Rabbit Advocacy Animal Matters


National Anti-Vivisection Society (UK)   http://www.navs.org.uk/

Our Mission

Millions of animals suffer and die in cruel, unscientific, and futile experiments. The NAVS advocates the total prohibition of all animal experiments and, pending the achievement of this aim, we may support partial measures which would provide steps towards the abolition of vivisection.

What is Vivisection?

Vivisection literally means the cutting up of a live animal; however dictionary definitions have been revised over the years, and this term has become a general label for all types of animal experiments.

Vivisection" and "experiments" were thus used in an interchangeable way until the mid 1980s, in addition to "procedures" described in scientific literature. Then, when the Government revised the legislation on animal experiments in 1986, a new formal description was introduced into the legislation, "procedures". This term can be used to cover both scientific procedures on animals which are not strictly an experiment, as well as experiments. The reason for the different terminology is that an experiment is usually defined as something where the outcome, or effects on the animal, would not be known whereas a "procedure" takes in all of those uses of animals where the outcome/effect on the animal can be predicted, for example toxicity testing, breeding animals with a harmful genetic defect, production of antisera, maintenance of tumours, etc.

This description is used in the UK legislation - the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 - and government officials, those involved in the industry, etc.

In secret, inside the world's laboratories, animals are burnt, blinded, mutilated; their limbs are deliberately broken; they are force-fed products; noxious chemicals dripped into their eyes; irradiated; deliberately infected with disease, and more.

Yet these experiments can never be trusted. The fundamental flaw of animal-based research is that each species responds differently to drugs and chemicals, therefore results from animal tests are unreliable as a means of predicting likely effects in humans. Thus, animal experiments are unreliable, unethical, and unnecessary.

Nevertheless, animals suffer and die to test products used in the home, at work, in the car, in the garden and personal body care products. They are used in biological, chemical, and ballistic warfare testing. The United Kingdom's Porton Down 'defence' centre tests weapons on animals - almost every country in the world has some kind of similar weapons programme, which they develop on animals.

Animals are used in space programmes - terrified animals were shot into space before people; tests previously conducted on Earth are repeated in space to see the difference.

Animals are subjected to deep sea pressure and raised quickly to the surface to suffer decompression sickness ('the bends').
They are used to develop crude surgical procedures, despite the differences between the species. Their bones are broken to see how they mend. Animals skulls are drilled open and hardware inserted so that the function of their brains can be recorded.
Baby animals are deprived of their mothers to see what effect it has on them in later life.

 Animals are used to develop and test pharmaceutical products - both medical and 'pseudomedical' products - for example illicit (recreational) drugs, slimming drugs, or, a pharmaceutical company's new, improved, drug which might in fact be introduced to the market simply to improve sales. Of the 20-30,000 pharmaceutical products on the market today, the World Health Organisation has listed only 250 as being necessary for human health programmes.

In the UK, over 2.5 million procedures take place on animals every year. NAVS investigations have also revealed that there is a high level of wastage in the UKs animal labs - for every animal used, around 3 animals have been reared only to be killed because they are surplus to requirements.

Consistent and reliable records are not kept worldwide, but it is estimated that as many as 150 million animals are used globally, every year.

Why Vivisection is Flawed?

Many people are opposed to animals suffering and dying in experiments for trivial products such as beauty cosmetics, but are less sure about research labelled as 'medical'. This is understandable, for we all want to see medical progress.

But are experiments on animals really necessary for progress? We think not. In fact the majority of medical research does not use animals, and where animals are used each species responds differently to drugs and chemicals - therefore results from animal tests are unreliable as a means of predicting likely effects in humans.

Click on each species to see the type of experiments those animals are used in and the differences between that species and humans.

Animal Experiments: The Shocking Truth

The fundamental flaw of animal-based research is that each species responds differently to drugs and chemicals, therefore results from animal tests are unreliable as a means of predicting likely effects in humans. Thus, animal experiments are unreliable, unethical, and unnecessary.

Animal Experiments: The Facts

Every year millions of animal suffer and die in experiments that can never be trusted. It is claimed vivisection is essential to medical progress. However, our research indicates that not only are animal experiments misleading, they can actually hold up medical progress.


