The Enemy Within

 

 

(This article is taken from THE NEW ABOLITIONIST, the newsletter of the British Anti-Vivisection Association, Summer 1997, Nr 11)

 

It is frequently asked of anti-vivisection campaigners by members of the public as to just why vivisection has been able to exist for so long, considering the huge amounts of money pumped into AV campaigns over the years, and that surely something good must have come from research on animals for it to have been able to continue to this day.

 

Aside from the obvious point of there being the huge amounts of money surrounding the vivisection industry, there are three basic reasons as to why the practice of animal experimentation has been able to flourish into the mighty industry which exists today. For the newcomer to the AV movement, and the public in general, these reasons have not been widely realised and acted upon.

 

Firstly, ignorance as to just what we are up against has been, and continues to be, an enormous problem. The second is the refusal on the part of many within the AV and animal rights movements to address vivisection from the medical angle, instead of from the moral aspect alone. This may well be to all AVs a strong, if not main reason for wanting vivisection abolished, but one in which from the practical aspect of actually getting it stopped is hopeless.

 

The third, and probably for many people the most difficult to accept, is the fact that the AV movement has allowed itself to be taken over, and controlled, by those whose actions are in direct opposition to how the movement must be going if we are to achieve our ultimate aim: the total abolition, by law, of vivisection. Whether this (takeover/control) has been done through gross ignorance, incompetence, out of self interest, or by the deliberate sabotage of the movement by those whose true aim is to see the continuation of vivisection is, in some ways, immaterial. The point to stress is that the end result is the same: the continuation and deeper entrenchment of vivisection.

 

While a small handful of genuine, but grossly underfunded AV groups world-wide are making some headway in the struggle, at present the big money - and therefore influence and power to change things - lies in the hands of those whose actions are at best worthless, and in many ways highly damaging. Clearly this situation has to change. But this can only be brought about by the likes of you and me looking long and hard at the facts, deciding selectively just who we are going to support, and most importantly, passing on information to others.

 

This article then is intended to be an overview of some of the people and organisations who have contributed to this disgraceful state of affairs. And although they are of course to take their dutiful blame for this, it must be remembered that this situation could never have come about had it not been for the many people who have, despite genuinely wanting vivisection stopped, allowed it to happen almost without a word of opposition.

 

Much of this information has been supplied by Hans Ruesch, and has been available for many years in various forms to those who are capable of breaking into independent thinking away from those who have nearly destroyed the genuine AV movement, but it has been the task of the BAVA, almost alone in the UK, to ensure that the real reason for the losing war in the AV struggle is not forgotten.

 

"Whoever is awake to the ways of the world knows that big industry and other huge financial powers routinely infiltrate every walk of politics and Government. It is less well known that they also try to infiltrate all the animal protectionist societies. And it would be naive to believe, once they try, that they don't succeed in most cases. And quite easily at that. All it takes is money and time. Just a little more time than money." - Hans Ruesch, 'Naked Empress'

 

Where to begin? 1979, and the book 'Slaughter of the Innocent' by Hans Ruesch appears in Britain. A devastating book which for the first time exposed the uselessness of vivisection, and its disastrous impact on human health; a book as relevant today as when it was written, and one which all AV campaigners should read. Naturally any genuine society wanting abolition would welcome such a book, and to advertise it widely using the money donated through its members for the very purpose of getting the truth out.

 

Already the sincerity of the BUAV had to be in question, with the then journal of the society named 'Animal Welfare' having replaced the 'Abolitionist', which had once been the most respected AV publication in the world years earlier under the leadership of Dr Hadwen. But with the death of Miss Kidd, the last of the 'old guard', the BUAV wasted no time in changing the title of the society's journal to the less dangerous 'Animal Welfare'.

 

The book was viciously attacked by John Pitt, editor of 'Animal Welfare'. At the time the 'scientific adviser' to the BUAV was a Gill Langley PhD; a title gained during her years of vivisection at Nottingham University, and by the time Hans Ruesch's second shattering expose arrived, 'Naked Empress', in 1982, Langley had taken up residence as 'scientific adviser' to Animal Aid. It was to no-one's surprise that this book too was attacked, and which she herself described as 'inaccurate', although she was unable to name any such inaccuracies.

