back to animal experiments home


Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS) are the largest contract testing lab in Europe. They kill 500 animals a day in tests for products such as weedkiller, food colourings and drugs. Huntingdon Life Sciences have been exposed at least 5 times for disgusting animal cruelty and rule breaking.

We can't stop the laboratory with demonstrations or petitions - the reasons are very simple:
- HLS is not interested in animals' lives
- HLS is testing drugs for many Big Pharmas and depend on their (huge) money
- people from all over the World are buying these Pharmas' products allowing HLS to murder animals
- HLS is doing everything according with law - a few prosecutions for animal cruelty are nothing for them
The conclusion is simple as well: HLS will be exists until:
- people boycott the Pharmas and stop buying their products
- we manage to make EU Commision change the law
and the two steps can't be achived since people would have been not aware what happens in HLS labolatory



1951 HLS formed by Professor Alistair Worden.

1981 Sarah Kite, from the British Union Against Vivisection, worked inside the HLS lab in Huntingdon for six months. Her investigation gave the first glimpse inside the laboratory. 1981 investigation

Early 1990s In response to industry concerns, US Congress passed legislation making it a federal crime to break into a research facility and cause more than $10,000 in damages.

1997 Two undercover investigators infiltrated HLS:
Zoe Broughton worked at HLS in Cambridgeshire, UK.
Michelle Rokke worked at HLS in New Jersey, USA.

After the Royal Bank of Scotland gave a 22.5-million pound loan to keep HLS afloat, demonstrations took place across the UK. The ALF disabled dozens of the banks ATMs by inserting cards covered in superglue into the machines.

1998 The USDA fined HLS $50,000 for 23 violations of the Animal Welfare Act. These same violations have continued as recently as March 2000.

September 2000 HLS exposed in UK for substandard research practices after documents leaked to animal activists showed the suffering from botched cross-species transplant experiments.
September 2000 The Daily Express exposed HLS in Cambridgeshire, UK.

October 2000 SHAC received documents and video footage from HLS's lab in Suffolk, UK.

December 2000 HLS removed from the New York Stock Exchange. A growing list of investment companies pull out of HLS, including Citibank, Merrill Lynch and Charles Schwab.

Fifth HLS undercover investigation released by SHAC with shocking video footage, including of a monkey escaping from an HLS lab.


January 2001 US investor, Stephens, Inc., saved HLS from closing its doors by extending a $33-million loan.

� The Animal Liberation-Tactical Internet Response Network (AL-TIRN) held an electronic civil disobedience action against HLS. According to AL-TIRN, �The campaign against HLS is now being intensified to include a new area of protest aimed at blocking the information highway of the company.� The announcement by AL-TIRN comes on the heels of an action-filled week that saw more than 1,500 UK activists lay siege to several of HLS' biggest clients causing severe disruption, while US activists flooded the phone lines, email systems and offices of Stephens, Inc.

March 2001 Fourteen beagles liberated from Huntingdon's laboratory in New Jersey. This marked the first time activists on either side of the Atlantic liberated animals from HLS.

HLS and Stephens, Inc. file a Civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) lawsuit in an attempt to pin allegations of physical attacks, bomb threats, property destruction, burglary and harassment on the Animal Defense League, In Defense of Animals and Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC). According to a SHAC spokesperson, �This SLAPP-suit is completely baseless, and we are looking forward to dragging this through the legal system as HLS will have to spend what little money they have left in a legal fight.

April 2001 National protest against HLS: Approximately 150 activists converged on the New Jersey laboratory. Four arrests were made as police formed together and charged into the crowd.

Boisterous protests held at several Stephens� offices, including Atlanta, Chicago and Boston. In San Francisco, 12 demonstrators blockaded themselves inside the conference room of Stephens office, they were removed after two dozen police officers forced their way inside by axing through a plexi-glass window.

May 2001 Week of action against HLS in New Jersey. HLS had been granted a temporary restraining order placing restrictions on protests at the homes of HLS employees. Not deterred, activists proceeded to the home of Thomas Perna, Senior Vice President of the Bank of New York to protest.

The Animal Liberation Front claimed responsibility for hacking into the website of Primate Products, a company that supplies the primates used in the product-testing research at HLS. The improved website contained several graphic photos of primates butchered in research laboratories and even contained photos of actual primates from inside HLS that were taken during undercover investigations.

