Global 2000 Report to the President of the United States of America, was commissioned in 1977 by President Carter and released in July 1980 as a 3-volume work of over 1,000 pages.  Mr Carter explained its purpose in his Environmental Message to the Congress (May 23 1977):

    "Environmental problems do not stop at national boundaries.  In the past decade, we and other nations have come to recognise the urgency of international efforts to protect our common environment.  As part of this process, I am directing the Council on Environmental Quality, working in cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundations, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and other appropriate agencies, to make a one-year study of the probable changes in the world's population, natural resources and environment through the end of the century.  This study will serve as the foundation of our longer-term planning."

    The following are a few of Global 2000's "Principal Findings":

    Global 2000 concurs with Hamaker's warning - declaring:

    "Prompt and vigorous changes in public policy around the world are needed to avoid or minimise these problems BEFORE THEY BECOME UNMANAGEABLE."

    "To continue any longer as blind consumers of life, without learning to be visionary restorers of life, will likely insure an end to both opportunities - sooner than most of us would like to look at.  Yet to fully look, in search of what is true, must surely be the first step."
    (Donald A. Weaver.)

In the greatest fraud of all time three hundred million animals, victims of a degrading, superfluous, ruthless and obscene industry, are being blindly consumed every year in vivisection laboratories.  Vivisection the inconclusive alibi essential for the production of pharmaceutical and chemical pollutants is conducted regardless of the direct damage it brings to the environment, to animals and to people.  The abolition of vivisection should be the first major step in an effort to get sanity back on course in attempts to save the planet from collapse.  The author believes that only fools who do not heed the warnings that are ringing loud and clear would believe the authors of ARSL who attempt to lull its readers into believing that we "live 25 years longer than our great grand parents"... when a 25 year survival of the planet is now under question!


Hamaker gave five minimal objectives which must be met by 1985 in order to effect our survival.  He wrote:
"They can only be met by a colossal effort on an international scale.  To attempt any less is to resign ourselves to death by malnutrition and starvation."
Those five objectives were not put into operation.


1. Professor Peter Duesberg, Californian medical researcher.  (Refer section on AIDS.)

2. Fenoterol was prescribed to 40,000 N.Z. asthmatics.  On September 26 1991 The Evening Post in an article titled "Canadians Confirm NZ Fenoterol Fear" states that Canadian investigation found Fenoterol increases by 90 times the patients' risk of dying.  The Canadian study reveals even higher risks from Fenoterol than was found by the N.Z. investigators.  The hazards associated with this prescribed medicament highlighted, says the article, the need for regular preventative treatment. - Refer Chapter 21 Drugs and the Law, Section 3.

3. It was the Ames test refer Chapter 8 Cancer, that confirmed that sixty million children in the U.S.A. alone were sleeping in clothing that is "gene-altering, cancer-causing and therefore life-threatening".  That through the mere choice of their sleepwear millions of children were being exposed to cancer caused by TRIS (fire-retardant).

"Considering the estimated 45 million children now exposed to Tris-treated sleep-wear a one percent expected cancer induction would translate to 450,000 cancer deaths."
(Dr Robert H. Harris, Environmental Defense Fund, December 1976. Also Irwin Bross, Animals in Cancer Research - A Multibillion Dollar Fraud.)

4. Dr Dean Burk, Washington D.C. Thirtyfive years Head of the Cytochemistry Section of the National Cancer Institute, U.S.A. Previous Associate Prof. of Biochemistry at Cornell University.  Knight Commander of the Order of Bethlehem, recipient of many awards for cancer research and biochemistry, including the Domagh Prize 1965 for cancer research.  Involved in cancer research for 50 years:

"As a result of fluoridated water containing the order of one milligram of fluoride per each litre, one-tenth of the 350,000 cancer deaths per year in the USA are linked with artificial public water fluoridation."

An article "U.S. Professor Sticks to Claim of Fluoride Link with Cancer", New Horizons, Vol. 3, No. 4, Biological Research Institute (Australia) in which Prof. Burk refers to fluoride as: "An added biochemical and physiological poison that at higher concentrations is a common form of rat poison."

Lord Douglas of Barlock (Deputy Speaker of the House of Lords.)

"Whatever may be the relative small benefit of fluoridated drinking water for delaying or preventing tooth decay, mainly in children by adolescence, the increased cancer mortality is by comparison overwhelming."

"No-one could now countenance adding fluoride to the water supplies."

