Animal testing (also known as vivisection) elicits strong opinions from both those for and those against the practice. Its role in developing HIV treatments and AIDS vaccines is no less controversial.
Developing therapeutic and diagnostic products for use in humans is a long and complex process. With HIV infection, the search for effective drugs and vaccines has proven particularly difficult, as HIV is exceptionally good at changing its structure and evading destruction. In an ideal world, scientists would be able to test thousands of different compounds on human participants to see if any cured, treated or vaccinated them against HIV. However, to do this would be both highly time consuming and dangerous, as most compounds would not be effective, and some might cause illness or even death.
Researchers therefore often use animals to help them test the efficacy of drugs and vaccines, and to make sure that these products are safe. There are of course many ethical implications to animal experimentation, and many people are strongly opposed to the use of animals in any sort of experiment or study that may cause them distress or harm. So is it really necessary to use animals in the production of HIV drugs and vaccines? And are there any alternatives to animal testing?
Why are tests performed on animals?
There are three reasons why animals may be used in scientific experimentation. The first is to ensure the safety of new drugs and other pharmaceutical products. The second is to see whether such products might be effective in humans. The third is for general research into the biology of an animal, or the function and action of certain diseases within its body.
Safety trials
In many countries it is a legal requirement that all drugs and vaccines (not just for HIV) are tested on animals to ensure safety. In the United Kingdom for example, the Medicines Act of 1968 1 states that all new pharmaceutical products must be tested on at least two different species of live mammal, one of which must be a large non-rodent. This legislation was introduced shortly after the discovery that the drug Thalidomide could cause serious physical deformities in babies born to mothers who had taken it during pregnancy. Thalidomide was not thoroughly tested on animals (particularly pregnant animals) before it was prescribed to women, and this case is the root of many countries’ animal testing safety laws today.
Thousands of mice and other small rodents are used in animal experiments every year
Thousands of mice and other small rodents are used in animal experiments
every year
Animal safety tests usually come at the end of a long process of safety data collection that may include testing the product ‘in vitro’ (i.e. in a test-tube) and using a computer program to simulate what might happen to the drug inside the body. The regulations on what safety data is required for a new product vary from country to country (and also from drug to drug), but most drug authorities require all three types of data - animal, in vitro and computer- generated - for trials to be allowed to continue.
All this means that at some point, all ‘antiretroviral’ (anti-AIDS) drugs will have been tested on animals for safety.
There is an argument however that animals are actually fairly poor substitutes for humans and that some compounds that may well cause no harm to a mouse, could kill a human being. This is particularly the case for drugs that interact with the complex human immune system, such as the anti-inflammatory drug that caused major organ failure in six men involved in a trial at Northwick Park Hospital in London, England in 2006. However, such occurrences are rare.
Efficacy trials
While all drugs and vaccines have to be tested on animals to establish their safety, testing them to establish their effectiveness is a different matter.
HIV is a retrovirus specific to humans (hence the name ‘Human Immunodeficiency Virus’), which means it is not naturally found in any other animal. Some African primates, such as chimpanzees and a few species of monkey, are naturally infected with SIV (Simian Immunodeficiency Virus), which is believed to be the virus from which HIV originated. Chimpanzees can also be artificially infected with HIV in a laboratory. However most monkeys and chimpanzees have very efficient immune responses to SIV (and HIV), and do not develop AIDS, even after many years of infection. This can make it very difficult to assess whether a drug or vaccine actually works, so primates are not used as widely as human substitutes as they once were.
This said, there is one primate still commonly used to conduct efficacy testing: the Rhesus macaque monkey. Because Rhesus macaques originate from Asia, rather than Africa, they have never been exposed to SIV, and thus have no natural immune responses to it. A Rhesus macaque that is infected with SIV will therefore develop AIDS type illnesses in a relatively short time 2.
For this reason (and because they are not an endangered species like some other Asian primates), macaques are often used in HIV research. A few HIV drugs, such as AZT and tenofovir (see our Introduction to Antiretroviral Treatment page for more information about these), have been tested on macaques for efficacy, though stricter rules on the use of primates in animal testing, and greater knowledge of HIV, mean that more modern antiretrovirals are generally only tested on animals for safety reasons.
Vaccine development on the other hand makes extensive use of primates. Because it could be seen as unethical to give a healthy human a vaccine, and then expose them to HIV to see if the vaccine works (if it doesn’t, they’ll end up with HIV), animals can be used as substitutes to establish whether a vaccine is effective or not. This method can also be used to test the usefulness of current AIDS drugs (such as tenofovir) in preventing HIV infection. Such work of course raises significant questions over whether it is any more ethical to give a monkey HIV than a human, when it too may become sick with AIDS and die.