Founded in 1875 the National Anti-Vivisection Society (NAVS) is the world's premier anti-vivisection group, campaigning tirelessly since its inception to expose the cruelty and futility of animal experiments.

We organise and fund educational films; undercover investigations of laboratories; detailed scientific reports for MPs, MEPs and the public.

Our Lord Dowding Fund, awards grants towards scientific and medical research that does not involve animals.

Our campaigns have put an end to the requirement for A-level students to dissect animals in schools; enabled university students to refuse to use animals in their studies, and provided them with alternatives; helped to persuade governments and drug companies to abandon cruel safety tests such as LD50, cosmetics testing, and persuaded more and more companies to drop animal testing of their products.

Against a wall of secrecy and vested interests, we are succeeding in our campaigns against the needless suffering of laboratory animals; with your help we will win.

Animal experiments are fundamentally flawed

The fundamental flaw of animal based research is referred to as 'species differences'. Each species responds differently to substances, therefore animal tests are unreliable as a way to predict effects in humans.

Further difficulties are that distress caused to animals purely by being in the laboratory can affect the outcome of the experiment; test results can be affected by the animal's age, diet, sex, even its bedding material; results from the same tests on the same species can vary from laboratory to laboratory; artificial, laboratory-induced disease is also different from natural disease.

Animal testing:  Unreliable. Unethical.  Unnecessary.


  • Morphine calms people and rats, but causes excitement in cats and mice.
  • Aspirin causes birth defects in cats and dogs, but not in people.
  • Penicillin is a useful antibiotic for people but it kills guinea pigs.
  • Guinea pigs can only breathe through their noses.
  • A drug used successfully for Legionnaires' disease in humans did not prevent deaths in infected guinea pigs.
  • The breast cancer drug tamoxifen was designed as an oral contraceptive. It is in rats, but in women it has the opposite effect. It is now used in the treatment of breast cancer, despite causing cancer in rats in some studies.
  • Rats and mice cannot vomit.
  • The cancer drug 6-azauridine can be used in humans for long periods, but in dogs small doses produce potentially lethal results in a few days.
  • Phenylbutazone works through the body slowly in humans, but in dogs it disappears in hours;


The introduction of blood transfusion was delayed over 200 years because of misleading results of animal experiments. The introduction of corneal transplants was delayed nearly 90 years by misleading animal tests.

After a project using 18,000 mice, Teropterin was used to treat acute childhood leukaemia, but the children died more quickly than if they had not been treated at all.

The heart drug, Eraldin was thoroughly studied in animals and satisfied the regulatory authorities. None of the animal tests warned of the serious side effects in people, such as blindness, growths, stomach troubles, and joint pains.

Opren, the anti-arthritis drug, was passed safe in animal tests. It was withdrawn after causing more than 70 deaths, and serious side effects in 3,500 other people, including damage to the skin, eyes, circulation, liver and kidneys.


Contrary to what you might be led to believe by animal experimenters, the majority of medical and scientific research does not involve animals. Today there are a wealth of sophisticated techniques including computer modelling, tissue cultures, epidemiological studies (studying people and their environment), and clinical studies. Studies of direct relevance to people. And, there is a long history of medical progress without the use of animals.

Artificial Hip - the inventor, John Charnley, refused to experiment on animals. The hip which he developed is still regarded as the 'gold standard' by orthopaedic surgeons.

Childhood (acute) Leukaemia drug - the first effective drugs for childhood leukaemia were introduced in the 1940s, through study on patients. They were not tested on animal leukaemias until after they were shown to be useful in people. Methotrexate, one of those drugs, is still important in the treatment of childhood leukaemia and other cancers.

Asthma drug - sodium cromoglycate (Intal) is used to prevent asthma. It was discovered by a doctor who had little faith in animal experiments. He was allergic to guinea pigs so he exposed himself to them to induce asthma attacks, against which he tested over 600 new drugs.