 

However, whilst investigating just how Chris Langley - husband of Gill - had escalated also into the directorship of the Vegan Society (which during the first two years with him at the helm had lost £75,959), one Alfred Bunting discovered that not only were both Langleys trained vivisectors, but Chris Langley had also been an employee of the Medical Research Council, which awards grants to vivisectors, and a current employee of the Ciba Foundation for the Promotion of International Co-operation in Medical and Chemical Research. Ciba Geigy is, of course, the Swiss chemical giant whose profits are derived from the wholesale slaughter of animals in order to give its chemical poisons a clean bill of health.

 

But Langley's involvement doesn't end there. Set up in 1970 by the BUAV with the purpose of finding 'alternatives' to vivisection, the Dr Hadwen Trust for Humane Research is run by none other than Langley herself. But as well-informed AVs know, the notion of first having to find alternatives only reinforces the belief that vivisection is useful in the first place; guaranteed to ensure the continuation of vivisection for eternity, and for that very reason endorsed by most vivisectors themselves!

 

In fact no wonder so many vivisectors themselves support the endeavour of finding 'alternatives'; not only do such organisations help to spread the gospel of the supposed usefulness of animal experiments, but they furthermore syphon off vast amounts of money from the genuine AV movement which instead should be used to bring home in any and every way possible the message that vivisection is not merely useless, but damaging to the point of threatening the very existence of mankind.

 

Of course, as director of the Hadwen Trust, Langley never denounces vivisection as a form of conducting medical research, and in fact she can't; to do so would make the whole point of the Hadwen Trust, and similar organisations, meaningless. So the public's continued naive belief in the wonders of vivisection and its toxic products must be upheld. Further proof of Langley's committal to the continuation of vivisection was seen in the recent Countryside Undercover investigation of beagles being used in toxicity experiments, whereby she once again earned herself a pat on the back from her friends at Ciba Geigy by hinting at the supposed, but in reality non-existent, past benefits from vivisection.

 

In fact the use of Dr Hadwen's name as a way of clawing in funds from misled animal lovers is in itself a gross insult to the great Hadwen himself; as president of the once abolitionist BUAV - in the days before the society was taken over by careerists and infiltrators - Hadwen himself denounced bitterly the very notion of 'alternatives' to vivisection, then referred to as 'constructive anti-vivisection'.

 

We repeat once again: there is no need to develop alternatives to animal testing - true scientific methods already exist! Why aren't they used? Because as industry knows full well, should such tests be employed then immediately 99.9999% of the millions of chemical drugs, pesticides, herbicides, etc, which are licensed each year would at best be shown to be useless, and worse still highly dangerous.

 

The Humane Research Trust, and The Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments (FRAME) are two more such organisations. Run by ex-vivisector Michael Balls, FRAME's financial supporters reads like a 'who's who' of vivisection, and include Avon Cosmetics, Boots, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Elida Gibbs, Glaxo, L'Oreal, Unilever, Fisons Pharmaceuticals, Gillette, Hoeschst, Reckitt and Colman, Rimmel, Smithkline Beecham Pharmaceuticals, Zeneca, Shell, Wyeth Research and Yardley.

 

This is backed up by thousands of duped, little old ladies holding raffles, cake stalls, etc, who still think that the reason for FRAME is to seek 'alternatives' (which aren't needed, as vivisection is not science), rather than its true purpose of fooling the public into thinking vivisection works. Does anyone really believe that these companies support FRAME out of some charitable kindness; an expression of some deep desire to end animal testing, of which, naturally, they really regret having to do? Of course not. Their only concern is that of continuing to market their potentially hazardous, but highly lucrative products following 'safety' tests which give them the desired results.

 

NAVS also does its bit to help the vivisectors by running its own 'alternative' enterprise - the Lord Dowding Fund for Humane Research - whilst at the same time diverting scant resources into less demanding subjects, such as campaigns against circuses - it is our considered opinion that the society is now nothing more than a money-making venture, raking in huge funds through campaigns against issues designed at attracting more public sympathy, such as the poaching of elephants, whilst only paying lip-service to its supposed, and original, aim of ending vivisection.