A fundamental problem with using macaques in vaccine research has been that they have different immune systems to humans. This means they cannot be infected with HIV-1 (although they are susceptible to certain strains of HIV-2), however they can be infected with SIV, or an SIV-HIV combination (‘chimeric’ virus) known as SHIV. A drug or vaccine that is effective in Rhesus monkeys infected with SIV or SHIV may not therefore be effective in humans with HIV. Conversely, a drug or vaccine that may be effective in an HIV positive human may be dropped because it appears ineffective in animals. Scientists have now constructed a simian strain of HIV-1 that differs from the human virus by only one gene and mimics early HIV infection, however the infected macaques did not develop AIDS3. Further research on this genetically engineered virus is necessary, however if successful this may make testing vaccines in primates potentially more reliable.
Monkey research has yielded significant discoveries about HIV in recent years4, including major findings that have strengthened understanding of early SIV and HIV infection5.
General research
As well as the testing of new drugs and other products, animals may also be used for more general research that aims to gain a greater understanding of a disease. Rhesus macaques, chimpanzees and even cats (who can get Feline Immunodeficiency Virus) may be used as human substitutes to see how HIV-like viruses operate within the body.
Rhesus Macaques are commonly used in HIV research
Rhesus Macaques are commonly used in HIV research
They can also be used to study natural phenomena such as transmission or disease progression, and the effects of non-therapeutic substances on HIV.
One example would be a study carried out in Rhesus macaques in 2006 6. Scientists looking at the effects of alcohol on SIV found that feeding the monkeys large quantities of alcoholic beverages over a short space of time (effectively making them ‘binge’ drink) could significantly speed up the rate at which HIV progressed to AIDS. This may well lead to a greater emphasis on moderate drinking amongst HIV positive people, and a reassessment of safe levels of alcohol. However, whether the results of this experiment could have been recreated using methods that didn’t involve animals is open to debate.
Can animal testing be justified?
Animal testing is an extremely controversial and hotly debated area, and there are many groups around the world that are strongly opposed to animals being involved in any form of experiment, even if it involves simply keeping them in captivity. Equally, there are groups who say that there is no alternative to animal testing, and that animals have saved many human lives. Some of the scientific and moral arguments for and against animal testing include:
* FOR: Animal testing is justified because of the many human lives that it can save
* AGAINST: There is no firm evidence that animal testing has saved anyone’s life directly, particularly in the case of HIV – most drugs could probably have been developed without the use of animals.
* FOR: Humans are clearly unique amongst animals in our abilities and intellect. Animals do not experience pain and emotion in the same way that we do because they lack language and the power of abstract thought
* AGAINST: An animal’s life is equal to a human’s and we have no right to assume otherwise simply because animals cannot express their pain and suffering in words
* FOR: Animals are the best way to test vaccines, because it would be unethical to give a human a vaccine, and then to try to give them HIV to see if it works.
* AGAINST: It is no more ethical to give an animal a life-threatening illness than it is to give one to a human.
* FOR: SIV-infected chimps and Rhesus macaques are good substitutes for humans, and make drug and vaccine development far more simple
* AGAINST: Monkeys and chimpanzees do not have identical immune systems to humans, and may not respond to drugs or vaccines in the same way. Rhesus macaques also cannot be directly infected with HIV. No HIV vaccine has yet been developed, despite many years of animal involvement.
* FOR: Any differences between animal and human biology are generally known, and can be factored in to experiments
* AGAINST: This overlooks the effect that stress may have on the normal functioning of an animal’s body, which may in turn affect the results of the experiment
* FOR: Not testing new pharmaceutical products on animals is highly dangerous
* AGAINST: Animals are often poor substitutes for humans, and some compounds that may well cause no harm to an animal, could seriously harm a human being. Likewise, a drug that is toxic to the animal it is tested on, may have no toxicity, and even therapeutic benefits in humans.
* FOR: There are no viable alternatives to testing pharmaceutical products for safety on animals. Scientists already use in-vitro studies and computer models, and animal testing comes only after these tests have been performed. If a drug fails either test, it will not be given to animals anyway.
* AGAINST: Studies have suggested that ‘micro-dosing’ (where only a tiny amount of a product is given to a human through the skin) could be a new and very effective alternative to animal experiments 7. The recent news that scientists have grown a small piece of human liver tissue from stem cells could also mean that it may one day be possible to perform initial 'human' safety trials in a lab8.
