GLOBAL CAMPAIGN TO CLOSE DOWN HUNTINGDON LIFE SCIENCES
Science introduction

Aside from being responsible for animal cruelty Huntingdon Life Sciences are directly responsible for human misery, suffering and death. Countless products manufactured by HLS clients have gone on to hospitalize and even kill people.

In April 2008 The Guardian reported that adverse drug reactions were costing the NHS over £2bn a year. The health minister Dawn Primarolo confirmed that 6.5% of hospital admissions were because of an adverse reaction totalling over one million patients. You can read the full article by clicking here.

Often anti-vivisection campaigners are accused of being "anti-science" or against life saving medication, but this simply isn't true; it is just a myth lead by the pro-vivisection lobby to mislead the public into thinking that we only have a choice between animal research, or no research at all, and no new cures, treatments and products.

Anti-vivisection campaigners are not against medicines, treatments, or cures for disease, however what we want is for products to be tested in a way that does not torture and murder innocent animals; and in a way that actually benefits human kind. We want safer, more reliable methods of testing implemented which do not harm animals or people.

It is important to remember that humans are not rats, monkeys, mice, or dogs. When we become ill, we do not see a vet or use medication suited to another species. A drug that may cure one species may kill another, and less than 2% of human illnesses are ever seen in animals. Once you begin to understand how flawed animal research is, it makes you wonder how many potential treatments for disease or cures for cancer have been disregarded because animal testing was relied upon.

In this section we will begin to highlight the inaccuracies and dangers of animal testing from a human perspective, hear what other health care professionals have to say, and also explain alternative methods of testing which can be used to replace outdated animal research.

Animal tests are not capable of predicting the side effects of a drug. Previously, the Scientific Executive of HLS admitted that they were able to predict with an accuracy of about 5%-25%.
[ 'Animal Toxicity Studies: Their relevance to man, Lumley & Walker (ed) pp57-67, Quay, 1989]

When animals do show side effects when they’re given a drug, research has shown that most of the time, they’re showing something that will not happen in humans. Studies have shown that 75% of these unwanted affects never result in humans.
[AP Fletcher in Proc R Soc med, 1978;71, 693-8]

Conversely side effects happen in humans that are not predicted by animal experiments. The terrible effects suffered just by the patients affected the drugs mentioned above are examples of what can happen if you take a drug which has successfully passed animal tests. Unfortunately, these events are just part of a massive problem, and the human casualties of vivisection are numbered in their hundreds of thousands every year.
[Journal of the American Medical Association. 14/4/98]

Support the SOCPA7 - Animal liberation + activist solidarity!