More examples of medical progress without the use of animals:

Anaesthetics - introduction of chloroform, ether, nitrous oxide, and cocaine.
Asepsis - understanding of sterile techniques in surgery.
Blood - understanding of the blood groups and Rhesus factor.
Circulation - understanding of how the blood circulates around the body.
Drugs - introduction of beta blockers for blood pressure; digitalis for heart failure; morphine as a pain killer; nitrite drugs for angina; quinine for malaria; salicylic acid, the active ingredient of aspirin.
Epidemiology - discovery of the link between cancer and smoking; the causes of heart disease; and the causes of many other diseases.
Hormones - identification and purification of insulin for diabetes.
Surgical procedures - removal of the appendix; removal of bladder stones; Brock's technique for blue baby surgery and mitral stenosis; repair of cardiac aneurysm; removal of cataracts; removal of gall stones; repair of inguinal hernia; removal of the ovaries for tumours.

The Shocking Truth

Vivisection is the blackest of all the black crimes that man is at present committing against God and his fair creation. It ill becomes us to invoke in our daily prayers the blessings of God, the Compassionate, if we in turn will not practice elementary compassion towards our fellow creatures."
Mahatma Gandhi

The fundamental flaw of animal-based research is that each species responds differently to drugs and chemicals, therefore results from animal tests are unreliable as a means of predicting likely effects in humans. Thus, animal experiments are unreliable, unethical, and unnecessary.

Mice huddle in their laboratory cage; the sides of the cage are smeared red with their blood. The ends of their tails have been cut off with scissors, possibly for blood sampling. Small animals are also routinely mutilated (e.g. cutting off toes, punching holes in ears), for identification purposes.

The brutal, violent world of animal experimentation is shrouded in secrecy. In this page we take you inside this secret world. All of the photographs were taken inside British laboratories by undercover Field Officers of the National Anti-Vivisection Society (NAVS).

We appreciate that some of the images here are distressing - but that is the nature of animal experimentation.

Remember, everything you see here was licensed and sanctioned by your Government. Please join the NAVS campaign to end animal experiments, today.

This mouse is alive, but has suffered horrific injuries fighting with cage mates at Charing Cross & Westminster Medical School, London. Severe confinement in labs makes such injuries commonplace.

During an experiment this rat is being kept isolated, in a barren metabolism cage. The animal lives on a wire grid floor, so that urine and excrement can be collected in a container below.

Rabbit with an experimental wound on its neck at Oxford University. Some rabbits in the lab had tubes protruding from their throats, the legs of others had been deliberately broken.

Rats recovering from experimental surgery at St Bart's Hospital Medical School, London. Also in this lab we saw animals which had been irradiated, and others had been deliberately crippled with painful arthritis.

Elisa (right) was used in experiments at the Institute of Neurology, London. She had a steel head piece of tubes and electrodes fixed into her head. Elisa had been chosen because her species was described as having "..a generally docile and friendly nature..". For the experiments, Elisa was starved for 24 hours, then restrained by the headpiece, bolted to the sides of a small cage, to perform tasks for food for up to four hours at a time.

When the NAVS filmed and photographed Elisa, she sat in her tiny cage constantly picking at the skin around the metal protruding from her skull. In these experiments the researchers planned to use 61 monkeys, 25 rats, and four cats.

At Charing Cross & Westminster Medical School, a pacemaker has been implanted into this labrador, (see picture at top of article) to induce heart failure. After about five weeks the dogs' hearts begin to fail; they suffer swelling abdomens, paws, loss of appetite, and crackles/fluid filled lungs. The results showed differences between breeds of dog, let alone the known species difference between dogs and humans.

At St Mary's Hospital medical School, London, tubes and screws were fitted directly into rats' brains, and tetanus toxin injected to induce seizures. We observed how some rats clutched at the implants, their eyes closed in obvious distress.

No one gets out of here alive

To maintain stocks of animals of a range of weights and ages, researchers constantly overbreed; so millions die because they are unwanted. For every animal used in UK labs, two are thrown away as unwanted - rodents are gassed daily, by the sackload.