* FOR: There are very strong laws in place to ensure that distress and pain in animals is kept to an absolute minimum
* AGAINST: Pain and suffering still occur, and simply being in captivity can cause great distress to an animal, just as it would to a human. Plus, animal testing facilities cannot be monitored at all times, so the sort of treatment animals receive on a daily basis can never truly be known.
* FOR: It is a legal requirement that drugs are tested on animals for safety in the majority of countries. Scientists have no choice in this matter.
* AGAINST: Perhaps if laws on the necessity for animal testing were relaxed, or animal safety-testing were banned, it would encourage scientists to develop other methods of testing toxicity that were equally effective. At the moment, they have no incentive to do so, so only a small handful of alternatives are being tested.
* FOR: No scientist wants to cause any more injury to an animal than is strictly necessary. Most scientists build up strong attachments to the animals they use in their experiments.
* AGAINST: This may be the case, but it is also very easy to become blasé about something that you do every day, and forget the pain and suffering your work is inflicting. Animals may well become little more than useful objects of study, rather than live creatures, and this can mean they are treated as disposable rather than indispensable.
What do HIV+ people think of animal testing?
Many HIV positive people condone, or remain neutral on animal testing because they are aware that the drugs they take to keep them alive have very likely been tested on animals at some point in the past.
Could human 'guinea pigs' be viable alternatives to real ones when testing new drugs?
Could human 'guinea pigs' be viable alternatives to real ones when testing new drugs?
In September 2005, six well-known AIDS organisations in the USA got together to form ‘Patient Advocates Against PETA’ (PAAP), a group that opposed the strong anti-animal testing stance of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) 9. Formed of ACT UP DC, ACT UP Southern California, AIDS Healthcare Foundation, AIDS/HIV Health Alternatives, AmASSI and the HIV Incarcerated Task Force, PAAP argued that PETA’s constant high-profile protests were hindering scientists in their search for effective HIV vaccines.
Their work was however opposed by a number of HIV positive individuals, who declared they were strongly opposed to animal testing, and did not condone PAAP’s actions. A consensus amongst HIV positive people themselves on the benefits of animal testing is obviously not very forthcoming.
What is the future for HIV and animal testing?
In recent years, scientists have begun to investigate the possibility of genetically altering the genes of some animals (particularly mice) to give them immune systems that more closely resemble a human’s, and are thus susceptible to HIV infection. Such small animal models could be useful, both for those developing new vaccines, and for those testing drugs for safety, but such work is strongly opposed by those who do not believe that genetically modifying animals is morally right or safe, as well as by those who oppose animal testing altogether.
Another alternative recently proposed is infecting ordinary mice with a chimeric form of HIV, similar to the 'SHIV' used to infect primates. This would allow efficacy trials of drugs and vaccines to be performed on small mammals, which could perhaps be combined with safety trials to reduce the time taken to reach regulatory approval. However, this would potentially increase rather than reduce the number of animals involved in clinical testing.10
Regulations on animal testing have been tightened considerably in recent years, and animals, particularly primates, are used in far fewer experiments than they once were. In most countries (particularly the UK, which has the tightest regulations on the use of animals for science) facilities where animals are held are inspected regularly to ensure that animals are being kept in hygienic, safe and comfortable conditions.
Nonetheless, animal testing is still very strongly opposed by many groups who believe that any form of animal exploitation is wrong. The majority of anti-vivisection groups stage peaceful protests that aim to raise awareness of the harm and pain that animal testing can inflict, and raise support amongst the public for a ban on the practice. However a small minority of animal rights activists have resorted to more extreme tactics, which have included intimidation of those directly involved in experimentation, intimidation of their families, suppliers and business partners, and criminal acts, ranging from harassment and vandalism to blackmail and arson 11, 12, 13.
Unfortunately, while such groups receive substantial media coverage, their extreme actions tend to drown out the messages of more moderate groups, who are simply calling for a reassessment of the law, or greater research and assessment of alternative methods. Their behaviour creates a counter-productive situation, whereby those who conduct experiments on animals become more determined to continue with their work because of the opposition they face, and the government refuses to launch a proper investigation into the current laws in case they are seen as ‘giving in’ to extremists. It also risks portraying all animal rights campaigners as extreme activists and all scientists as cruel animal abusers.