June 2001 Protests at the annual HLS shareholders� meeting in New York City on June 14.

Campaign kick-off against another financial backer of HLS, the Bank of New York.

Ongoing in the UK Every weekday, a crowd of protesters gather outside the gates of HLS� main lab in Huntingdon. As workers come and go, they meet screaming protesters. Every eight weeks, SHAC UK holds national demonstrations where more than 1,000 protesters target the lab or a company affiliated with HLS.

Large demonstrations are followed up with demonstrations at the homes of workers. The Animal Liberation Front has waged a series of car bombings and attacks on workers� homes. The HLS employee turnover rate is high.

In April 2003 The Observer newspaper published a full update on the Xenotransplantation experiments out at Huntingdon Life Sciences.

In 2004 SHAC are leaked documents that show Huntingdon gassed beagles and mice in 2003 to test a CFC that was banned 15 years ago. Documents and more info here.

2005 expose Inside HLS (reports and videos made by two workers at HLS)

HLS addresses and locations: http://www.shac.net/HLS/who_are_hls.html


Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty
w w w . s h a c . n e t

Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty is a truly global campaign against Huntingdon Life Sciences. The campaign was formed in 1999 and since then have been working towards the end of HLS. To read about their investigations, hard work, protests and actions start with SHAC history.

SHAC groups operate in numerous countries and target HLS, their sales offices, their clients, their insurance brokers and many other companies or individuals involved in the seedy world of Huntingdon Life Sciences.


HLS customers

Customers are the main thing keeping HLS in business. It's simple No Customers = No HLS. Many of these companies listed know full well that HLS are cruel to animals, break procedures and falsify results and are happy with that as it means that they get their products on the market. Others havent got a clue about HLS as they are based on the other side of the world.
Boycott these companies:

Full list and more info here


SHAC petition Stop HLS Animal Cruelty has now over 1.2 million signatures and is going for 2 million.
Please download and print out the petition. Completed petitions send to: SHAC, c/o FRIEND, 89 Bush Road, East Peckham, TONBRIDGE, Kent TN12 5LJ.

Download the petition, print, collect signatures and send to SHAC:
Petition and leaflets to download

Sign online petition Shut Down Huntingdon Life Sciences

SHAC Actions



SHAC: http://www.shac.net/news/2011/february/15.html

Previously unseen research papers, which were anonymously sent to the Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) campaign at the start of 2011, have shed new light on shocking experiments carried out by controversial testing laboratory Huntingdon Life Sciences.

The research papers detail invasive experiments which took place on rats, mice, rabbits and rhesus monkeys at HLS' Cambridgeshire and New Jersey laboratories between the years 2001 and 2010. Substances tested included unleaded gas [1], grape seed extract [2], a PCB which has been banned since 1979 [3], Botox [4], soybean fiber [5], and paraffin wax [6]. There were also several duplicate tests for a food additive known as PVA [7], [8] and experiments to test a fragrance that occurs naturally in plants, which is used in cosmetics and perfumes [9], [10]. An entire summary of all 11 shocking documents can be found in our investigative report, 'HLS Unmasked', which can be downloaded from the above link.

All products tested in the documents have already been tested on animals in previous years, resulting in a wealth of data already being available which could be used in place of repeat experiments. In addition, all products that were tested are already circulating on the market, and are already used by humans around the globe on a daily basis. Despite this, thousands of animals have been poisoned and killed inside HLS to pass these products as ‘safe’ - products which are already being consumed by the human population in vast quantities. Furthermore, the vast majority of the substances tested are used mainly in cosmetic products – such as perfumes, soap, and detergents [9] – and are a far cry from the 'essential, life-saving research' that HLS claim to be conducting.

It must also be pointed out that the tests carried out at HLS do not provide any indication as to the actual safety of the substances in question. One document involving the use of rats to test a naturally-occurring scent known as 'coumarin', rather frankly concludes that “the rat is a very poor model for humans, and toxicity in the rat cannot be extrapolated to humans” [9]. Another experiment, in which rats are force fed paraffin wax, the conclusion states that the results proved to be “of questionable relevance for human safety evaluation” [6]. This is regardless of the fact that HLS use rats for most of their toxicity testing, yet they openly choose when to uphold or discard the results depending on their desirability. This is extremely dangerous when it comes to safety testing, which should always be based upon reliable, scientific models that give a firm indication of how a product might affect the human body. Instead, HLS choose to use a cheaper and slightly quicker route which they themselves admit cannot even be relied upon for safety evaluation in humans.

