Protests escalate as work resumes at animal lab

.. and boring, typical, weak and pathetic, from the mouth of an animal abuse apologiser ..
"but I only eat organic and free-range meat"

.. sod off and maybe join the SWP or CIWF you fucking waste of space.

Just like to say, very well said, concerned student activist. Since arriving in Oxford from overseas a year ago and so having some proximity to the issue, I've been giving a careful look at the issues the animal lib protestors have been putting forward. And pretty much reached the same conclusions.

To the responder, it's idiotic responses like that which give people the perfect excuse to completely write you (and this cause) off. It seems to epitomize a prominent part of the animal liberation movement's tactical approach that's inappropriately personalized and venemously hateful.

thanks for your support "another student"; we are in the majority I feel.

And as I expected, the typical venomous, UNSUBSTANTIATED-BY-REASONED-ARGUMENT comeback from a pathetic AR idiot. You, like so many others, give your cause a bad name. I challenge you to come up with a decent reply to my comment, with *arguments* instead of abuse. It's damn hard for me to refrain from abusing you right back (looks like I've alredy failed on that count... but you really are an ignorant shit). Now sit down, think about what I've argued, and write a decent response. There must be AR people somewhere who can string a sentence together? Someone else PLEASE do it instead of this loser, and let's take the (organically-reared, "happy", non-abused) bull by the horns on this. I think it would be incredibly interesting to have some kind of public debate on the issue.

I suppose you could rightfully call me, along with 99.99% of the country, an animal abuse apologiser, because I admit, testing on animals in the interest of the advancement of science is NECESSARY. So Mr/Mrs "hatred" or whoever you are, if it was your child/spouse/self who's life could be saved by a drug that had been tested on animals, would you be principled and let them die? I think NOT. Have you signed up to be tested upon to save the animals? I think NOT.

I also challenge you to prove that you have erased every element of possible animal abuse from your own life? For instance, do you ever support corporations/supermarkets who sell meat products, do you ever buy clothes from shops that sell leather? Have you ever used virtually ANY kind of medicine or beauty product in your entire life? I expect that you are a HYPOCRITE and as Haribo licorice pointed out in their reply (on the right of the main page), you are a "thrillseeker without a cause".

The fact is, animal abuse is deeply engrained in our culture, and there's not a lot you can do about it. It's sad to say, but humans naturally exploit people/animals weaker than them, and we should do all we can to eradicate such injustice, where it is *possible* and *relevant*.

I'd never actually heard of the CIWF before so at least I can thank you for that; from their website they seem like a decent organisation, who are campaigning on issues that can actually be changed. The number of animals that will be tested upon in Oxford will be MINISCULE compared to the numbers of animals abused in other areas, e.g. farming. Don't you care about them?

Obviously, I don't think my response was boring (or I wouldn't have written it). could have been more succinct I admit (as could this one) but tough shit. Now don't be a pathetic, lazy motherfucker, and write a REASONED reply to this. go on. If you can convince me, I'll come on your next fucking demo, and that's a promise.

Just as I'd support the right of the Wombles to freedom of speech, and the right to "mask up" to avoid being catalogued and blacklisted by the state police, I'd also support the right of kids to wear hoodies, and workers to wear balaclavas to protect their own identities.

Animal protestors' attacks on individual construction workers and threats of such attacks on their families are idiotics, and definitely counterproductive to that organisations aims, assuming that it might include reduction in animal experimentation.

You can't have identity issues both ways - either an individual has a right to protect their identity for their own protection (even if its only a perceived threat) or they don't - but you can't rationally call a brickie a "terrorist", unless you've a screw loose.

Of course, the word "terrorist" is also meaningless.

My own view is that the rights of animals should be placed well below the well being of all human beings, even vivisectors, so that it is immoral for a person to attack another because that person causes harm or suffering to animals. In current UK law, people who commit violence against another person are not sentenced to violent punishments, and people are animals, and I don't see the ALF pursuing violent criminals.

More positive support for the new biotechnologies which will reduce animal experimentation would be more productive for animal protestors, if a little less thrilling than direct action - but then I suspect many are really thrillseekers without a cause.

 http://wombles.org.uk/albums/opfreespeech/free4.jpg

There is no need to get nasty with people.

Animal rights advocates have the facts piled up on their side, so they don't need to get angry and bitchy!!