In reality, views on animal testing are not nearly as polarised as this. There are many moderate anti-vivisection groups, just as there are many scientists who would prefer not to test on animals if they had a choice. A meaningful debate between the two may well help to further progress into ending the reliance on animals for safety and efficacy testing, but while the issue remains connected to such controversy and extremism, discussions of this kind seem to be few and far between.
It may be that one day animal research produces a vaccine or a cure for HIV that saves millions of human lives. If this is the case, then some justification can perhaps be found in using animals for our own purposes. Until this time however, anti-vivisectionists need to remain focused on finding alternatives, informing and changing legislation and keeping testing on animals to an absolute minimum. It is only through such positive action that true progress can be made.
Where Next?
AVERT.org has more about:
* Global HIV & AIDS epidemic
* AIDS vaccine
* Microbicides
* HIV structure and life cycle
* back to top
* AddThis Social Bookmark Button What's this?
Written by Bonita de Boer
References:
1. UK Medicines Act, 1968
2. NIAID Division of AIDS "Animal Models"
3. Theodora Hatziioannou et al. (2009) 'A Macaque model of HIV-1 Infection' PNAS
4. Lackner, A.A & Veasey, R.S (2007) 'Current concepts in AIDS pathogenesis: insights from the SIV/macaque model', Annual Review of Medicine, 58:461-76
5. Veazey, R.S et al (1998) 'Gastrointestinal tract as a major site of CD4+ cell depletion and viral replication in SIV infection', Science Vol.280; 427-431
6. "Chronic Binge Ethanol Consumption Accelerates Progression of Simian Immunodeficiency Virus Disease" Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental research, October 2006, Vol. 30 Issue 10.
7. "'Safer' drug test technique hope" BBC.co.uk, 08th October 2006
8. "Liver cells grown from cord blood" BBC.co.uk, 31st October 2006
9. "AIDS Coalition Clashes with Animal Rights Activists" The New Standard, 20 September 2006
10. HADAS, Eran et al. 11 May 2007, 'Testing antiretroviral drug efficacy in conventional mice infected with chimeric HIV-1', AIDS, Vol. 21 No. 8.
11. "Man admits animal rights bombs" BBC.co.uk, 17 August 2006
12. "Four jailed in grave-theft case" BBC.co.uk, 11 May 2006
13. "3 animal-rights activists get prison time" San Francisco Chronicle, 13 September 2006
Last updated December 23, 2009
Other site information
* home
* disclaimer
* copyright
* site infor
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Animal Testing Alternatives
The Nazarene Way of Essenic Studies
Animal Testing: Toxic & Tragic
Every year, millions of animals suffer and die in painful tests to determine the "safety" of cosmetics and household products. Substances ranging from eye shadow and soap to furniture polish and oven cleaner are tested on rabbits, rats, guinea pigs, dogs, and other animals, despite the fact that test results do not help prevent or treat human illness or injury.
Eye Irritancy Tests
In these tests, a liquid, flake, granule, or powdered substance is dropped into the eyes of a group of albino rabbits. The animals are often immobilized in stocks from which only their heads protrude. They usually receive no anesthesia during the tests.
After placing the substance in the rabbits' eyes, laboratory technicians record the damage to the eye tissue at specific intervals over an average period of 72 hours, with tests sometimes lasting 7 to 18 days. Reactions to the substances include swollen eyelids, inflamed irises, ulceration, bleeding, massive deterioration, and blindness. During the tests, the rabbits' eyelids are held open with clips. Many animals break their necks as they struggle to escape.
The results of eye irritancy tests are questionable, as they vary from laboratory to laboratory-and even from rabbit to rabbit.
Acute Toxicity Tests
Acute toxicity tests, commonly called lethal dose or poisoning tests, determine the amount of a substance that will kill a percentage, even up to 100 percent, of a group of test animals.
In these tests, a substance is forced by tube into the animals' stomachs or through holes cut into their throats. It may also be injected under the skin, into a vein, or into the lining of the abdomen; mixed into lab chow; inhaled through a gas mask; or introduced into the eyes, rectum, or vagina. Experimenters observe the animals' reactions, which can include convulsions, labored breathing, diarrhea, constipation, emaciation, skin eruptions, abnormal posture, and bleeding from the eyes, nose, or mouth.(1)
The widely used lethal dose 50 (LD50) test was developed in 1927. The LD50 testing period continues until at least 50 percent of the animals die, usually in two to four weeks.