These documents are yet more evidence of the sheer lunacy behind the kinds of animal experiments that are allowed to continue inside places like Huntingdon Life Sciences - experiments which must end. HLS have been exposed previously as testing coffee sweetener Splenda [11], cleaning chemicals [12], mushroom extract [13], fermented vegetables [14] on animals. All animals were killed either during or after experimentation took place.

Says Debbie Vincent of SHAC, “these new research papers reveal, once again, the true horror and idiocy of this failing laboratory. When they are not getting exposed for gross misconduct or severe animal welfare breaches, they are thrust into the spotlight for testing bizarre and useless products on animals – products which we all use already on a daily basis. While cosmetic testing is supposedly banned in the UK, here we see products which are largely used in cosmetics still being tested on vast numbers of animals at HLS. We strongly condemn all experimentation on animals, but this blatant abuse of a gaping legal loophole regarding cosmetic testing is absolutely not acceptable. HLS must finally be made accountable for their cruel and unnecessary experiments which are taking place on a regular basis behind locked doors.”

[1] ‘Developmental toxicity evaluation of unleaded gasoline vapor in the rat’, Reproductive Toxicology 15 (2001) 487–494

[2] ‘Subchronic 3 month oral toxicity study of grape seed and grape skin extracts’, Food and Chemical Toxicology 40 (2002) 1731–1743

[3] ‘Dermal Absorption in Rhesus Monkeys of Polychlorinated Biphenyls from Soil Contaminated with Aroclor 1260’, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 35, 289–295 (2002)

[4] ‘Intramuscular injection of 125I botulinum neurotoxin complex versus 125I botulinum-free neurotoxin time course of tissue distribution’, Toxicon 42 (2003) 461–469

[5] ‘Soluble soybean fiber a 3 month dietary toxicity study in rats’, Food and Chemical Toxicology 41 (2003) 1111–1121

[6] ‘Comparative 90 day dietary study of paraffin wax in Fischer 344 and Sprague Dawley rats’, Food and Chemical Toxicology 48 (2010) 363–372

[7] ‘Subchronic toxicity study in rats and genotoxicity tests with polyvinyl alcohol’, Food and Chemical Toxicology 41 (2003) 719–727

[8] ‘Effects of polyvinyl alcohol administered in the diet to rats on fertility, early embryonic development, growth and development’, Food and Chemical Toxicology 41 (2003) 729–737

[9] ‘The in vivo dermal absorption and metabolism of [4-14C] coumarin by rats and by human volunteers under simulated conditions of use in fragrances’, Food and Chemical Toxicology 39 (2001) 153 – 162

[10] ‘Comparative metabolism and kinetics of coumarin in mice and rats’, Food and Chemical Toxicology 41 (2003) 247–258

[11] 'The Pharmacokinetics and Metabolism of Sucralose in the Dog', Food and Chemical Toxicology 38 (Suppl. 2) (2000) S99±S106, http://www.shac.net/HLS/what_tests.html

[12] Development of an occupational exposure limit for n-propylbromide using benchmark dose methods, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, August 2004, http://www.shac.net/HLS/research_papers/cleaningchemical.pdf

[13] Himematsutake (Iwade Strain 101) extract (ABM-FD):

Genetic toxicology and a 3-month dietary toxicity study in rats, Food and Chemical Toxicology 46 (2008) 1949–1959, T. Sumiya a, Y. Ikeda a, A. Broadmeadow b,*, K. Mayb, Pritchard b, C. Horne b, B. Burlinson B. http://www.shac.net/HLS/research_papers/mushroomextract.pdf

[14] Safety assessment of Lactobacillus brevis KB290 as a probiotic strain, Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology, July 2009. http://www.shac.net/HLS/research_papers/2009%20HLS%20vegetable%20study.pdf

14.10.2009 USA SHAC 7 Appeal Court Upholds SHAC 7 convictions


13.09.2009 Launch of SHAC North America

At a community meeting space in NYC’s Greenwich Village for a Win Animal Rights Open House and film screening last month, an announcement was made that “SHAC IS BACK” with the formation of SHAC-North America.
Well done!!!

