home - for other articles

The animal welfare/rights fraud:

The Enemy Within - part 2

How the fraudulent animal rights/welfare organisation's lie to the public, on behalf of the drug industry, in order to perpetuate vivisection.

part 1 | part 2

Exposed: the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW)
and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA)

We have already documented the role of these two big animal welfare societies in helping to keep the vivisection racket going. Although neither have ever spoken out about this pseudo-scientific sham, despite the many millions of pounds they possess, and which should and could, be used for taking the abolitionist message into every home in this country, they have both in the past invested heavily in companies which fund animal testing and/or experiments on live animals.

The RSPCA invests heavily in companies that do animal experiments.

The May 23 1985 issue of 'Time Out' magazine revealed that the RSPCA had money in excess of £8,000,000 invested in such companies, which included ICI, Beechams Drugs (now Smithkline Beechams), BP, Fisons, Glaxo, Unilever and Boots. These are companies which do extensive animal experiments.

The IFAW also invests in companies that do animal experiments.

Meanwhile, IFAW, under the leadership of its founder, Brian Davies, who earns around £115,000 annually for his world-wide work with IFAW, was reported on the Here and Now programme, 13 April 1994, as having moved thousands of pounds into a trust called the Brian Davies Foundation, with £30,000 of animal lovers' money invested in lab animal suppliers Bausch & Lomb; £63,000 invested in US Surgicals, who killed countless animals to 'test' their medical staples; £200,000 invested with Glaxo, Merck, Abbot and Upjohn - all massive users of lab animals; £63,000 invested in cigarette manufacturers Philip Morris, who have a long history of animal testing; and £40,000 invested in McDonalds.

These animal welfare groups suppress the truth about modern medicine.

Like the RSPCA, IFAW have never even hinted at the millions of dead, dying or crippled humans as a result of erroneously animal 'safety' tested drugs. In a February 1989 appeal for money to help stop cosmetic testing (in itself a phoney endeavour, whoever undertakes it), IFAW stated: "There is no need to use animals. Enough animals have already been subjected to painful experiments for the cosmetic industry to know which raw materials and products are safe.", suggesting that those phoney safety tests were of value in the first place! And this signed by Brian Davies - whose Brian Davies Foundation was at the same time investing in numerous animal experimenters!

Although both IFAW and RSPCA say that they no longer invest their money in such companies, besides the old 'alternatives' racket - of which the RSPCA is a strong supporter - they also promote the notion of the 3Rs; the reduction, replacement and refinement of animal tests; an endeavour as phoney as the search for 'alternatives'. And one which is therefore naturally supported by many vivisectors themselves as it in no way challenges the premise whereby vivisection can continue.

The RSPCA is in bed with the vivisection industry.

In fact the RSPCA has always been a solid mouthpiece for the vivisection industry, with even the one animal welfarist on the government's Animal Procedures Committee, Anthony Suckling of the RSPCA, himself a vivisector until 1991!

"To stop animal use it is necessary either to stop development and manufacture of the majority of human and animal medicines, vaccines and appliances, or substitute non-animal replacements immediately. The latter is unfortunately not yet possible . . ." - Maggy Jennings, RSPCA, from a letter to an enquirer.

The 1997 RSPCA Symposium marked the 10th anniversary of the phoney Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 - which should be noted went virtually unchallenged by any of the UK's leading 'anti-vivisection' societies, NAVS, BUAV and Animal Aid included. The society's attitude towards vivisection was summed up in the title: 'How valid is animal research?: Costs and benefits'. Those speaking at this symposium, other than Dr Peter Mansfield of DLRM and a couple of naive animal welfarists - who would never be so boring as to question vivisection's alleged scientific value - included several people whose very presence should cause alarm bells to sound, such as Dr David Christopher of the Huntingdon Research Centre, Professor David Morton, and ex-vivisector-come 'anti-vivisectionist' Dr Richard Ryder. In the end, and despite objections from a small number of people present, the debate resulted in the sham it was clearly intended to be.

Also on the Animal Procedures Committee is Les Ward of Advocates for Animals. Despite professing to be against vivisection Mr Ward never hesitates to allege past benefits from the practice, and we have occasionally included his plugs for vivisection in our newsletters. Indeed he once said "More and more I think we see ourselves getting close to what the RSPCA is trying to do" (which in the case of anti-vivisection is zero). But it was with the formation of the Boyd Group that Ward really caught our eye. Composed of animal blinder Colin Blakemore, Ward, and the Rev Kenneth Boyd, the group, according to the Observer, 2 June 1996, will end 'respectable scientific support for the testing of cosmetics, whilst in return anti-vivisectionists have accepted that some animal experimentation will continue in the short term.' Just who does Ward think he is trading the very premise by which the genuine AV movement exists, in return for an end to cosmetic testing?