The basic fact is vivisection is a total fraud, if you want i'll go into this much more, with dozens of examples of scientific breakthroughs done without vivisection, or set back by vivisection. There is a mountain of evidence against vivisection, from scientists, professors, to the alf 'members' and the old women on the end of street- they all have strong arguements when provided with the truth.

As for meat, put politely- fuck it. Its disgusting. For you health, the enviroment and the animals rights. You ever seen the 'meet your meat' vid?

I'm ready to engage in any sensible debates with people.

DS

Is it just coincedence that the pro vivisection arguers here are STUDENTS?

This would imply two things at least 1) They are young 2) They have a vested interest in protecting thier future.

How is it that they would be willing to accept the idea that the great establisment that is teaching them to become the leaders and movers in tommorows world COULD BE WRONG.

I mean it's a big thing to ask.. we are talking about thier whole life here, they have nothing else other than the little dream of becoming GREAT with an OXFORD education. Imagine the excitement they felt upon being accepted to OXFORD, wow what a thrill. Mummy and Daddy must be so proud.

Well wake up and smell the stink kiddies.

If your not pissed off, your not paying attention.

Stop protecting your EGO and get wise.

Jools you are making no sense. Why does it matter that the two people that have chosen to post pro-vivisection arguments are students? You say, "How is it that they would be willing to accept the idea that the great establisment that is teaching them to become the leaders and movers in tommorows world COULD BE WRONG." What a load of bullshit...

Students are involved in countless campaigns against university authorities, against them investing in the arms trade, against them switching back from renewable energy to fossil fuels, against them doing a lot of shit stuff. I'm pissed off about these things AND I'm paying attention. I'm also paying a lot of attention to the animal lab, and guess what? I STILL think it's a good thing.

You are taking the typical *bigoted* view that all oxford students are spoilt little tory rich kids who want to go and be oh so successful. Well we aren't. You're the one with the problem here... "Mummy and Daddy must be so proud." you're pathetic. Perhaps with an Oxford education you might be able to "get wise" yourself (and learn how to spell as well). I doubt you even read all of these posts properly.

I would be extremely interested to see a referendum of the whole country on vivisection, or even just Oxford itself. Does anyone know of any (non-biased...) opinion polls carried out in this field? The only one I've heard of is in one of the student newspapers, where something like 90% of students were in favour. Annoyingly, I can't find the link right now, does anyone know where this article is? I am fairly sure that a similar percentage (or at least 70%+) would be in favour on a national scale.

Yeah well thanks for helping me prove my point there mega brain.

Listen to yourself, How old are you?

You are clearly a closed book. A fact based machine just like the rest of you twats who incedently, I DID go to uni with.

Students are involved in campains that are countless indeed because thats as far as it goes for you eh. Just enough campaining to look good and have something right on to talk about in the union.

Then what? Nice job, car, house, comsume, consume, consume.

>"I'm also paying a lot of attention to the animal lab, and guess what? I STILL think it's a >good thing. "

Of course you do, because you havn't thought about it as much as me yet. And what's more you'll probably give up thinking about it when your not a student anymore and carry on thinking your right you short sighted little git.

You won't get wise in school fool.

>"I would be extremely interested to see a referendum of the whole country on vivisection, >or even just Oxford itself. "

Of course you would because it would include all the opinions of uninformed shallow bottom feeders like yourself. The Sun used to travel round the earth and the earth was flat you know.

Hmmm I wonder what the national opinion is on GOD or ALIENS or GHOSTS or SADDAM HOUSSAIN or STARSIGNS or anything else you care to mention like it matters as much as your opinion.

seeya.

Hey students who think you are not like the rest of them. Uhhhh, yeah, right.

 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/oxford/2006/01/331484.html

well why the hell should your opinion matter more than mine? I am not a "closed book", I have read a hell of a lot on this issue (pro and anti, the speak website is actually quite good!) and come to a conclusion which you can't accept because you are so convinced you are right! People are entitled do disagree with you, you don't have a monopoly on the truth I'm afraid mate...

"Just enough campaining to look good and have something right on to talk about in the union." Well if you take that attitude, is every student campaigner a waste of space? since you claim to have gone to university (even though you can't spell "tomorrow" and you don't know the difference between "your" and "you're"), is that the attitude you took of yourself when you were my age. I think not. wanker.

"Nice job, car, house, comsume, consume, consume" So you don't live in a house? You don't have a job? Fuck you, don't claim you're better than anyone else in this country. Of course I consume, so does everyone, now get off your high horse. I challenge anyone to consume nothing.