10.09.2009 Pain for Dogs Doubles at HLS, Overall HLS Experimentation Drops, Business Drops 1/3 in 1 Year

Some good, some bad news from SEAN press release and WAR commentary:

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

Earlier today, Win Animal Rights (WAR) released the text of a press release published on September 8, 2009, by watchdog group SAEN. The press release was about USDA inspection reports for the years 2006, 2007 and 2008 for the Huntingdon Life Sciences East Millstone, New Jersey laboratory. The release was entitled: "Pain for Dogs Doubles at Huntingdon Life Sciences; Overall HLS Experimentation Drops". You can read the full text of the press release and access the USDA reports below.

A careful analysis of the documentation reveals good news and bad news. Although the number of animals used has declined 34% in one year, from 2007 to 2008, the number of painful experiments on dogs has increased. The press release states:

"In 2008, 77 dogs were force-fed toxic substances whose side effects caused substantial pain, without receiving anesthesia. At least 5 of these dogs were so injured by the toxic substances that they had to be killed. In 2007, only 30 dogs were used in experiments involving unrelieved pain."

The decrease in the number of animals used is a clear indication that the global campaign to stop the killing at Huntingdon Life Sciences is definitely having an impact. These numbers reflect on business at HLS at a time before the economic downturn and this is coupled with HLS' loss of two key pieces of business announced in 2009. A study of HLS' major competitors reveals that their finances are depressed but recovering. Only HLS sales continue to slide further and further pushing them down into a financial abyss. From the press release:

“Clearly the campaign by animal activists is having a major impact,” said Michael A. Budkie, A.H.T., executive director, SAEN. “Anytime you see a 1/3 drop in business in one year something is very wrong.”

The LSR share price, one year ago, was at an all time high of $39.30. This dropped to a low of $4.12 in March, 2009. It was this that led the Board of Directors to approve Andrew Baker's offer to take LSR (ticker symbol for HLS) off of the New York Stock Exchange and to purchase all outstanding shares, effectively taking the company out of the public domain. Even today with a potential buy out price of $8.50 per share, LSR stock is trading below $8.00 with an extremely low volume of shares traded.

What effect will all of this have? Well, for one thing, HLS will no longer have independent shareholders, who are entitled to access to the company's financial position. Nor will HLS be required to file SEC reports. Financial transparency, which is fairly opaque now, will make it even more difficult to ascertain their financial standing after they go private. This is why government inspection reports, which determine compliance with current (and painfully inadequate) animal welfare laws and regulations, are very important. These may provide us our only glimpse behind the razor wire fences and locked doors of their laboratory.

Huntingdon Life Sciences is at the brink of financial failure. The animals held captive there, continue to suffer and die. Think of the beagles puppies subjected to painful procedures without even the small comfort of pain killers. Many of them are just babies. Think of the 12,800 animals that were killed to test sugar substitute "Splenda". Pregnant rabbits, infant monkeys and beagle puppies were killed for a lousy product like "Splenda".

Now is the time to concentrate and focus our attention and action on finishing what the global SHAC campaign started. WAR will be ramping up activity against Huntingdon Life Sciences, their employees, their customers, their financiers, their suppliers and anyone else who gives them aid or support. We will name them and shame them where they work, where they live, where they worship and where they spend their leisure time. WAR is coming.


Text of SAEN Press Release:

Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Contact: Michael Budkie, SAEN, 513-575-5517; 513-703-9865 (cell)

attn: News Desk

Pain for Dogs Doubles at Huntingdon Life Sciences;
Overall HLS Experimentation Drops

Somerset, NJ – Recently obtained federal reports reveal that Huntingdon Life Sciences use of dogs in painful experiments without anesthesia has more than doubled, even though their overall experimental business has dropped.

In 2008, 77 dogs were force-fed toxic substances whose side effects caused substantial pain, without receiving anesthesia. At least 5 of these dogs were so injured by the toxic substances that they had to be killed. In 2007, only 30 dogs were used in experiments involving unrelieved pain.

“The concept that dogs, no different than those who share 43,000,000 American homes, are literally poisoned inside the labs of this facility is totally shocking,” added Budkie. “This is not science; this is nothing short of animal abuse.”

However, these same reports reveal that animal activists’ campaign against the Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS) Corporation has been effective. Government reports filed by the company disclose a one-year drop of 34% in animal use at the New Jersey laboratory.