If Ward is, by some chance, genuinely concerned with wanting to get vivisection abolished, then judging by the company he is keeping we can only put his actions down to hopeless naivety. But then we don't believe he does want vivisection abolished.

"This society seeks the total abolition of animal experimentation. However, we do not go along with those who call for abolition immediately since such calls come from people who are not living in the real world." - Les Ward, Advocates for Animals, in a letter to an enquirer.

"I stated that while accepting that there had been some advances through using animals in the past, I continued by pointing out that after 110 years of animal research, one would have hoped so!" - Les Ward, Western Morning News, 27 July 1993. 

The pro-vivisection slant of groups who just oppose cosmetic testing.

Incidentally, on the subject of cosmetic testing, just how long are we going to tolerate the members of the big AV societies in this country allowing these societies to carry on wasting vast sums of money on side issues? Not only does cosmetic testing only account for a tiny proportion of the numbers of animals used, but the fact is that cosmetic tests are medical tests - inasmuch as they are purportedly done in order to protect consumers from dangerous products. It is a deliberate ploy to divert attention from the central issue: the total uselessness of vivisection for medical research.

Animal Aid - another fraudulent pro-vivisection animal rights group.

Animal Aid need little comment, except to say that it should be remembered that they were formed as an anti-vivisection society in 1979 on the back of the great book "Slaughter of the Innocent". Over the years, and with the help of Gill Langley, this society too seems to have taken the easy option by allowing itself to be diverted from vivisection to become one more general animal rights organisation, with vivisection hardly getting a look in, and even then going for the soft option - such as cosmetic testing. And its Humane Research Donor Card, although this time from a different angle, yet again supports the idea that some sort of alternative must be found before vivisection can be abolished. When are people going to wake up to the fact that even if the whole world carried these cards vivisection wouldn't end, for the simple reason that firstly industry does not want it to end, and secondly that such cards simply reinforce the notion that animal research is beneficial to humans, rather than the drug pushers, animal breeders, etc.

The situation in the USA.

The situation in the USA is little different, where animal welfare in general, and anti-vivisectionism in particular, appears to have become little more than a money making venture designed to keep the heads of wealthy animal leagues in a lifestyle to which they have become well accustomed.

A newsletter by Mobilization for Animals in 1985 reported on the financial situation amongst the leading American animal welfare and AV societies. Recently, a similar report was found on the internet, although by a contrasting organisation, the Biomedical Research Foundation. Obviously designed with the intention of stopping the financial support for US animal welfare and AV organisations by highlighting the vast sums they rake in, and the large salaries the heads of them help themselves to, the report is of course also great value to the concerned AV who can, and indeed should, view such matters in the light of just what they do with this money to help stop vivisection.

The public's money is wasted by these groups.

Obviously large sums of money are being donated to US groups with the intention that everything is done to stop animal suffering, but, at least from the viewpoint of vivisection, there is very little to show for the huge sums of money spent. A copy of this latest report is available should anyone want one.

The situation in Australia and New Zealand.

Bette Overell of the New Zealand Anti-Vivisection Society did a remarkable job in November 1992 issue of the society's journal 'Mobilise!', of highlighting the situation in Australia and New Zealand, where not surprisingly the same names crop up there as to those who have been at the forefront of the campaign in Britain to sabotage any and every attempt at getting vivisection abolished, starting with the RSPCA, who sent on behalf of the 53 local RSPCA member societies a submission to Parliament opposing the NZAVS' petition to abolish vivisection in 1989.

The 1986 Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act was a triumph for the vivisection industry.

In 1982 the chief Scientific Officer of the RSPCA was one Judith Hampson, and a delegate to the European Parliament in Strasbourg which was investigating vivisection in order to create policies to be adopted by a unified Europe. There she was instrumental, along with accomplices Clive Hollands of the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Vivisection, and ex-vivisectors Richard Ryder and Robert Sharpe, in bringing about the shameful 1986 Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act in the U.K., which was to entrench vivisection for many years to come. This accomplished, in 1987 she made an all-expenses paid visit to New Zealand with the aim of consolidating Australia and New Zealand under the same legislation which she had enacted in Europe, the trip being financed by the Australian and New Zealand Federation of Animal Societies (ANZFAS), whose driving force was Peter Singer, author of 'Animal Liberation'.