Like eye irritancy tests, lethal dose tests are unreliable at best. Says Microbiological Associates' Rodger D. Curren, researchers looking for non-animal alternatives must prove that these in vitro models perform "at least as well as animal tests. But as we conduct these validation exercises, it's become more apparent that the animal tests themselves are highly variable."(2) The European Center for the Validation of Alternative Methods' Dr. Michael Ball puts it more strongly: "The scientific basis" for animal safety tests is "weak."(3)
Lethal But Legal
No law requires animal testing for cosmetics and household products. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires only that each ingredient in a cosmetics product be "adequately substantiated for safety" prior to marketing or that the product carry a warning label indicating that its safety has not been determined. The FDA does not have the authority to require any particular product test. Likewise, household products, which are regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) the agency that administers the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA) do not have to be tested on animals. A summary of the CPSC's animal-testing policy, printed in the Federal Register, states, "[I]t is important to keep in mind that neither the FHSA nor the Commission's regulations require any firm to perform animal tests. The statute and its implementing regulations only require that a product be labeled to reflect the hazards associated with that product."(4)
Testing methods, therefore, are determined by manufacturers. The very unreliability of animal tests may make them appealing to some companies, since these tests allow manufacturers to put virtually any product on the market. Companies can also use the fact that their products were tested to help defend themselves against consumer lawsuits. Others believe that testing on animals helps them compete in the marketplace: Consumers demand products with exciting new ingredients, such as alpha-hydroxy acids, and animal tests are often considered the easiest and cheapest way to "prove" that new ingredients are "safe."
Alternatives to Animal Tests
Such arguments carry little weight with the more than 500 manufacturers of cosmetics and household products that have shunned animal tests. These companies take advantage of the many alternatives available today, including cell cultures, tissue cultures, corneas from eye banks, and sophisticated computer and mathematical models. Companies can also formulate products using ingredients already determined to be safe by the FDA. Most cruelty-free companies use a combination of methods to ensure safety, such as maintaining extensive databases of ingredient and formula information and employing in vitro tests and human clinical studies.
Tom's of Maine went one step further. For seven years, the cruelty-free company petitioned the American Dental Association (ADA) to grant its seal of approval to Tom's of Maine toothpastes. Other toothpaste companies unquestioningly conducted lethal tests on rats in order to be eligible for the ADA seal (researchers brush rats' teeth for more than a month, then kill the animals and examine their teeth under a microscope). But Tom's of Maine worked with researchers to develop fluoride tests that could safely be conducted on human volunteers. The ADA finally accepted the results of these tests and granted its seal to several of the company's toothpastes in 1995.(5) The groundbreaking effort by Tom's of Maine to find a humane alternative to accepted-but cruel-practices sets a precedent that other manufacturers can follow in the future.
Compassion in Action
Caring consumers also play a vital role in eliminating cruel test methods. Spurred by public outrage, the European Union (EU) proposed banning cosmetics tests on animals by 1998; unfortunately, the EU has indefinitely delayed this ban because of complaints by animal-testing companies. But other organizations in Europe have stepped in. For example, after conducting surveys showing that four out of five of its customers are against testing cosmetics and household products on animals, the Co-op, Britain's largest retailer, launched its own campaign urging companies to end such tests.
In the United States, a survey by the American Medical Association found that 75 percent of Americans are against using animals to test cosmetics.(6) Hundreds of companies have responded by switching to animal-friendly test methods. To help consumers identify products that are truly cruelty-free, a coalition of national animal protection groups has developed the Corporate Standard of Compassion for Animals, which clarifies the non-animal- testing terminology and procedures used by manufacturers and makes available a cruelty-free logo for companies that are in compliance with the standard. Shoppers can support this initiative by purchasing products that comply with the corporate standard and boycotting those that don't and by asking local stores to carry cruelty-free items.
References
1. Rowan, A.N. Of Mice, Models, & Men: A Critical Evaluation of Animal Research (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1984).
2. Branna, Tom, "Animal Testing Alternatives: Moving Closer to Validation?" happi, February 1995.
3. Ibid.
4. Federal Register, Vol. 49, No. 105.
5. Ahrens, Frank, "Why Is This Rat Smiling?" The Washington Post, August 17, 1995.
6. Branna.
Animal Testing: Toxic & Tragic
Every year, millions of animals suffer and die in painful tests to determine the "safety" of cosmetics and household products. Substances ranging from eye shadow and soap to furniture polish and oven cleaner are tested on rabbits, rats, guinea pigs, dogs, and other animals, despite the fact that test results do not help prevent or treat human illness or injury.
Eye Irritancy Tests
In these tests, a liquid, flake, granule, or powdered substance is dropped into the eyes of a group of albino rabbits. The animals are often immobilized in stocks from which only their heads protrude. They usually receive no anesthesia during the tests.