At Charing Cross & Westminster Medical School of 52,435 animals bred at the laboratory, just 15,198 were used in experiments. 33,348 animals were gassed as surplus to requirements. In the gas chamber they would scramble over each other, desperate to escape death. The vast numbers meant that live animals were thrown into bin bags with their dead cage mates.  2003  Photos Omitted

What is the NZAVS Policy on Vivisection? New Zealand Annti-Vivisection Society  http://www.nzavs.org.nz/ 

NZAVS campaigns for the aboltion of vivisection on the grounds of medical and scientific fraud. The geographical location of where animal experiments are performed is irrelevant; vivisection performed in New Zealand must be banned, and the contracting out of vivisection to overseas vivisectors must be prohibited; as well as for the New Zealand and international regulations to demand that results from animal experiments not be permitted, in matters determining the safety or efficacy for humans, of substances or procedures.

The New Zealand Anti-Vivisection Society Incorporated has adopted the following principles, written by our Patron, Hans Ruesch, as our policy on vivisection:

CIVIS Principles

1.       All animal experimentation must be rejected both on ethical and medical grounds.

2.       Animal experiments destroy respect for life and harden the experimenter against the suffering of human patients.

3.       Experiments on animals are not a proper way to diagnose, research or heal human ailments. The organic, anatomical, biological, metabolic, genetic and psychic differences between humans and animals are so substantial that knowledge obtained from animals is not only worthless but misleading.

4.       Animal experiments are carried out only to the advantage of the experimenters themselves, of their commercial backers, and of the laboratory animal breeding industry. They perform an alibi function. There has never been a scientific statistical proof that their results are applicable to human beings.

5.       Most of today’s diseases are not organic in origin but have psychological, social, dietary, environmental, and malpractice causes. Official medical science therefore has no causal treatment to offer. It can’t even cure a common cold, rheumatism, arthritis, cancer, nor any other of the millenarian ills, which much rather it has multiplied, adding always new diseases (SMON, Herpes, AIDS). By trying only to get rid of the symptoms, it prevents recognition and elimination of the causes.

6.       With its highest consumption of laboratory animals in the world America ‘should’ be the healthiest nation, but it is one of the sickest and ranks only 17th in life expectancy, behind several ‘underdeveloped’ countries where such experimentation is unknown.

7.       Health care requires first of all prevention, furthermore the application of one or several disciplines that have been ignored by official medicine because of its obsession with animal experimentation, for example dietetics, psychosomatics, psychotherapy, clinical observation, environmentalism, epidemiology, vegetarianism, rehabilitation, homeopathy, osteopathy, chiropractic, naturopathy, naprapathy, macrobiotics, diathermy, oligotherapy, electrotherapy, hydrotherapy, heliotherapy, aromatherapy, faith healing, herbalism, acupuncture, fasting and more, which have proven effective, and economical to boot.

8.       Medicine must concern itself with the entire person, adopt methods that relate to the causes and the patients, instead of a veterinary medicine applied to humans, which at best replaces acute symptoms with chronic illness, but often creates new ills.

9.       The veterinary schools must follow the same humane principles: no artificial, violent interventions on healthy animals to inflict maladies and mutilations and to desensitise the students, but careful study and sympathetic treatment of spontaneous diseases and natural accidents.

10.    For all these reasons, to demand the total abolition of all animal experimentation is not only possible but necessary.  

Hot topic: Xenotransplantation
What is xenotransplantation?

Xenotransplantation is the transplanting of animal cells, tissues or organisms to other species (including humans) or mixing body materials between different animal species.This includes such things as transplanting pigs’ hearts into baboons or humans.

Xenotransplantation poses a danger to humans:
Transplanting living animal organs into humans bypasses the body’s natural barriers (such as skin or gastrointestinal tract) that prevent or reduce the chance of infection, thereby facilitating the transmission of infectious diseases from animals to humans.

Many deadly diseases such as Ebola, SARS, varieties of flu etc are thought to have originated in animal hosts before having drastic effects in humans.

Viruses that are harmless (or asymptomatic) to their animal hosts can be fatal when transmitted to humans. For instance, macaque herpes is harmless to macaque monkeys but lethal to people.