2007 animal use reported to the USDA by HLS was 2143 regulated animals (not including rats, mice etc.). 2008 animal use plummeted to 1415, a drop of more than 1/3.

“Clearly the campaign by animal activists is having a major impact,” said Michael A. Budkie, A.H.T., executive director, SAEN. “Anytime you see a 1/3 drop in business in one year something is very wrong.”

The USDA reports are available upon request from SAEN.

Note from WAR: Our sincere appreciation to Michael Budkie and SAEN for obtaining and posting this information. For your convenience, we have obtained copies of the USDA reports from SAEN and have posted links to each of the three reports below. Just click on the links.

USDA Report - Huntingdon Life Sciences, East Millstone, NJ - 2006
USDA Report - Huntingdon Life Sciences, East Millstone, NJ - 2007
USDA Report - Huntingdon Life Sciences, East Millstone, NJ - 2008

18.08.2009 Largest HLS Investor Dumps All Shares As Buyout Approaches

On August 1st, Win Animal Rights (W.A.R.) launched a campaign to influence the top Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS) Investor, Morgan Stanley, (who recently bought LSR stock) to divest their large holding of LSR shares. With 679,225 shares, Morgan Stanley was a 5% owner of Europe's largest and most exposed vivisection laboratory, swiftly selling all their LSR stock within a week of the campaign against them.

Protests included W.A.R. visiting the homes of 5 senior executives, as well as the two co-presidents of the firm, and five days later demonstrating at the headquarters of Morgan Stanley in New York City. This was followed by visits to the homes of multiple senior executives of the company.

The divestiture comes as LSR/HLS CEO, Andrew Baker, moves forward with his plans to acquire HLS and make it a privately held company, therefore delisting themselves from the NYSE (a major target in the campaign to close HLS). The proxy statement makes it abundantly clear that activists have had a tremendous impact on LSR/HLS' financial predicament, causing them to have limited options for the future.

On Friday August 7, 2009 and Monday August 10, 2009, several hundred thousands of LSR shares were dumped, resulting in a downward slide of the share price. On Wednesday, August 12, 2009, Morgan Stanley notified the SEC of their divestiture.

Thank you Morgan Stanley!

LSR/HLS Financial Update

Additionally, much has been happening on the financial front as LSR/Huntingdon Life Sciences CEO, Andrew Baker, moves forward with his plans to acquire HLS and make it a privately held company. A Proxy Statement has been filed with the SEC (Securities Exchange Commission). You can read the 132 page document by clicking on "Proxy Statement" here:


A good analysis of the pending merger and proxy statement is provided by a New York Times financial blogger, here:

info: WAR, Indymedia

09.02.2009 HLS exposed again

Animal Defenders International have just published a report and film exposing every aspect of the vivisection primate trade across three continents
including sending a worker undercover inside Huntingdon Life Sciences.
They have revealed primates being torn from the wild and placed into tiny prisons in Vietnam, to then endure a thirty hour journey in a restrictive cage
arriving at Huntingdon Life Sciences in the dead of night to undergo horrific experiments.
The undercover worker filmed monkeys strapped in to chairs and forced to inhale products. Many were left in one cubic metre cages and then taken
out to be held down by workers as tubes were forced down their throats.
Primates inside HLS are living in cramped, dirty baron cages. The psychological damage inflicted on these innocent beings lead them to chew
their own fingersand toes off the the bone; and one primate's face became so injured she had to be force fed.
During the year long ADI investigation 217 primates were killed in just five studies for customers including GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), AstraZeneca and the
To view the ADI report and view the video footage shot inside HLS, visit: http://www.savetheprimates.com/primateban/news/

After the 1997 expose when HLS workers were filmed abusing animals GSK and AstraZeneca both dropped HLS. They soon went back to them when Brian Cass
promised to turn the company around, but said if it ever happened again they would not use HLS to contract experiments. We all know this kind of thing is
going on every day inside HLS, but now we have up to date footage from inside HLS during 2008.

Take action: Please contact GSK & AstraZeneca and ask them to stop contracting experiments at HLS and ask them to look at the undercover footage and report written by the Animal Defenders International.
Take action

18.01.2009 Netcu Watch // SHAC : Hypocrisy, Terrorism and Extremism

written by Lynn Sawyer
published on Indymedia: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/01/419112.html

I have been looking at a few forums regarding the first SHAC trial and would like to respond to some of the main points.


