Vivisections were performed on pregnant women, sometimes impregnated by doctors, and the foetus removed for inspection.

Prisoners had limbs amputated in order to study blood loss.

Those limbs that were removed were sometimes reattached to the opposite side of the body.

Prisoners had their limbs frozen and amputated, while others had limbs frozen then thawed to study the resultant untreated gangrene and rotting.

Prisoners had their stomachs removed and the oesophagus reattached to the intestines.

Examples of Experiments Carried Out By Vivisectors on Animals

To study the results of head trauma, primates were strapped into machinery to receive high-impact blows to the head. A video camera captured footage of vivisectors taunting the injured animals, who were left with severe brain damage. (University of Pennsylvania)

To examine severe burns on live tissue, restrained pigs were burned alive with a flamethrower until their charred flesh could be removed in large pieces. (U.S. Army)

To measure injury recovery, vivisectionists strapped dogs down and cut apart the skin on their knees, leaving flaps. At the end of the study, all of the dogs were killed. (Uniformed Services University-Department of Defence)

To demonstrate that the eye's protein levels are the same in sight deprived monkeys compared to normal ones, animal experimenters sewed the monkeys' eyelids shut. (Emory University, NIH project P51 RROO165-38)

Number of Experiments by Species (Great Britain, 2005)

Mice: 1,961,049
Rats: 424,527
Guinea Pigs: 29,019
Hamsters: 4,232
Gerbils: 5,057
Other Rodents: 3,159
Rabbits: 22,818
Cats: 500
Dogs: 7,670
Ferrets: 970
Other Carnivores: 946
Horses/Donkeys/Cross-Bred Equids: 9,002
Pigs: 3,574
Goats: 330
Sheep: 29,329
Cattle: 19,110
Deer: 56
Birds: 113156
Reptiles: 878
Amphibians: 20,970
Fish: 232,854
Marmoset/Tamarin Monkeys: 910
Squirrel/Owl/Spider Monkeys: 24
Macaque Monkeys: 3,718
Other Mammals: 2,333
GM Animals: 957,451

The practice of vivisection of living animals stands condemned by its very inhumanity. The fact that intellectual and educated men are engaged in the pursuit is no evidence of its rightfulness and value. Intellectual and educated men have been guilty of the greatest crimes in history. Dr. Walter Hadwen

Vivisection is the cutting into or dissecting of a live animal. millions of non-human animals have been burnt, crushed, sliced, electrocuted, poisoned with toxic chemicals, and psychologically tormented in the name of scientific curiosity. What have we learned from all of this suffering? That animal research is inherently unethical, inevitably wasteful, and wholly unreliable. We (the public) allow the vivisectors to hide secretly in their labs trying to convince ourselves that the experiments are necessary for the good of mankind. The reality is that most of this ‘research’ is done for reasons of avarice, financial gain and plain sadism.

History has given us many insights into the minds of vivisectors. During WW2 the Japanese army’s infamous ‘Unit 731’ carried out cruel vivisection on tens of thousands of human victims in the name of scientific research. These included such atrocities as removing the organs of prisoners of war with infectious diseases to study the effects of disease on the human body. These operations were conducted whilst the patients were still alive because it was felt that the decomposition process would affect the results. In common with modern animal vivisectors the doctors of Unit 731 dehumanised their victims by referring to them as marutus (logs, or bits of wood). Instead of names the victims were identified by four-digit numbers.

Despite the horror of this and many other similarly barbaric acts, most of the perpetrators were never brought to justice. Instead they were given immunity by the American authorities in exchange for handing over the data they had amassed. Many of the vivisectors went on to have successful careers as doctors and scientists after the war, only they were plying their vile trade on animal victims rather than humans. We rightly condemn the actions of ‘Unit 731’ and the ‘The Angel of Death’ Josef Mengele at Auschwitz, but accept similar atrocities carried out on non-human animals because of a blind faith in science and medicine. Why?

My grandfather contracted cancer a few years ago. He was an old man who had had a good life, but like all of us he wanted to cling onto life for as long as he could. So he underwent the usual therapies prescribed to him by his doctors. When these all failed he was told by an arrogant young doctor that he might as well go home to die because they couldn’t do anything more for him and he was taking up a bed that could be used by somebody else. Was he as angry as I was? Of course not. He shook the doctor by the hand and must have said ‘thank you doctor’ about ten times. Thank you for what exactly? His pomposity? His incompetence? Or just for being a doctor, and therefore beyond question and reproach? It never ceases to amaze me how people see all doctors (and scientists) in the same light. It’s like saying all footballers are the same, which they clearly aren’t. Surely some doctors and scientists are Premiership quality, and some are non-league?

The animal experimenters are the cornerstone of the highly corrupt and manipulative pharmaceutical industry. These are a pseudo-scientific fraternity who earn vast amounts of money for their employers by performing unbelievably barbaric experiments which can be used to (falsely) substantiate claims that their drugs are safe for human use. Dr. James D. Gallagher, Director of Research of Lederle Laboratories in The Journal of the American Medical Association, March 14, 1964 stated:  Animal studies are done for legal reasons and not for scientific reasons. The predictive value for such studies for man is meaningless, which means our research may be meaningless.

There is no British or European law which states that new drugs, chemicals or cosmetics must be tested on animals. However, animal testing ensures that vivisectors get the results they want in order to sell their dangerous chemicals to an unwary public. In numerous legal trials of drug companies who have caused fatalities and injuries, the most effective defence which has been used time and again is that ‘All of the usual and required testing had been done to establish the safety of the drug in question’. A standpoint which most legal authorities are not qualified to dispute. Indeed, the ‘experts’ upon whom they call for advice in such matters are invariably members of other drug companies or drug sponsored agencies and therefore the animal testing fraternity. They are in effect playing a game that only they know the rules to. Currently in Britain adverse drug reactions (ADR’s) to prescription drugs account for 70,000 deaths and cases of serious disability each year.

