The truth according to Colin Blakemore?

A week seldom passes without a performance from Colin Blakemore in the media. Unfortunately it would appear that Mr Blakemore is more interested in peddling his own agenda rather than indulging in a meaningful dialogue with those people that would be only to happy to enter into an open debate on the validity of animal experiments. Most media appearances by Mr Blakemore are very carefully managed events, where no participation from anti-vivisectionists is allowed. In fact, it would seem that Mr Blakemore actively avoids a situation where a scientific expert can challenge many of his pronouncements.

The fact of the matter is; Mr Blakemore doesn't want to enter into a public debate on vivisection, he appears on our television, radio and newspapers on a regulat basis but this is only when he has the platform to himself, and where he cant be challenged.

The following letter was printed in the Independent recently, once again it is a manipulation of the truth, an attempt to deceive the public. Andre Menache has kindly agreed to look at Mr Blakemore's letter and to illustrate the inconsistencies and downright deception that Mr Blakemore is engaged in.

Colin Blakemore's letter, The Independent; 22 February 2005:

Why we must use monkeys in research

Sir: Your suggestion that research on primates is more worthy of a ban than hunting with hounds (leading article, 17 February) ignores the needs and rights of suffering people and the clear opinion of the public. The latest polls show that 90 per cent accept the use of animals in medical research, as long as there is no alternative and no unnecessary suffering. You rail against the use of animals to test cosmetics; but such use was abandoned in Britain seven years ago. You plead for the use of alternatives; but it is illegal to use animals if alternatives exist. You say that regulations should be much stricter; but UK regulations are so strict that some say that vital medical advances are being delayed, with no additional benefit to animals. The law acknowledges that exceptional justification is required for primate use. Of all animals used in research only about 0.1 per cent are monkeys. But they are essential for certain areas of research precisely because of their similarity to people. Research on monkeys led to the elimination of polio, understanding of brain function and HIV infection, refinement of eye surgery, organ transplantation and contraception. It contributed to treatments for infertility and asthma, and a huge variety of drugs. It is still needed for research on hormone disorders, AIDS, hepatitis, malaria, respiratory infection, stroke, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's and many other neurological conditions. Before condemning the use of monkeys in research, ask those who suffer from the horrific diseases for which such research offers the best hope of cure.

Colin Blakemore F.R.S.
Chief Executive, Medical Research Council, London W1

Reply to Colin Blakemore, by Andre Menache BSc(Hons) BVSc MRCVS FRSH, Scientific Consultant to Animal Aid:

Colin Blakemore's letter 'Why we must use monkeys in research' warrants a firm response, in view of the number of factually incorrect statements it contains.

Blakemore: 'The latest polls show that 90 per cent [of the public] accept the use of animals in medical research...'

Reply: Compare that with a recent survey of more than 500 GPs across the UK. The survey revealed a high level of distrust in results obtained from animal experiments. More than 80 per cent of GPs were concerned that animal data can be misleading when applied to humans. And 83 per cent said they would support an independent scientific evaluation of the clinical relevance of animal testing. The survey was sparked by several high-profile cases where drugs that had been tested on animals had resulted in endangering human health and safety (The Scotsman, 1 September 2004).

Blakemore: '... UK regulations are so strict ...'

Reply: Current UK regulations (the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act of 1986) specifically allow researchers to cause 'pain, suffering, distress and lasting harm'. Any ordinary citizen found guilty of these same acts would be liable to prosecution under the Protection of Animals Act of 1911. Also, despite visits by fewer than 30 home office inspectors to nearly 300 research establishments conducting 2.8 million experiments in the UK, few welfare infringements are ever discovered by the inspectors. The most serious cases of animal suffering have been uncovered either by leaked documents or by undercover video footage. These include shocking images of beagle dogs being punched, violently shaken and yelping as technicians from Huntingdon Life Sciences made repeated, failed attempts to take blood samples from the terrified animals; the miserable fate of hundreds of marmoset monkeys imprisoned inside small, barren cages for their entire lives and deliberately brain-damaged at Cambridge University; botched surgical procedures on ferrets at Oxford University; horrific organ transplant experiments involving pigs and monkeys conducted by the company Imutran; and much more...

Blakemore: 'Research on monkeys led to the elimination of polio ... and HIV infection'

Reply: It is precisely because of our unscientific obsession with using animals that polio vaccine was grown on monkey kidney cells, instead of human cells. Millions of people worldwide were immunised with polio vaccine contaminated with live simian virus (SV40) between 1955 and 1963. This virus is one of the most potent cancer-causing viruses known to science. It has been found in human cancers of the bones, the lungs, the brain and the lymphoid system. Not only has it infected those who were vaccinated - it has also been found in people who were born after 1963 - which means that it is being passed from person to person, just like HIV. This is a man-made epidemic which has resulted from animal experimentation.

HIV infection is a uniquely human disease. There is no animal which develops AIDS, not even our closest relative, the chimpanzee. The infection of thousands of haemophiliacs in France in the 1980s occurred as a result of HIV-contaminated blood products which were passed as 'safe' because they did not adversely affect chimpanzees. Similarly, the recent AIDSVAX vaccine tested on chimpanzees, failed to protect 8000 human volunteers against HIV infection.

Disclaimer: The information on this website is for the purpose of legal protest and information only. It should not be used to commit any criminal acts or harassment.