I am NOT an "uninformed shallow bottom feeder", you are clearly incapable of accepting that anybody can hold a view different to you, and are not worth arguing with. You didn't offer a single point to counter what I was arguing, pathetic, another useless AR idiot, I've only found two of you who's opinions I respect so far...

^ Oh grow up, stop resorting to swearing at people because your arguments are crap! Plus I was wondering how you can call yourself a student activist when you support this awful monstrosity called an "animal hotel".


We know we are right... yes ofcourse you are entitled to disagree with us... but you would be wrong if you did.

Oh and just browsing through a few of your comments before, yes basically every opposer to the oxford lab DOES care about farmed animals - the majority of us are vegans - can't get much better than that now.

Also you seem to be opposed to us protesting against the lab because you do not think our goals would ever be possible... So what do you care if we spend days campaigning for something which you don't even think will ever be seen? Oh and by the way, it is possible to stop the lab - we managed to stop it for 18 months, we can do it again... oh and another case study - cambridge university.

Oh and the choice is not between my mother or a dog... there are over 450 alternatives to animal testing including computer modules, invitro, cell cultures etc. etc... In fact discoveries were delayed as a result of animal testing, or animal testing led us to believe that dangerous substances were safe for us... You seem to suggest that these are simply a few cases but there are so many! Think of thalidomide, of Vioxx, of Asbestos (which doesn't cause cancer in other animals but is the biggest carciogenic for humans) or of us being told cigarettes do not cause cancer. Vivisection misleads. Also humans are tested on already! Whether it is desperately ill patients or volunteers... This is the last stage in the drug testing and it is what really shows whether a drug is safe.

Also vivisection does not produce these drugs! It is not a result of vivisection that these drugs are produced... The drugs are simply tested by vivisection. In the same way an exam doesn't produce an intelligent student, it simply tests that student.

 http://www.buav.org/faqs.html#faq2

"to sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men"

ceybard dead... ahh s6rry... 3ater...

well I couldn't have put it better myself. Thanks G :)

So go home silly student. I guess you don't come from this town, the town I have lived in for 30 years.

I live here and I could do without your opinion if your not even gonna live here more than 3 years you pedantic pathetic perverted excuse for a human being.

Change your ways, it's not too late.

jools

Yes that’s right jools, you couldn’t have but it better yourself, because you are incapable of making anything like the considered argument that G has just made. For god’s sake, why does it matter if I’m not from this town? It’s irrelevant. Half of the demonstrators came from all across the country last week! Do you think their opinions don’t matter either? Would you have preferred they didn't come. Oh, so I’m a “pedantic pathetic perverted excuse for a human being.”? *sigh* you’re not worth talking too, and I’m pretty sure G is ashamed to be associate with you. Sorry for bitching again, but bigots make me angry.

Oh yeah, I’m sorry for resorting to swearing, I know it’s a bit rubbish, it’s just I object to being called a “closed book” by someone who is clearly myopic and bigoted. You G, are not, therefore of course I will not swear at you.

Right.

I never said it was an "animal hotel" did I? I don’t think so. It’s clearly not. It’s a medical research facility designed to test on animals in order to benefit future humans; I perceive this to be justifiable. It’s my opinion, and there’s no reason why I can't be an activist just because I support it? That’s ludicrous. Look, do you really think I, or anybody working at animal labs, really enjoy inflicting pain on animals? I find the pictures on the SPEAK (and other org’s) website quite distressing, but I justify it to myself because I FIRMLY BELIEVE that it is going to do some good to people. And don’t say I’ve got my head in the sand, I’ve done a lot of reading on this, it is a CONSIDERED OPINION. Thankyou for sending me that FAQ by the way it was very interesting, and cleared a lot of stuff up. I’d like to address some of the stuff in it, please reply with your thoughts, but a few other responses first.

---“every opposer to the oxford lab DOES care about farmed animals - the majority of us are vegans”. Yep, that’s fine. What I was arguing is that your time would be better spent helping the **millions** of animals living in terrible conditions on farms, rather than the **hundreds** of animals that will be housed in this facility. Anyway, that’s by the by, and Michael gave a pretty good response to that anyway.