5. Video: Hoxsey: Quacks Who Cure Cancer.

6. Time Magazine, Medicine Section, May 14 1990, International Edition, article entitled "Stalking a Shadowy Assailant".
Hans Ruesch, CIVIS International Foundation Report, Nr 9, Spring/Summer 1990.

"All the other wicked medical fakes, firing hope and darkening it to despair, pale beside the savagery of the cancer charlatans."
(Patrick Rattigan, The Cancer Business.)



Throughout this work the author has been irritatingly confined to rebutting the false claim that Animal Research Saves Lives.  It is appropriate at conclusion to present briefly the rationale upon which opposition to vivisection on the medical and scientific premise is founded, as distinct from the self-evident ethical and moral considerations, which, having been debated for a hundred years, the vivisectors can live with, even welcome, as they represent not the slightest threat.  Abolition on scientific grounds is being subscribed to by increasing numbers of honest organisations which have avoided corruption by the pro-vivisection establishment, and by thousands of individuals who are becoming conversant with the facts, instead of believing implicitly the brain-washing and profit-motivated propaganda about the value of vivisection which we are spoon-fed every day of our lives.

The United Kingdom is a bastion of vivisection, held firmly in the grasp of the biomedical community.  Apart from Doctors in Britain Against Animal Experiments, and the two groups listed under Recommended Societies, the author is not aware of a single organisation practising abolitionist principles in that country.  Vibrant and powerful abolitionist groups however operate strongly in the U.S.A., Canada, Europe and Australia.  The N.Z. Anti-Vivisection Society, founded by the author in 1978, is the only abolitionist group in New Zealand and was, for that reason, the prime target of ARSL, the booklet's sole intent being to destroy the Society or prevent its growth.  The absence of other abolitionist groups is no criticism of the sincerity of their members, but a reflection of the inevitable result of their negligence to ensure that the abolitionist policies and objectives, which are widely and heatedly professed in principle are carried out in practice.  A state which can only be achieved by rigid selection and constant surveillance of their leaders, representatives and spokespersons.  For example in New Zealand one such leader whilst making vociferous claims to the abolitionist principle on the one hand equally vociferously opposed the NZAVS Petition to Abolish Vivisection with the other, thus sabotaging the Petition from being considered by politicians.

The following is a brief summary of the abolitionist's case supplied by doctors and scientists fighting for abolition in their various fields of expertise.  It is transcribed from the material of Students United Protesting Research on Sentient Subjects, a vibrant U.S. organisation of thousands campaigning across America under leadership of Javier Burgos, producer of the breakthrough video Hidden Crimes.  It should be read in conjunction with Scientific Anti-Vivisectionism.



Animal experimentation, also known as vivisection, is directly responsible for the rampant growth of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, birth defects, arthritis, muscular dystrophy, leukemia, all kinds of mental diseases, and an endless list of many other old afflictions as well as scores of new ones, such as Alzheimer's disease and AIDS.  These diseases are causing the most massive, systematic and wide-spread destruction of human health ever known.  The reason is fundamental: TODAY'S RESEARCH IS BASED ALMOST ENTIRELY ON ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION, WHICH IS A MEDICAL AND SCIENTIFIC FRAUD.  It is impossible to re-create a naturally-occurring disease in a healthy animal simply because once it is "recreated", it is no longer the original, natural disease.  The predictable result of looking at artificially diseased animals is that the data obtained is not applicable to man and thus is tragically misleading.  This is the reason why no disease has been cured in the 20th century except for the control of infectious diseases, which was accomplished thanks to nutrition, hygiene, and public sanitation.  Consequently all the old diseases along with the new ones are killing you and your family and friends.



There is no money to be made from healthy people.  This is why the medical and research establishments are not in the least interested in prevention (practically all diseases are preventable).  The criminal refusal to remove the KNOWN cases of so many human ailments guarantees a situation where practically everyone is sick or will eventually get sick (the flat refusal to educate people about the vital need to adopt a vegetarian diet is a prime example).  Once millions upon millions of people are sick and dying and pronounced "in need" of drugs, tests, radiation, surgeries, transplants, and all kinds of medical attention and intervention, the expenditures connected with "health care" skyrocket accordingly.  As the New Zealand Health Service is in chaos millions of dollars are being spent on "sickness care".  Astronomical expenditures (which have made countless doctors, surgeons, pharmaceutical companies, and all kinds of institutions rich) have broken the financial back of the country.  It is clear that prevention, and not "health care reform", is the real cure.



