Mr G:1. Oh Come on Kevin, thats pathetic. your average Judge or MP gets more death threats than a vivisector and they don’t hide behind closed doors and refuse to justify themselves

Most of the people who make threats to judges and MPs are just venting thir spleen or trying to feel big. On the other hand the antivivisectionist movement contains zealots who do, in fact, engage in arson and other
criminal acts.

I’m reminded of an anti-GE protestor I met at an ERMA hearing earlier
this year who was whining that Crop & Food were conducting their GE experiments in a secret location. When I pointed out that they were
probably concerned that revealing its location would lead to vandalism
she responded that “someone had to do something”. She genuinely thought that she and her friends should know where the trials were being conducted so that they would know where to send their vandals.

3. As I said before I like science and I like that we have high tech medicine. Animal research is fraudulent rubbish that has nothing to do with medical progress, and a lot of scientists and medical professionals agree, check out http://www.curedisease.net for examples

Thats just nonsense. Animal research is not fraudulent rubbish. Unfortunately most antivivisectionists have little understanding of science beyond what they read in newspapers. The website is flaky.

for the respect for life is diminished

and u will have beagles petrified of the white coats, pleading for help with their eyes..
I believe it wrong to mistreat an animal for any reason.

2. The only people who keep going an about “NZs high ethical standards” are the same people who refuse to tell us what is going on in the labs. NZs animal research regulations are designed to protect vivisectors not animals. the system is set up so that any experiment can be approved as long as you fill in the right forms. Part 6 of the animal welfare act specifically excludes any researcher from cruelty prosecutions as long as they get approval from an ethics committee (which meets in secret and is run by their mates). There are no ethical standards or strict regulations, stop talking rubbish Kevin

3. As I said before I like science and I like that we have high tech medicine. Animal research is fraudulent rubbish that has nothing to do with medical progress, and a lot of scientists and medical professionals agree, check out http://www.curedisease.net for examples

To show philu whose boss.

fuck off..!..poxy vivisector..!

you are a cruel/inhumane torturer of defenceless animals..

360,000 of which are tortured..(and then all killed!)..each year..

you are fucken evil personified..

you sick fuck..!

phil(whoar.co.nz)

In new Zealand we have a very high ethical standard for animal experimentation. Many other countries don’t have those laws and are in direct competition with us. YOU MR GG will not refuse the treatment when the chips are down.

So because of YOU these experiments WILL be done. We can do the well here UNDER OUR HUMANE REGULATIONS and develop our industrial capacity or they can be done bad overseas and the money will devlop our thrid world competitors economies.

Rational New Zealanders, please – YOU CHOOSE…………..

The Chinese will eat anything that walks swims or flies.

How easy an ad campaign (I even smell a subsidy) in China to introduce them to NZ Possum. Of course, that’s actually like Rus Crow in reverse but the Aussie won’t mind.

If every Chinese whose name starts with W ate possum once a month, well NZ possum problem solved and no 1080 to sully the clean green image.

I can but dream.

Which is why I always donate to the Malagan Institute street appeal each year.

BTW – How do you do those block quote thingies when quoting someone else?

A cancerous tumour is also alive in a sense, growing and reproducing, but I doubt any of those who oppose animal testing would refuse to have one excised from their own body in order to allow the cancer to live. Of course, a foetus has the potential to be a full human being, but I am pretty sure many of the ‘anti-vivisectionist’ brigade are happily pro-abortion.

If these experimentts weren’t being carried out on sweet fluffy dogs but cockroaches the PR outrage they can generate would be minimal.

This stance is based on a ‘science bad, doggy cute’ level of analysis.

The “highly bureacratic regulatory environment” Kevin talks about goes like this . . .

All animal researchers are required to have approval from an animal ethics committee made up mostly of researchers from their own organisation. The committee will have a few token external members, like an animal welfare representative from the local SPCA who is forbidden from reporting back to the SPCA or making any findings public. They also have a “public representative” from the local council, again, totally anonymous and forbidden from reporting back to the public. The meeting minutes are all secret, the membership of the committees are mostly anonymous (especially the “independent” and “public” representatives).
The animal ethics committee system was criticised by the Ombudsmens office as being secretive and open to abuse due to their being dominated by internal members of the research organisations. It is these committees that are in charge of deciding whether each experiment is justified. No one else, certainly not anyone independent from the research organisation, has any current information on what research is being done, let alone has a say over whether it is justified.

Kevin ends with ”We live in a democracy, so the choice is up to us”
It would be nice if we did have a choice Kevin, but we don’t. The whole animal research system is propped up with taxpayers money, but we as taxpayers have no say in what’s goes on, we are not allowed to know the facts and we are expected to trust the animal researchers to regulate themselves (with our money).
We are expected to take their word for it when they say they are saving ‘countless children’s lives’ while feeling awful about it, but unfortunately its necessary to spend tax money on secret experiments with no benefit to anyone except the guy getting paid to do them

That is not democracy Kevin, we do not have a choice and the animals certainly have no choice. If you and your vivisector mates are so certain that what you are doing is ethical and worthwhile, why don’t you let us see what is going on? Why don’t you publish the details of the ethics committee meetings, and why don’t you allow an informed debate?

Animal researchers are scared of open debate because they know they will lose

how you seem to have some sort of twisted pride in your (mainly aberrant) views.

what else is new..?

(and citing whale-blubber as your ‘source’/authority..?..priceless..!..)

phil(whoar.co.nz)

Oh and phil. I love animals too. Like Whaleoil, my preference is medium rare.

fuck off ..!..vivisectionist..!

may you fucken rot in hell..!

phil(whoar.co.nz)

the answer is no..

i don’t eat them either..

phil(whoar.co.nz)

(fuck bob was good..!..

our seats were in the middle of the front row..

whoar..!..)

The vet who runs the establishment gave a good balanced case for humane animal experimentation. The usual protagonists argued that it is not acceptable under any circumstances and there were highly sensational clips of cruelty from a UK establishment ten years ago.

Having worked closely with scientists for more than thirty years I have never seen any cases of cruelty. In fact the reverse is true and they tend to be very careful about the welfare of their animals both for moral and scientific reasons. My research involves the 3 Rs (reduction, refinement and replacement) and computer modelling but it is definitely not enough and animal testing is necessary for both regulatory and scientific purposes.

In NZ due to the highly vocal animal rights lobby, new laws have imposed a highly bureaucratic regulatory environment where cruelty is now extremely unlikely. This has escalated the costs of animal test enormously and damaged our international competitiveness to a certain extent. However, no regulations will ever be enough for the hard core animal activists.

New Zealand’s international competitiveness is essential to prevent us slipping further down the OECD ladder, especially relative to our historical competitors such as Australia. Although the reasons for this are many, public resistance to the establishment of biotech industries does not help. New Zealand could have a highly competitive and successful pharmaceutical industry. We have the talent, we have a lot of the infrastructure but it looks like we may again see our competitiveness slip due to political expediency and over-regulation.

We don’t need any more university departments, quangos or CRIs What New Zealand needs now is a layer of lean green competitive private industry between the government (CRIs, universities) and the export and consumer sectors. This will allow our well trained, talented and highly motivated scientists and technicians to move easily between public and private sectors, stimulate growth in wages and conditions and encourage them to stay here for the long haul.

New Zealand is at a crossroad, despite the good economic conditions of the last 10-15 years. We can choose to be part of the first world economy where we are able to afford the level of universal health, education and social services we have come to enjoy, or continue to slip down the OECD ladder ever closer to the third world.

We live in a democracy, so the choice is up to us.