Animal experiments have been cited in many court battles over drugs damages claims and have been used both to defend the idea that such disasters were unforeseen because adequate testing had been employed, but have also been successfully used, as in the Thalidomide case in December 1970, to admonish the drug company (in this case Chemie Grunenthal) who testified that animal tests could never be conclusive for humans.

The very idea that a test or operation done on an animal will show results which are directly translatable to humans is plainly ridiculous. As has been stated by some of the greatest and most influential physicians in medical history: the anatomy, physiology and psychology of animals is entirely different to our own in many ways, and this difference is further exaggerated in the case of animals bred for and/or housed in laboratories because the animals are highly stressed to begin with.

Cancer-Gate The War on Cancer

Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud and that the major cancer research organisations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them. Linus Pauling PhD (Two-time Nobel Prize winner)

One of the biggest sources of funding for animal experiments in the UK is Cancer Research UK. This ‘charity’ also happens to make more money than any other UK charity, with turnover in 2006 of £423 million. In their annual report for 2006 they state that 20% of this goes in admin and raising further funds, leaving 80% for ‘beating cancer’ (their words). As they and the other cancer organisations in the UK and around the world are so prevalent in the animal experimentation field, it is only right to take a closer look at the cancer business.

In his January 1971 State of the Union address, American President Richard Nixon declared a ‘War on Cancer’ and made a special request for an additional $100 million to be added to the NCI budget for cancer research. In October 1971 he converted the Army's Fort Detrick, Maryland, biological warfare facility to a cancer research centre. The resulting Frederick Cancer Research and Development Centre eventually became an internationally recognized laboratory for cancer and AIDS research. However, President Nixon took a much bigger step when he signed the National Cancer Act into law on December 23 1971, declaring: I hope in the years ahead we will look back on this action today as the most significant action taken during my administration. At the time it was claimed by scientists that given the necessary resources cancer could be a ‘thing of the past’ by 1975. More than thirty years after the ‘War on Cancer’ the picture they painted looks a little different from the actual reality.

In the years since 1971 it is estimated that over $200 billion has been spent on cancer research, yet cancer rates continue to rise. Cancer Research UK’s own annual report for 2006 states: In the 25-year period 1979 to 2003, the overall age-standardised incidence rate for cancer (excluding NSMC non-melanoma skin cancer) has increased in Great Britain, with an 8% increase in men and a 26% increase in women! So despite the billions of pounds spent on ‘research’ and the torture and death of millions of animals in barbaric experiments cancer continues to rise out of control. It should be noted that cancer organisations use smokescreen techniques such as improvements in five and ten year survival rates as ‘proof’ of the advances they’re making in ‘beating cancer’. Living for five years after being diagnosed with cancer is not the same as a cure, is it? And even these figures are massaged.

Dr. John Bailer, who spent 20 years on the staff of the U.S. National Cancer Institute and was editor of its journal said: My overall assessment is that the national cancer programme must be judged a qualified failure. The five year survival statistics of the American Cancer Society are very misleading. They now count things that are not cancer, and because we are able to diagnose at an earlier stage of the disease, patients falsely appear to live longer. Our whole cancer research in the past 20 years has been a total failure. More people over 30 are dying from cancer than ever before. More women with mild or benign diseases are being included in statistics and reported as being cured. When government officials point to survival figures and say they are winning the war against cancer they are using those survival rates improperly.

The fact is that there’s no money in curing cancer, or any other major illness come to that, where are the long term profits to be had in that? Scientists used to cure disease such as polio, smallpox, whooping cough, tuberculosis, diphtheria and tetanus, etc but now they and their drug company paymasters realise there is more money to be had in managing illness rather than curing it. Thus every new drug that appears is about easing symptoms rather than cure. By curing cancer the only beneficiary is the patient. Whereby under the current system ‘everyone’s a winner’ except the patients.

In the late 1970s, after studying the policies, activities, and assets of the major U.S. cancer institutions, the investigative reporters Robert Houston and Gary Null concluded that these institutions had become self-perpetuating organisations whose survival depended on a state of no cure. They wrote: A solution to cancer would mean the termination of research programs, the obsolescence of skills and the end of dreams of personal glory. Triumph over cancer would dry up contributions to self-perpetuating charities, and cut off funding from Congress. It would mortally threaten the present clinical establishments by rendering obsolete the expensive surgical, radiological and chemotherapeutic treatments in which so much money, training and equipment is invested. Such fear, however unconscious, may result in resistance and hostility to alternative approaches in proportion as they are therapeutically promising. The new therapy must be disbelieved, denied, discouraged and disallowed at all costs, regardless of actual testing results, and preferably without any testing at all.

Let’s delve into Cancer Research UK’s records again. Over the last four years they’re income has been: 2003: £306 million. 2004: £339 million. 2005: £385 million. 2006: £423 million. That’s almost 1.5 billion pounds raised in the last four years alone, a large proportion of which is being squandered on pointless and cruel animal experiments. It’s hard to believe that given the expenditure on cancer research so little has been achieved. Either it’s all a giant fraud, or they need to start looking in a different direction. In the 60’s when President Kennedy committed the US to sending a man to the moon and bringing him home safely again nobody knew if it could be done. When the scientists at NASA were asked they claimed anything was possible. It just depends on how much money you were willing to spend. Their boast was born out, it’s a shame for both us and the animals that the cancer organisation’s wasn’t. Stephen Crane