In New Zealand alone approximately 300,000 animals are reported done to death in vivisection laboratories every year.  Since, as explained in Chapter 21, Drugs and the Law, Section 4, statistics and monitorings etc are left to vivisectors, the figures are generally meaningless (in addition the invalidity of vivisection makes numbers irrelevant).  This vivisection is carried out and protected by the law, in colleges and universities, hospitals, private institutions, veterinary schools and agricultural establishments.  To this end tidy businesses operate from the breeding of animals for vivisection and the sale of animals from pounds, slaughter houses, greyhound racing clubs and other sources.  In many countries animals are used by the military to test weapons, they are shot into space, poisoned to death with chemicals and used as experimental car-crash victims.  Because of the strong link between the U.S. National Institute of Health in Washington D.C., and vivisection in New Zealand it is appropriate to inform readers that the 1991 budget of the NIH, the largest source of funding for vivisectors in the world, was U.S. 8.6 million dollars.  Because of AIDS, the new gold-mine for the biomedical establishment, billions of dollars are being poured into the pockets of the vivisectors who are enjoying a heyday of "employment" regardless of a world recession.



Not only is our health and economy being systematically destroyed by the vivisection mentality, but so is our environment.  The massive production and stubborn continuance of the use of pesticides and countless other chemicals the safety of which are all established on incorrect animal tests in order to produce a legal alibi, is responsible for the massive and often irreversible pollution of our lands, rivers, oceans, food and water supplies, and the destruction of the Earth's protective ozone layer, and many other threats that are critically endangering the survival of all life on the planet.



Horrifying chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, possessed by an ever-increasing number of countries, were developed by vivisectors and "tested" on animals the same way a drug, detergent, oven-cleaner or lip-stick is "tested" on animals.  Conventional weapons of all kinds were created in vivisection laboratories, where animals are routinely used as surrogates for man in warlike situations.  (The billions of animals used in warfare and space experiments are kept secret and never counted in the statistics.)



Public money can always be found to fund endless numbers of grotesque and useless experiments where perfectly healthy animals are turned into drug addicts, alcoholics and victims of "simulated" disease, which bear no resemblance to spontaneous disease occurring in human beings.  Vast amounts of money goes unopposed down the drain, "creating" arthritis in sheep, undertaking trials in "deaf" sheep, planning tests of the dreaded myxamotosis on kiwis and other ridiculous procedures which are advertised daily in the popular press, none of which are valid, but all of which create work for the vivisectors and others in the industry.  Whilst there are no profits in prevention there are vast fortunes to be made out of sick people.  For example refer Chapter 8 Cancer, which reveals the National Cancer Institute's recommendation of a 30 percent fat diet, knowing full well that to prevent cancer fat intake must be reduced to the extremely low levels of 15 percent found in China, Japan and other countries which enjoy low cancer rates... and that the diet must be vegetarian.  Another example is the absolute determination to carry out lucrative vaccination programmes, for instance against hepatitis, which is rife in the children of New Zealand's central North Island, instead of cleaning up the waterways of the region which are heavily polluted with dangerous toxic by-products pouring into them from the paper mills.

The following declaration was published in the Los Angeles Times, 24 April 1991:


An Open Letter to the American People
We represent thousands of concerned health professionals who oppose animal experimentation (vivisection).
We'd like you to know why.


False Promises, False Claims

The biomedical research industry's claim that our health and survival depend on vivisection is patently false.  Animal experiments fail to address the true causes of human disease.  Our illnesses are a result of numerous factors - lifestyle, environmental toxins, genetics, poverty, etc - which cannot be recreated in animals.  In fact, information derived from animals is misleading and often dangerous when applied to humans.

Historically, clinical practice with astute deductive reasoning has resulted in the major health improvements.  The discovery of penicillin and digitalis, the development of x-rays, the microscope, and hygienic principles for infection control are just a few of the examples that owe nothing to animal experimentation.  To justify its consumption of public health resources, the vivisection industry credits itself with important developments, but in reality:


No Miracle Cures

People and animals alike suffer from the futility of vivisection:


"It is impossible to arrive at any satisfactory conclusion in regard to cancer in man by experimenting on animals."
Robert Bell, M.D., Vice President, International Cancer Research Society.


Vivisection Squanders Scarce Health Care Dollars

The U.S. spends $600 billion per year (12% of our GNP) on illness treatment - more than any other country in the world.  Yet our health care system is in shambles.