To start with the hypocrisy charge. Animal rights activists protesting against vivisection, it is argued, still use animal tested products. This is a very fair point which needs addressing to the best of my humble abilities. My personal view is that for a start everything water, aromatherapy oils, homeopathic medicines, mobile phones, pesticides etc, etc have at some stage been tested on animals. To avoid animal tested products is well nigh impossible in our society although we should do so as far as is practicable. A similar charge could also be made against climate change activists who could be labelled “hypocrites” if any fossil fuels are used or against human rights activists who will find it very difficult to boycott Chinese products (this is also well nigh impossible).

For some reason those in favour of animal testing always argue that we should not take medication as this will have been tested on animals, they never argue about ink in printers or additives in soft drinks (chemical laden fizzy pop is an abomination which afflicts the young). Of course logically it would be more ethically viable for an animal rights activist to take paracetomol an analgesic and anti pyretic which has been around for decades than an artificial sweetener such as “splendour” which was only recently tested on animals. If we look at a drug such as ergot (from a fungus on wheat) used to stop post partum haemorrhage it was in use thousands of years ago in ancient Eygpt. All medication has been tested on animals but we argue that there are other, better ways of checking drugs are safe to use.

There is very little information concerning how a product was tested, where it was tested, on which species, when it was tested and whether or not it contains bits of dead animal. The onus should be on the drug and assorted animal testing industries to provide this information to the public so that informed choices can be made by those who do not wish to use animal tested products for ethical , scientific, medical or religious reasons. Someone then might decide that they do not wish to use a floor cleaner tested on dogs at HLS and reach for the borax instead.

Roche produce vitamin K which is given to nearly every baby in the UK to prevent the rare but potentially lethal haemolytic disease of the newborn. It contains glychocholic acid from bovine bile which is hardly vegetarian or Hindu friendly, I also suspect that as the bovine bile is probably not Halal or Kosher strict Muslims and Jews may be none too impressed with Roche followed closely by those who are rightly or wrongly concerned about CJD. Maybe we should campaign for very clear labelling after all the vivisectors have proposed that they label animal tested things as animal tested why not go one step further and tell us when and for what reason. I know that aspirin has been around for a very long time and can use it with a clear conscience but it could be labelled as animal tested recently as ongoing experiments on everything already on the market are commonplace, I would also like to know the reason why it is being repeatedly tested. Aconite, a homeopathic remedy has been around for a long time, I believe it is ethical to use, if a drug company commission animal tests on aconite does that make my choice unethical? Of course not.

Some of the most sinister comments have centred around denying animal rights people access to medical assistance. Animal rights people pay taxes and many of us have worked in the NHS for many years. In fact I might be the biggest hypocrite of all because rather than dying when I was attacked by a police officer I accepted surgery on several occasions to my smashed femur, a blood transfusion, surgery to my face (my cheek was hanging off) and antibiotics to control the MRSA and pseudomonas which wracked my body. I could have denied all treatment and died of course and there are a few of our number who would have done just that. It would have meant on a practical level that they would have put my leg in traction and hoped for the best causing more disruption for the NHS staff and indeed a murder charge rather than GBH for the PC concerned if I had died within a year. On a moral level quite simply I believe that we should use drugs and surgical techniques that already exist. It would be highly unethical for example to ban insulin just because it was once tested on animals. Drugs could have been developed in other ways with quite probably better results.

Not one of us whether vivisector or animal rights activist can possibly know everything about every drug but we want animal testing to stop, not scientific medical research. This does not involve throwing out medications which have been used often for decades just because they were tested on animals. Of course presuming that xenotransplantation ever happens it would be the height of hypocrisy for an animal rights activist to accept an organ from a pig killed to order. I find it rather despicable to be told by vivisectionists that not only is it acceptable to be attacked by the police but that I should then be denied access to what is the prerogative of everyone in the UK the NHS , followed by whining over how THEY felt “harassed” by the incident.

Furthermore chiropractors, homeopaths, aromatherapists, herbalists etc are only available to those who pay privately. Someone with mild depression might be better off seeing an aromatherapst rather than being dosed up with Prozac. Medication is often dished out as the first resort when it should be the last in many cases. I would have a health service which in addition to “conventional” medicine and surgery would also have practitioners such as highly trained chiropractors, arnica for those post surgery, an emphasis on diet and aromatherapy oils in every drug cupboard.