---“Oh and by the way, it is possible to stop the lab”. Yeah, I suppose you’re right; I admit I was wrong on that one. I suppose it depends on you finding out the identity of the construction company, who appear to be doing a pretty good job of concealing themselves at the moment. I find it laughable that some of you call them “terrorists”, (like that guy did in the speech holding up the balaclava), when other people in the crowd were wearing balaclavas (and thereby contradicting his point… woops). Anyway, that too is by the by, they’re just people doing their job, and don’t deserve the daily abuse they get. I suppose that even if the building does get finished, some idiot will burn it down (as you chanted), resulting in the deaths of all the animals inside and probably some people too. Would it have been worth it?

--“there are over 450 alternatives to animal testing including computer modules, invitro, cell cultures etc. etc... In fact discoveries were delayed as a result of animal testing, or animal testing led us to believe that dangerous substances were safe for us...” Yes! You have many many examples, and they are unfortunate. No science is perfect is it? It’s a question of percentage success/failure. Now, I would love to have a collection of all the drugs tested on animals (i.e. virtually ALL of them) that have gone on to be widely used. True enough, penicillin kills guinea pigs, and even if 100 other drugs do too, there are still a million drugs that have ENOUGH of a SIMILAR effect on animals to make advance possible. I’ll come back to this.

--“Also humans are tested on already! Whether it is desperately ill patients or volunteers... This is the last stage in the drug testing and it is what really shows whether a drug is safe.” Of course. The point is that you have to make it as safe as possible for these people before they get tested on. Do you seriously advocate testing drugs on humans when they are in the early stages of development? Animal research is not flawless in any way (as you point out), but it’s a step along the way to producing a drug. Yes, it IS in theory SOMETIMES an unnecessary step. BUT it would take 10 times as long (and a lot more human deaths) to get to the same stage without testing on animals, wouldn’t it? Here it may seem that I’m contradicting myself, but I’m not. Animal testing is NOT necessary in all situations, but it ADVANCES SCIENCE, quickly, cheaply (unless you need 10,000 police and security and 3 construction companies etc.), and in the MOST EFFICIENT way. Do you seriously think I would advocate animal testing if this wasn’t the case? To reiterate, I find a lot of the stuff that goes on quite distressing, but at the moment it is the BEST WE HAVE, in SOME situations.

To quote the FAQ “There are a huge range of sophisticated, advanced non-animal research techniques such as computer simulations, cell, tissue or organ cultures, complex artificial systems, epidemiology, QSARs or brain imaging that utilise human biological material or data so that the results are directly applicable to the human situation. These techniques are not only more humane but also often cheaper and quicker to perform as well as offering more relevant and reliable results.” YES, but they’re simply not as good yet. If they were cheaper and better, WHY THE HELL are we still testing on animals???? The answer is that these techniques are simply not as good, YET. As soon as they give as good results as animal testing does, do you think people would still spend so much on animal testing? Of course not. Everything in this world (unfortunately…) boils down to economics, right? Why would companies and the university waste MILLIONS on this lab if the research from it was going to be pointless? This is one of my most important points. To generalise on “scientists and science” is bad, but I would expect that Oxford academics are among the best in the world, and they wouldn’t be part of a research programme that was a load of bollocks. I trust them.

---“Also vivisection does not produce these drugs! It is not a result of vivisection that these drugs are produced... The drugs are simply tested by vivisection. In the same way an exam doesn't produce an intelligent student, it simply tests that student.” Maybe so in some cases. BUT, do you question the fact that we need to test drugs? Also, the result of the tests certainly would mean the scientists making changes to the drug to improve it, produce better results etc. Therefore it DOES help develop the drug. Your exam scenario is flawed.

Now a few things arising from the FAQ…

---“One argument often used by pro-vivisectionists to justify animal experiments is that humans are 'superior' to other animals. Just like other forms of prejudice such as racism, this speciesist argument implies that because we consider ourselves to be superior, the rights, suffering or death of those we consider to be inferior (in this case other sentient creatures) is somehow less significant or valid than our own”. Yes, I do think this. Sorry if I’m “speciesist” but that’s just my view, and most probably the view of the vast majority of this country. It’s a natural thing, just like the “my child or your child” question. Bad luck, 99% of people are speciesist.

--- the “unrealistic dilemma”. “Vivisection never delivers us the straight choice between saving a child or saving a rat. Instead it is about deliberately inflicting suffering and ultimately death on thousands if not millions of animals with no more than the mere hope that that immense collective suffering may in some way lead to a greater understanding of a given disease.” Yes it is, and if you can save **people’s** lives through experimenting on all those rats, then it was justified.