Peter Singer, the animal rights guru, is also pro-vivisection and in bed with the drug industry.

Incidentally, Singer, as Vice President of ANZFAS, was in the position of choosing two representatives to accompany him to the Senate Select Committee Hearing on Animal Experimentation. These were Richard Ryder, ex-vivisector and then Chairman of the RSPCA's Animal Experimentation Advisory Committee, and ex-vivisector Donald Barnes who went on to land the (well-paid) job of Director of the US NAVS.

Photocopies of the November 1992 issue of 'Mobilise!' are available for anyone wanting the whole New Zealand story, but now it is important for us to take a closer look at Peter Singer. Singer is undoubtedly hailed by many within the animal rights movement as some sort of guru, and yet it should be of deep concern to all animal rights people that he was instrumental, along with his allies Judith Hampson and Richard Ryder, in bringing about legislation in New Zealand and Australia similar to that of the UK's phoney 1986 Act, designed to fool the population into believing that animal research is essential, that animal experiments are only done when absolutely necessary, and that animals do not suffer in vivisection laboratories.

"Peter Singer debated him (Peter Carroll of the pro-vivisection Incurably Ill for Animal Research) on A Current Affair and actually agreed that some experiments were necessary! Not once did he relate any scientific argument, and on ringing the station the next morning we were informed that many people had complained - not so much about Carroll, but about Singer and his weak stand on vivisection." - From 'Strike Out', the newsletter of People Against Vivisection, (Australia), Summer/Autumn 1992.

"Animal rights are not absolute. I can conceive of an experiment, important in tackling AIDS, which could only be carried out on monkeys. I wouldn't like it . . . But could accept such an experiment . . . if the prospects of success were reasonable." - Peter Singer, Guardian,1 May 1995.

Indeed, on numerous occasions Singer has testified to the supposed value of animal experiments. Why? Why would a supposed champion of the animals repeatedly endorse a practice which growing numbers of doctors, scientists and ex-vivisectors denounce as useless, and worse, damaging?

Peter Singer is funded by the Pharmaceutical Industry.

It was reported in the Spring-Summer 1992 issue of Hans Ruesch's "CIVIS Foundation Report" that Peter Singer's Italian tours had been sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation. The Rockefeller Foundation is part of one of the world's largest corporate empires; an empire that owns many pharmaceutical, chemical and oil companies. It has also been the largest single private source of funding for medical science and education in the US, Britain and other Western countries since the early part of the 20th century.

As apparent champion for the animals Singer only speaks out against vivisection on moral grounds, despite massive evidence as to its scientific fraudulence. In an article in the newsletter of the abolitionist Italian society, L.A.V, Hans Ruesch described Singer as a phoney, resulting in Singer taking both Ruesch and LAV to court. Peter Singer was represented in court by one of the top and most expensive lawyers in Italy, a lawyer whose clients include the Industrialist's Association, meaning all the automakers and the pharmaceutical industries. Who paid the bill?

Informed AVs who are able to read between the lines will quite easily be able to decipher the many messages Singer gives in his book Animal Liberation: his comments that vivisection works, and has been essential in the past, although his views haven't been restricted to this book alone.

"Of this vast number of experiments only a few contribute to important medical research." - Peter Singer in 'Animal Liberation' 

Conclusion

Clearly, the vivisection industry has been overwhelmingly successful in palming off onto the AV world certain people, and organisations, who pose not the slightest threat to animal experimentation. But, on the strength of the information provided here, is it in the hands of the likes of BUAV, NAVS, RSPCA, Singer, Langley, Hampson, Ryder, Ward, Balls, et al that we should be placing the future of the anti-vivisection movement?

For other articles - home page

Recommended Organisations:

Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine: Group of doctors, physicians and health practitioners promoting good health through real science. http://www.pcrm.org

Doctors and Lawyers for Responsible Medicine: http://www.dlrm.org/

Campaign Against Fraudulent Medical Research (CAFMR): Great archive of articles. Information that the pharmaceutical-chemical industry and their mass media do not want us to know: medical history, medical fraud, psychiatric abuses, vaccination damage coverups, behind sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) etc. http://www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr

CIVIS – The Hans Ruesch centre for information on vivisection: http://www.VivisectionFraud.com 

to top

to top

to top

to top

to top

to top