Animal testing is also an inexact process. No-one really knows what will happen in the human body until humans have used a product for a considerable amount of time. Rats are a different creature altogether and can survive things we cannot. To extrapolate data from experimenting on rats is dangerous enough when we regard life saving medication but to test a food colouring on rats and then feed it to young human children on the mere assumption it is safe because the rats did not die is positively evil profiteering, HLS do this every day along with all of their contract testing lab’ chums. Even more disgusting is the fact that if I want to avoid an animal tested pesticide I can’t it is in the air, the water, the earth and being absorbed by my skin, HLS(and others) test a pesticide on animals tell everyone it is safe and whether we like it or not we are forced to absorb it into our bodies passing it on to the next generation through the womb and breastmilk. I for one do not trust HLS to rubber stamp anything as safe for me to eat, drink or breathe as they have been known to falsify results and they do not bother to monitor the animals 24 hours a day perhaps missing vital clues.

The Nazis experimented on human prisoners, they came up with some useful (and some not useful) data on hypothermia after torturing their victims which has been used by others since. If they had found a cure for cancer I would utterly condemn the methodology, lament for the murdered and put steps in place to stop such an atrocity ever happening again but the cure should still be used. In fact Marion Sims experimented on the poor and on slaves in the US and he is still celebrated as a great gynaecologist, the Sims speculum is still in use today. No-one (I hope) would ever seriously suggest that it is OK to experiment on innocent humans without fully informed consent (or even not so innocent ones) and I would argue that it would be throwing out the baby with the bath water to exclude every medical and other intervention which came into being by abusing humans. Using for example techniques perfected by the Nazis to save a life on an air/sea rescue operation does not involve condoning the atrocity. Driving on a road once made by slaves does not condone slavery.

Experiments on humans without their consent have been conducted by drug companies this century notably Pfizer. What I would suggest is that those responsible are put on trial for mass murder and if found guilty incarcerated for the rest of their lives and the company’s assets seized. The victims or their families should be compensated handsomely, sod the share holders. Then if for example they have actually found out something useful such as a cure for Parkinsons that should be used for the benefit of humankind.

Some people posting have suggested that animal rights activists should be carted off to HLS and experimented on. I do not think that this was meant seriously, if it was of course if the law is even handed this would be regarded as a threat to torture and kill, so be careful out there we would hate you all to play into our hands!


Were the suffragettes “terrorists”? Or the miners? Or the feminists? Campaigns have always consisted of those who operate legally and others unlawfully. In the 70s some fire bombed porn shops in the name of feminism, in the 90s miners went to Michael Heseltine’s home and dug up his lawn, the suffragettes massed on Knightsbridge with hammers smashing in every shop window, did home demos with hundreds of people, set fire to buildings and anything and everything stopping short of seriously injuring or killing people. The animal rights movement over a long distinguished history dating back to when the Band of Mercy wrecked grouse butts back in Victorian times have not killed anyone and this is no coincidence. Animal rights is based upon the premise that humans have rights and that it is despicable to infer inferiority due to race, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, language, physical or mental impairment etc. We simply go one step further by believing that it is despicable also to infer inferiority on the basis of species.

Killing someone even in extremis defending self or those who cannot defend themselves is a very heavy undertaking which none have been able as yet to enact. Respect for human rights is part and parcel of animal rights actual terrorism by which I mean no regard for life and limb has as yet not happened. The UK SHAC 7 ran a legal campaign which continues, they are not terrorists. For the record they have been found guilty of conspiring to blackmail with persons unknown, they have not been convicted of doing the multitude of things suggested in the press, nor is it in any way proven that they knew the people who did these things, approved or encouraged. Persons unknown did stuff, other people, those who are openly stating that they are opposed to HLS will go to prison for it.

Imagine a campaign against phonemasts. Should those in the public eye go to prison for up to 14 years just because persons unknown to them have carried out arson attacks on said masts? Even though they have put disclaimers against illegal acts on their website? Even though a barrister has sanctioned every leaflet and newsletter?

The conspiracy to blackmail charge could have been used against the Suffragettes, the miners and he feminist movement as well as many modern counterparts. Methinks that we have not seen the last of this charge against protestors.