 

Although NAVS, unlike the BUAV, are careful enough to ensure that they don't go so far as to actually tell their members that vivisection is useful, often the true nature of a society can be seen in what it doesn't do, rather than what it does do, and the lack of Hans Ruesch's books, Professor Croce's 'Vivisection or Science', or even the great 'Hidden Crimes' video from any NAVS publication tells us as much about their sincerity as do the rantings of the likes of Gill Langley . .

 

"I do not believe that any advance in medicine is quite independent of animal experiments . . . I do disagree with Ruesch that there are enough non-animal research techniques to replace animal experiments." Gill Langley - from a letter to Norman Gifford.

 

"Many medical breakthroughs have involved animal experiments . . ."    Gill Langley - Hastings Observer, 16 July 1983.

 

"It's nonsense to say that animal experiments have never contributed to any medical advance . . . and if vivisection had never made a contribution to medicine . . ."  Gill Langley - 'Alternative News', Winter 1991-92.

 

Events occurring at the 1995 AGM of the BUAV were reported in the Autumn 1995 issue of the 'New Abolitionist'. The corruption, dirty tactics and outright distortion of the facts we witnessed there, combined with a corrupt judicial system and a comatose BUAV membership, resulted in the total and permanent demise of what was once the world's great AV society. We have been citing the repeated endorsements made for vivisection by various employees and spokespersons for the BUAV for some time and, as we predicted following the 1995 AGM, nothing has changed, except possibly for the worse.

 

One recent example (commenting on the Countryside Undercover programme): " . . . They even admitted falsifying test results, rendering the experiments useless" (suggesting that if they hadn't falsified the tests they wouldn't be useless), and, "Any such experiment must work to the letter of the law and ensure the welfare of the animals is paramount" - Mike Baker, Daily Telegraph, 29 March 1997, for the BUAV, without any suggestion that the laws supposedly there to protect laboratory animals are a sham designed to fool the public, much less any word of the total uselessness of vivisection and the harm caused to human health such misleading 'research' is responsible for.

 

So, following the EGM where every tactic was used to ensure the BUAV didn't fall into the hands of the AVs who genuinely wanted abolition, this once great society is now under the guidance of someone who believes, or pretends to believe, that vivisection 'works'. Incompetence? Unlikely, considering that information as to vivisection's dire consequences as a method of finding cures for human diseases has been available since at least 1979 in this country, and with more coming to light almost by the day. This leaves us with only two options; that this Mike Baker is either but the latest in a very long line of well-paid careerists, or a professional saboteur whose job it is to ensure that vivisection continues indefinitely, whilst the poison pushers' crime of sending thousands to an early grave goes uncriticised. Take your pick, but from where we were on that Saturday afternoon, our minds are already made up.

 

A few examples, of the many we possess, of the BUAV's sly plugs for vivisection:

 

"We have softened our line over the past few years. We now accept that animal research may have done some good . . . The organisation remains implacably opposed to any experiments even if they were the only way to find a cure for cancer." - Steve McIvor, BUAV, Independent, 12 June 1990.

 

" . . . we do not believe that it is possible, or indeed sounds credible, to categorically state that no benefit may have ever arisen from animal research." - Sarah Kite, BUAV, in a letter to an enquirer.

 

"But even if the research is important, non-animal techniques are not only more humane they are often more reliable than the animal experiments that they replace." (our emphasis) - BUAV fact sheet, 'Alternatives - Non Animal Research'.

 

"The reality is that animal experimentation is old-fashioned science - it may have been useful 50 years ago but in the 21st century we have a lot of techniques that we can use instead," - Aleister Currie, BUAV 'campaigns director', from the BBC news web site, 14th may 2006. (So Mr Currie, exactly when has vivisection ever been of use?)

 

'While it is true that testing a drug, for example, on a pig, will not tell you definitively how a human will react to it, the argument is more complex. Pigs are not humans, but they are a lot closer than a dish of cells or a latex model. Gill Langley, scientific adviser to the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection agrees. "I would never claim that all animal experiments are without scientific value," she says, but argues that more needs to be done to develop non-animal alternatives.' - Excerpt from an article, Do we still need animal testing in medical research? By Druin Burch, The Guardian, Thursday March 2, 2006

 

Go to part 2