There is no way to screen for unknown viruses. It is impossible to guarantee a completely pathogen-free animal. An animal virus may mutate inside its human host or recombine with human viral elements creating new viruses that could be lethal. Bacteria, prions, fungi and parasites are other potential dangers that may be transferred from animals to humans via xenotransplants.

The pro-xenotransplant lobby is financially powerful.

The editor of Nature has stated: “The momentum toward clinical trials of xenotransplantation is seemingly unstoppable, powered as it is by... multimillion dollar investment by biotechnology companies”.  (Nature, Vol. 391, p. 309.)

But Diatranz (an organisation based in Auckland) has been rebuffed in its plan to transplant millions of pig cells into human diabetics. Even the Cook Islands rejected their attempts.

Giant pharmaceutical companies are eager to cash in on the promise of a booming xenotransplantation market, which has been estimated could quickly grow to be worth $US 6 billion annually.

Yet our health system would likely collapse in attempting to deal with the effects of a deadly plague caused by a xenogeneic virus in the human population.

Xenotransplantation and animal experiments
In attempts to prove xenotransplants 'safe' or 'effective' for use in humans, it has been proposed to use the results of xenotransplant experiments between non-human animals. However, this cannot work because each species of animal is a different biomechanical and biochemical entity. Each species suffers from different diseases in different ways, and may react differently to different drugs, chemical substances or viruses. There are huge differences between the immune systems of humans and other animals.

Conclusion and New Zealand situation
The principal danger from xenotransplants is the unleashing of lethal pandemics onto the human population. However there are many other problems associated with xenotransplants, including failure rate, rejection, biological differences, animal welfare, environmental degradation, financial costs etc.

Emphasising xenotransplantation promotes an unsustainable spare-parts approach to health and wellness. Meanwhile the implementation of preventive health programmes (such as exercise, proper diet etc, which could reduce the demand for transplants of all kinds) will suffer.

In New Zealand the moratorium on clinical xenotransplantation (transplantation from non-human animals to humans) has been extended until 31 December 2006. Xenotransplantation is included in the current Ministry of Health's Review of Regulation of Human Tissue and Tissue-Based Therapies

The 3rs 

The 3R's espoused by many non-abolitionist organisations are: 

1.       Refinement of scientific techniques;
2.       Reduction in the numbers of animals used;
3.       Replacement of animal procedures with non-animal procedures.  

They are, in effect, pro-vivisection policies...

"devised by the British chemical interests and palmed off to the Parliamentarians of the Common Market in Strasbourg and Brussels as a progressive step in animal welfare, instead of a step backward. Its purpose is anaesthetic - designed to fool the Parliamentarians and provide them with an alibi, and to allude the antivivisectionists that 'something is being done'. Its unavowed purpose is of course to perpetuate vivisection, meanwhile extorting more money from the anti-vivisectionists; money that is then regularly funneled into the vivisectors' kitties, through the various 'funds for alternative research'".
- Hans Ruesch, CIVIS Bullet-in, Nr. 2, The Infiltration in Animal Welfare 

Alternatives to Vivisection?

"Are there alternatives to vivisection? Of course not. There are no alternatives to vivisection because any method intended to replace it should have the same qualities; but it is hard to find anything in biomedical research that is, and always was, more deceptive and misleading than vivisection. So the methods we propose for medical research should be called ‘scientific methods’… they are not ‘alternatives’."
- Prof. Croce M.D, Vivisection or Science: A Choice To Make

The British law says that all "alternatives to animals used in vivisection laboratories must be tested on animals before they can be called alternatives".

Animal experimentation is a methodological error. And a science that is based on a false methodology can only be a false science.

The abolition of vivisection would allow a true health service to focus attention on the many valid healing therapies which are harmonious, non-invasive and compatible with other life-forms. Briefly they incorporate:

  • A search for patterns and causes of dis-ease and dis-harmony;
  • Integration and concern with the patient as a whole;
  • Focus on caring as a component of healing;
  • Minimal intervention with technology;
  • The adaptation of totally non-invasive techniques including psychotherapies, diet and exercise;
  • Study of the individual and family patterns;
  • Provision of substantial, thorough and comprehensive therapeutic programmes and surveys;
  • Investigation and rectification of pollution points;
  • Education of self-esteem and responsibility.