One of the things that concerns me is that the reason why SHAC campaigned against HLS is being vilified more than the tactics used by some people who remain for the most part unknown. Surely if it is wrong to send a used condom or brand someone a paedophile it is wrong for any reason whether the sender is trying to make a point about vivisection or child slave labour? Much of the debate centres on the premise that animals are nothing and that it is heretical to even suggest otherwise let alone try and protect them from greedy selfish fellow humans. The word “traitor” has even been uttered on Oxford Gossip re to the human race (now there’s a suprise) and even a suggestion to hang the defendants (made in jest I’m sure..I hope!) suggesting that it is not the so-called crime that is at issue but the motive i.e compassion for other creatures.

More nauseating are the occasional comments from animal rights activists trying to disassociate themselves from SHAC on the grounds that they do not approve of everything the media have reported the defendants did. I actually do not approve of every single thing done in the name of animal rights, first of all I don’t know of every single action but I do know that the media have blatantly lied to the public in actually reporting that the 7 defendants sent incendiary devices, yucky things in the post and hate mail themselves. Logic and common sense makes it impossible that Dan A, Dan W and Gerrah could have dug up Gladys Hammonds grave when at that time they were still at school and had probably not even heard of SHAC, HLS or the Newchurch campaign.

It is however brilliant to see that vivisection is being discussed and thought about albeit in the narrow confines of cosmetic and medical testing. Why are we not discussing pesticides, GM crops, plastics, chemicals, paint, noxious gases, artificial sweeteners, health foods, fridge coolants, chemical cleaners, aromatherapy oils, cosmetic botox, ad infinitum all of which are forced on our animal brothers and sisters before being forced on us? Come on then all those who support animal testing I can’t wait to see you justification for testing floor cleaner on a wild caught primate something I would call extreme cruelty which would induce a violent response from Joe public if anyone were to do this in any town centre.

A few words to all those who are naive enough to believe the crap they have been spoonfed by the media;

The police lie, it’s true sorry to burst the bubble. They lie all the time look at what they said about Earth First! in the Observer. They even have been known to fib in court. They arrest activists illegally and then have to compensate them financially.

The police via NETCU have said that they are in favour of animal testing. They have openly taken a political stance and if this does not bother you well….it should. The police should hardly have had links on their site to pro vivisection lobby groups such as the Research Defence Society. Imagine if the police said publicly on a website that they supported abortion or shooting pheasants very, very bad. NETCU and all their little underlings are nothing more than the lackeys of the vivisection industry who would love to play lap dog to EDO and EON as well.

The courts are not fair. Do not think ever that you have heard the whole story in court. Behind the scene evidence is omitted, threats made and all sorts of shenanegans. The courts are infinitely better than stringing people up from the nearest lamp post but favour the powerful and the wealthy. Senior executives from certain corporations could if the police put their mind to it be tried for conspiracy to blackmail, pollute, murder and perjure but it is a bit unlikely. It is however interesting to fantasise about how much worse a company like Shell would look like if put under the same scrutiny as SHAC using the same state resources. I think that the individuals cherry picked for the occasion would look positively demonic.

Some of the “victims” we all hear about are not very nice people. They have also sent yucky things in the post including a dead mouse and loads of weird racist stuff. In fact during the Newchurch campaign pro vivisection yobs cracked a few skulls beating protestors whilst the police turned their backs on the assaults. My apologies again for ruining the image of the benign, besieged, brainbox who would have cured cancer by now if it wasn’t for those wretched villains in the animal rights movement.

Vivisectors are flesh and blood not deities. Somehow the police, the government and media have deified them the end result of which is greater protection in law than those who actually do save lives such as Doctors, Nurses, Firemen all of whom often run the gauntlet of abuse and assaults at work. Punch the GP because he “dissed” you and you might get community service if you are very unlucky, demonstrate peacefully outside a place that makes cages for laboratory animals you could be sent to prison for 4.5 years and have your liberty curtailed for a further 5 years with a CRASBO. This is also a prime example of human supremist extremism.

Hope that this might be of assistance to someone.

Lynn Sawyer

Netcu Watch
- e-mail: warn at rise up dot net
- Homepage: http://netcu.wordpress.com
back to animal experiments home

info and photos: SHAC

O ile nie zaznaczono inaczej, treść tej strony objęta jest licencją Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 License.