---“Yet even that basic premise is fundamentally flawed, because it is based on the assumption that extrapolating test results from biologically and physiologically distinct animals is a reliable, credible and robust method of scientific endeavour.” Yes, animals are different from humans, congratulations. BUT they are SIMILAR ENOUGH for certain premises to be made, that CAN be related to humans, and then affect the way further research into human problems. E.g. a human is different from a macaque, but it is SIMILAR ENOUGH that anything you find out about the macaque’s brain will help you COME CLOSER to understanding the way the human brain works, without cutting people’s brains apart, which wouldn’t be allowed. Unsavoury, but the best way.

---“Animal experiments tell us about animals, not about people. The results of animal studies can never guarantee the safety or efficacy of human medicines or other products because of the fundamental biological, anatomical and biochemical differences between the species. … Penicillin is a widely used antibiotic in humans and yet it can kill guinea pigs” I’ve already said a bit about this, but the same argument follows. It is a MINORITY of substances that are like this, and ENOUGH have the same effect that premises CAN be made in more cases than they can't. e.g. arsenic kills humans and mice. We could both offer examples to kingdom come, but surely you must see that there are MORE substances that have the SAME effect than there are which don’t.

“We all want to see real advancement in the treatment of painful and debilitating human diseases, but we believe that these advances depend on developing and using modern, biologically relevant research techniques that do not involve animals.It's also worth remembering that there are companies developing and testing drugs that don't use animals at all. For example, the UK company Pharmagene Laboratories only uses human data, tissues and computers and still produces safe drugs.” Maybe they do, but I’m sure that these processes are in their infancy, and only applicable to a minority of drugs. If they weren’t, EVERYBODY WOULD BE USING THEM AND THEY AREN’T. And again, it’s not because people testing on animals are evil, it’s because animal testing is better AT THE MOMENT. As soon as these techniques are perfected, animal testing will be out the window, and I want that day to come as soon as you do, but the fact is, it ain’t here yet. In some (not all) situations, animal testing is the best we have, and that is why it continues.

“The fact that vivisection has taken place as one part of a multi-layer research & development phase in the lead up to a drug entering the market, is not the same thing at all as being able to say that that drug was only developed because of vivisection. Indeed it is very different to saying that it could not have been developed if vivisection had not been included at all.” Fair enough, but vivisection MADE IT QUICKER, and SAVED PEOPLE’S LIVES, and I’m sure that SOME drugs wouldn’t ever have been developed without using vivisection because there was no alternative at that time. BUT, as you’ve said, we do now have alternatives, but they’re not good enough for all situations yet.

---“Today, diseases such as cancer and heart disease are the major killers in our society, while HIV/AIDS continues to increase. Despite a massive rise in animal based research around the world, conditions such as these continue to take their toll. Animal based research is failing to find the answers to these problems.” YES this is true. We need other ways to cure these diseases. You can see this vein through all my arguments, animal testing is used where it is the best of the options available. I never said animal testing was the best in any situation, hopefully some time in the future we won’t need it any more, but at the moment, we DO.

Right, I hope that clears a few things up, and I hope you have things to come back on, but my two main points remain.
1. Universities/Companies WOULDN’T put millions into testing on animals if it was a waste of time, they just wouldn’t. Economics rules the world.
2. The alternatives to animal testing aren’t good enough yet in some situations, as soon as they improve, vivisection will become obsolete, and I want this to happen as much as you do.

I await G’s responses, cheers.

Well it seem clear that I will have to bow to your superior intellect.
Sorry to have troubled you sir.
Your suggestion that I am both short sighted and attached to my own opinions is clearly correct and I apologise for having been such a fool.
It seems I have been completely wrong the whole time and so with humble heart and soul I have decided to change my ways.

You see it's not just about facts, I mean I really do feel that the right thing to do is to make sure that the few have everything they need while the rest suffer.
What better representatives for the human race than those who can see far enough to realise the greater good for all society?
Clearly as we solve all the problems of disease and begin our new adventure into the sterile future it's people like you who we can thank by being your subservient followers.

In future I shall know my place and continue to empty your bins and tidy up your fucking mess.

oh for god's sake Jools! You can do better than that, and you KNOW it.