Media Censorship

"Propaganda through systematic, carefully planned misrepresentation and distortion or suppression of information by the mass media is a far more sinister phenomenon in our so-called democracies, where it goes undetected by most people, than it is in dictatorships, where the media don’t lay claim to freedom of expression, and the population takes it for granted that any news coming from domestic sources should be taken with more than one grain of salt. Whereas in our democracies, most citizens are convinced that if the information they receive from several national sources is unanimous, it must reflect the truth. But actually they are being gravely deluded"
- Hans Ruesch, Naked Empress.

"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."
- Bette Overell, Animal Research Takes Lives - Humans and Animals Both Suffer

Many local press reporters and photographers were active at the above rally. One reporter informed NZAVS personnel that when he handed his story to the Evening Post it was dismissed out of hand. He was preparing a further report for the Dominion - but was due for another disappointment as it too refused to publish. TV 3 filmed the event but did not screen it. A full-page advertisement for Amuri Motors Ltd, the General Motors' Wellington franchise holder appeared in the first Wellington newspaper off the press after the NZAVS protest. A further advertisement appeared further on in the paper. NOTE: General Motors no longer has an animal trauma research activity.

"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 surprisingly and quickly be ‘discovered’."
- Bette Overell, Animal Research Takes Lives - Humans and Animals Both Suffer

NZAVS notes that media coverage of recent abolitionist campaigns highlighting the scientific fraud of vivisection has been trivial or non-existent, with reporters not even attending let alone reporting on our demonstrations. On the rare occasions that it does occur it is usually as a footnote to ALF activities.

Vivisection must be stopped, legal channels have been blocked.
It will be no surprise if, given this situation, that the number of illegal direct actions against vivisection continues to increase.
The following is an excerpt from This is the A.L.F., Issue #2, a booklet which was provided anonymously to NZAVS.

"The Animal Liberation Front consists of small autonomous groups of people in more than a dozen countries who carry out direct action according to the ALF policy. There is no central co-ordinating group; you cannot join the ALF by paying a subscription fee or filling in a form. Any group of people who are vegetarians and/or vegans who carry out actions according to policy have the right to describe themselves as part of the ALF.

The policy of the ALF was written by the original ALF group that formed in Britain in 1976.

The ALF takes direct action against all forms of animal abuse. This action falls basically into two groups: 1) The rescue or liberation of animals from premises or establishments in order to save them from persecution. Such animals are usually taken to good homes where they will be properly cared for. Animals are only released into the wild if they have a reasonable chance of survival. 2) Damage to property or premises connected with animal abuse, to force them out of business or to encourage them to mend their ways. Often both types of action take place during the same raid. It is against ALF policy to use violence against a person or animal. Self-defence is the only exception, and even then the minimum of force should be used. For example it may be necessary to restrain someone but not punch them in the face unless they are a serious physical threat. Raids are best planned to be carried out in such a way as to avoid confrontation with the opposition. Methods used to cause damage to property should reflect this policy both directly and indirectly, ie just as we do not accept killing or injuring anyone, so too must we avoid an action that may indirectly pose a similar threat… To sum it up, the ALF campaign is one of animal rescue and economic sabotage." 

The history of anti-vivisection in New Zealand has shown the conventional legal channels, eg Petitions to Parliament, have been blocked. It is easily understandable that some anti-vivisectionists, frustrated with attempting to work through the system, should express their hatred of the vivisection industry by carrying out actions under the ALF name. It is to be expected that as more people discover that the system is as fraudulent as vivisection itself that these actions will escalate.

Is NZAVS part of the ALF?  No. NZAVS works to educate the public about the dangers of animal based research. Having seen so many legal channels blocked to anti-vivisectionists, NZAVS understands the feelings of some in the movement who have decided that it is necessary to resort to illegal direct actions to stop vivisection. NZAVS supports those who choose this route towards abolition. Direct actions that liberate laboratory animals or cause economic damage to vivisectors often gain more publicity and educate the public more than the most spectacular legal protest marches or rallies that are, with very few exceptions, ignored by the mass media. 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. 