The U.S. has a higher infant mortality rate than 22 other developed nations.  Tens of millions of Americans have no access to health care.  Trauma, mental health and drug rehab centers are closing for lack of funds.  Efforts to rid the environment of disease-causing toxins are severely underfunded.


Vivisection is Unspeakably Cruel

Behind the locked doors of thousands of institutions, atrocities are inflicted on frightened animal subjects.  They have no rights, no voice or representation, and no way of escape.

Breeding farms, public pounds, and stolen pet dealers provide an endless supply of innocent victims.  For example, millions of animals a year die painfully for useless product testing just to provide liability protection for manufacturers.


Vivisection is Big Business

Biomedical "research" is a vast, lucrative industry, supported each year by $15 billion in taxes and charity... while killing 65 to 100 million animals.  Animal experimenters guard a privileged status with an enormous financial network of charities, and control the Federal agencies for health science funding.  This multi-billion dollar industry is self-perpetuating, self-monitoring and self-congratulating.  Meanwhile our healthcare system is self-destructing.

All our energies and resources must be committed to productive endeavors such as preventive medicine and research methodologies which relate directly to human beings including ethical human-based research, human tissue testing, and population studies (epidemiology).  It is time to embrace ways of living and learning that are self-sustaining, non-polluting, and respectful of all life.  Only then will our health-care goals be realized.


  • Kenneth P. Stoller, M.D., Pediatrics
  • J. Leichtberg, M.D.
  • Kathleen Waddell, Ph.D., Clinical Psychologist
  • Paula Kislak, D.V.M.
  • Sam Snyder, Ph.D., M.P.H.
  • Jonathan Lemler, D.C.
  • Kathy MacLeay, Ph.D.
  • Lorin Lindner, Ph.D., M.P.H.
  • L.J. Marx, M.D., Psychiatry
  • Susan Stewart, R.N.
  • Elliot Katz, D.V.M.
  • Richard S. Benedon, M.D., F.A.C.E.P., Emergency Medicine
  • Julie Fernee, R.N.
  • Donald E. Doyle, M.D., F.A.C.S., Otolaryngology & Facial Plastic Surgery
  • Joan Priestley, M.D., General Medicine
  • Cheryl Anne Reller, R.N.
  • A. Yvonne Miles, M.S.N., C.C.R.N.
  • Josepth Nielands, Ph.D., Biochemistry
  • Harry J. Silver, M.D.
  • Les Stewart, D.D.S.
  • Charles Kuell, Ph.D., Family Counselling
  • Richard S. Blinstrub, M.D., Dermatology
  • Nedim C. Buyukmihci, V.M.D.
  • Michael Klaper, M.D., General Medicine

Photo: Robert Ferrone
Kenneth P. Stoller, M.D., Pediatrics, with Madeline Hassin and companion, Shep.


(Ack: K. Ungar and S. Stewart, U.S.A.)





That it is possible to re-create a naturally occurring human disease in a healthy animal (what vivisectors call an "animal model" of a human disease).

It is by definition impossible.  Trying to re-create spontaneous human disease (naturally occurring disease that arises from within) in a healthy being constitutes "experimental research".  It is impossible to re-create a naturally occurring human disease in a healthy animal (or in a healthy human being) simply because once it is "re-created", it is artificial and no longer the original, natural disease.  Clearly "re-creation" and "spontaneous" are contradictory terms.  It then follows that experimental research (vivisection) cannot find cures for any diseases no matter how many millions of animal or human experiments are performed (human experiments are now commonplace).  It is sometimes possible to re-create some of the symptoms of a disease, or a simulated disease but NEVER the disease itself.  The exception to this fact is the case of infectious diseases.  However animals do not get human infectious diseases and we do not get theirs.  (Non-human animals cannot have a human disease because each species of animal is a different biomechanical entity.)



That it is possible to learn human anatomy and physiology by studying four-legged animals (quadrupeds), fish, or birds.

Animals are totally different from man and from each other, genetically, histologically, anatomically, physiologically, immunologically, emotionally, psychologically, sexually, and socially.  It is clear that human medicine cannot be based on veterinary medicine - as animal medicine is not based on human medicine.



That it is possible to predict human reactions to drugs, vaccines and other chemicals by testing them in animals.

Animals react differently to drugs, vaccines and other chemicals, not only from man but also from each other.  Hence the incalculable damage to human health caused by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.



That animal experimentation is useful in order to learn about animal diseases in agricultural colleges and veterinary schools.

No knowledge about animal diseases can be obtained by looking at artificially diseased animals (experimental research).  For the same reasons as in Scientific Fact No. 1.