A little effort wouldn't go amiss now, would it? I'm sorry for having a go at you, but if you actually made the effort to give proper comebacks to what I've said, then we might all learn something, especially me... now take a deep breath and try again; you're probably not as stupid as I think you are.

The dilemma of saying we should stop animal testing now is that then we wouldn't be able to use the alternatives because most of the alternatives we already do have are based on data that we have obtained through animal testing. So to develop these alternatives to animal research, we need to use either animals or humans in the first place. I don't think we sacrifice humans to the gods anymore so I guess we need to obtain biological data from animals instead. How else can we develop the models we are searching for? I think a much more sensible approach would be to endeavour to always reduce the testing we do do on animals.

Another dilemma with stopping testing on animals is that quite often animal testing is done to understand the biology of the animal itself rather than to develop treatments for human ailments. We not only require medication for veterinary use to make sure that injured and sick animals get better, we also need to understand how to conserve endangered species and how to humanely irradicate introduced animals that are threatening native species. Without animal testing, then the existance of a whole species may be at risk! So by stopping animal testing we may actually be bringing more suffering and pain on the animal kingdom.

Well sorry to dissapoint you dude, I know you like a fight (I bet your still looking here). You want to be persuaded and your inner voice tells you it's wrong. You just need to start listening to yourself. I can't and won't persuade you because then it will lack the impact of discovering for yourself.

Cold hard facts will never explain your feelings or mine. You are young(why are you so concerned and fighting so hard anyway? Because you are being guided by forces you don't understand yet?), don't commit to soon, give it some time and the guides will make themselves known to you.

Good luck. See you when it falls.

Jools

In Holland, Maastricht, the university decided midway 2005 not to build a primate center, for severeal reasons, one being fear of activism!

 http://www.observant.unimaas.nl/jrg25/obs30/art38.htm (Dutch)

Hi

Well I understand you want a fight. You are young and angry which is exactly why you havn't used you heart in this just cold hard facts. We only use cold hard facts because people like you won't listen to anything else.

Well I'm sorry, you are just gonna have to trust what you already know but won't listen to on this. I'm not gonna make it easy for you. Follow me? Don't worry i'm not trying to make you look a fool.

Try and explain your feelings or my feelings or the sensation you get stroking the soft ears of a golden retriver puppy, with your cold hard facts.

When/if you have children try and spend time with them and love them instead of making animals suffer at the lab. Then you might understand some of these other points of view.

Jools

So what if the reaserch is good? What if the Labs produce wonderful drugs that work? What if the pro science posse are right about it being worthwhile?

Well it just shows how naive they really are. Do you believe that drug tested and passed in this way are really for the benifit of us all? Do you really think that Oxford Uni is so altruistic? That they care sooo much about humanity?

Or are they doing it for the Money, Power and Greed?

This comes from here... http://publish.indymedia.org/en/2006/01/831267.shtml

"Just like with the rise of automation, electronics and early computers in the 40's and 50's, the new heavily-subsidized technologies find their primary application as an elite tool for their class war at home and imperialism abroad, to control, manage and disempower people for their own narrow benefit. However, whereas the previous era's "progress" aimed at the substitution of capital for labor in a drive towards what engineers called the "push button factory," in which workers were either replaced or deskilled to the point of powerlessness on the job, today's developments seem much more aimed directly at control, quantification, management, deterrence and punishment."

So, what do you think now? If it were your child but you didn't have the money to pay for it, how would that be?

Evil Fuckers have always ruled by FEAR. Fear of Death, Fear of Devil, Fear of Pain, Fear of Homelessness, Fear of being an Outsider, Fear of Failure.........

Fuck the fear, no more, Burn the LAB. Burn the Fuckin UNI. Burn the Church.

Fire will Win.

It is a fact that 98% of drugs succesfully tested on animals fail on humans, what gives us as a species the right to inflict pain and suffering on other sentient beings for our own benefit?

The creationists are arguing that there is no such thing as evolution, sadly this may very well be true, at least for us humans, the medicines we have are weakening the gene pool by keeping people alive that in normal circumstances would have died.

I know death is a sad thing and not to be trivialised but it seems to me at least, that all we are doing is prolonging the inevitable.

if you have to test drugs, test them on the people that are going to die anyway.

They built it - depsite all that was tried it is complete.

So now what - a campaign to disrupt the lab despite the failure of the previous one?

More lawful and ignored demos?

There is a lot of passion and strong words here but they signify nothing - the lab was built and now it runs.

What will you do?