NZAVS notes that publicity for abolitionist campaigns seems to only eventuate after ALF actions have been publicised. Many of our campaigns, such as the unrolling of the 100 metres of Animal Research Takes Lives - Humans and Animals Both Suffer, that have not coincided with publicised ALF actions have been ignored by the mass media - who derive revenue from advertising the products of vivisection.

In Defense of Animals  (sample letter)

Dear Editor,

As tax time draws near it is appalling to think of all the millions of taxpayer dollars that are funding cruel and unnecessary animal research. It is time that people understand the cruelty and waste behind this questionable practice.

Each year in the United States, an estimated 30 million to 60 million animals are subjected to painful experiments in which they are burned, blinded, surgically mutilated and poisoned. The National Institute of Mental Health continues to fund senseless experiments, where infant animals are isolated and then subjected to procedures intended to cause terror, despair, anxiety and pain.

Increasingly, doctors and scientists are speaking out against such experiments, calling them unnecessary, duplicative and costly, and calling for their replacement with non-animal technology, such as computer models and tissue and cell culture studies. They point out that animals and humans differ in medically important ways and that these experiments often produce misleading results. For instance, of 25 drugs that appeared to reduce the effects of stroke in rodents, not a single one worked in human patients.

April 22 begins World Week for Animals in Laboratories, an annual series of events to educate the public about the scientific, moral and economic objections to animal experimentation. If you would like to learn more about the abuse of animals in research and how animal experimentation can negatively impact human health, please contact In Defense of Animals at (415) 388-9641 or ida@idausa.org.


Dear Editor:

The practice of transplanting organs from animals to humans, known as xenotransplantation, is being touted as the cure for the shortage of life-saving organ donors. Before the American people put their support into such measures, they should understand the realities and risks of animal to human transplants.

Attempts to transplant organs from animals to humans may thrill scientists who dream of crossing uncharted frontiers, but it does nothing more than make victims of the human recipients and animal donors. Such transplants, carried out since the early part of the twentieth century, have never been even remotely successful. The usual problem of organ rejection is further magnified by species incompatibility when animal organs are used.

Furthermore, xenotransplantation carries a grave risk of lethal virus transmission because it bypasses all of the body's normal mechanisms for disease protection. This opens the door to infection with deadly viral diseases such as Ebola and hepatitis B. Once such a foreign virus is transmitted into a human host, the possibility of spreading it to the larger population is very real and frightening.

Rather than "farming" animals to use them as receptacles for spare parts that hold little promise for recipients and pose grave risks for society, efforts should be directed toward viable cost-effective ways to increase the number of organ donors. Some countries have turned to presumed consent, whereby everyone is a potential donor unless they declare otherwise. Such measures have been used to increase organ donors in other countries and have proved significantly successful.

Let's put our efforts into science – not science fiction – and give organ recipients a real chance.


January 1, 2006  Lifeforce News:  Heart and Stroke Lottery Not Lucky for Animals

Some of the funds from the Heart and Stroke Foundation Research Lottery will be spent on painful, scientifically fallacious experiments on animals. These Heart and Stroke Foundations in BC and Ontario do not have any policy opposing experiments on animals. They continue to use “animal models”.

Researchers create "animal models" of heart and stroke injury to test drugs and other methodologies. However, they are not studying the actual human maladies and animals react differently to the methodologies tested. There are major biological and anatomical differences between animals and humans.

The Peer Review System and the pro-vivisection organizations such as the Canadian Council for Animal Care (CCAC) protect the vivisectors not the animals. The CCAC inspections are confidential and there are no bans on even the cruelest practices. Lifeforce is the only organization in Canada that has succeeded in laying cruelty to animal charges against researchers. Our 1984 case exposed the practice of restraining baboons for four months in experiments funded by the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario.

Please contact the Heart and Stroke Foundation at www.heartandstroke.ca to express your concerns. Go to their “Contact Us” to send an email. Please send Lifeforce a copy of their response.   lifeforcesociety@hotmail.com  www.lifeforcefoundation.org

Note: A focus on clinical research and prevention, together with the abolition of vivisection, is the only way to turn the present sickness service into a health service.