After placing the substance in the rabbits' eyes, laboratory technicians record the damage to the eye tissue at specific intervals over an average period of 72 hours, with tests sometimes lasting 7 to 18 days. Reactions to the substances include swollen eyelids, inflamed irises, ulceration, bleeding, massive deterioration, and blindness. During the tests, the rabbits' eyelids are held open with clips. Many animals break their necks as they struggle to escape.
The results of eye irritancy tests are questionable, as they vary from laboratory to laboratory-and even from rabbit to rabbit.
Acute Toxicity Tests
Acute toxicity tests, commonly called lethal dose or poisoning tests, determine the amount of a substance that will kill a percentage, even up to 100 percent, of a group of test animals.
In these tests, a substance is forced by tube into the animals' stomachs or through holes cut into their throats. It may also be injected under the skin, into a vein, or into the lining of the abdomen; mixed into lab chow; inhaled through a gas mask; or introduced into the eyes, rectum, or vagina. Experimenters observe the animals' reactions, which can include convulsions, labored breathing, diarrhea, constipation, emaciation, skin eruptions, abnormal posture, and bleeding from the eyes, nose, or mouth.(1)
The widely used lethal dose 50 (LD50) test was developed in 1927. The LD50 testing period continues until at least 50 percent of the animals die, usually in two to four weeks.
Like eye irritancy tests, lethal dose tests are unreliable at best. Says Microbiological Associates' Rodger D. Curren, researchers looking for non-animal alternatives must prove that these in vitro models perform "at least as well as animal tests. But as we conduct these validation exercises, it's become more apparent that the animal tests themselves are highly variable."(2) The European Center for the Validation of Alternative Methods' Dr. Michael Ball puts it more strongly: "The scientific basis" for animal safety tests is "weak."(3)
Lethal But Legal
No law requires animal testing for cosmetics and household products. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires only that each ingredient in a cosmetics product be "adequately substantiated for safety" prior to marketing or that the product carry a warning label indicating that its safety has not been determined. The FDA does not have the authority to require any particular product test. Likewise, household products, which are regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) the agency that administers the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA) do not have to be tested on animals. A summary of the CPSC's animal-testing policy, printed in the Federal Register, states, "[I]t is important to keep in mind that neither the FHSA nor the Commission's regulations require any firm to perform animal tests. The statute and its implementing regulations only require that a product be labeled to reflect the hazards associated with that product."(4)
Testing methods, therefore, are determined by manufacturers. The very unreliability of animal tests may make them appealing to some companies, since these tests allow manufacturers to put virtually any product on the market. Companies can also use the fact that their products were tested to help defend themselves against consumer lawsuits. Others believe that testing on animals helps them compete in the marketplace: Consumers demand products with exciting new ingredients, such as alpha-hydroxy acids, and animal tests are often considered the easiest and cheapest way to "prove" that new ingredients are "safe."
Alternatives to Animal Tests
Such arguments carry little weight with the more than 500 manufacturers of cosmetics and household products that have shunned animal tests. These companies take advantage of the many alternatives available today, including cell cultures, tissue cultures, corneas from eye banks, and sophisticated computer and mathematical models. Companies can also formulate products using ingredients already determined to be safe by the FDA. Most cruelty-free companies use a combination of methods to ensure safety, such as maintaining extensive databases of ingredient and formula information and employing in vitro tests and human clinical studies.
Tom's of Maine went one step further. For seven years, the cruelty-free company petitioned the American Dental Association (ADA) to grant its seal of approval to Tom's of Maine toothpastes. Other toothpaste companies unquestioningly conducted lethal tests on rats in order to be eligible for the ADA seal (researchers brush rats' teeth for more than a month, then kill the animals and examine their teeth under a microscope). But Tom's of Maine worked with researchers to develop fluoride tests that could safely be conducted on human volunteers. The ADA finally accepted the results of these tests and granted its seal to several of the company's toothpastes in 1995.(5) The groundbreaking effort by Tom's of Maine to find a humane alternative to accepted-but cruel-practices sets a precedent that other manufacturers can follow in the future.
Compassion in Action
Caring consumers also play a vital role in eliminating cruel test methods. Spurred by public outrage, the European Union (EU) proposed banning cosmetics tests on animals by 1998; unfortunately, the EU has indefinitely delayed this ban because of complaints by animal-testing companies. But other organizations in Europe have stepped in. For example, after conducting surveys showing that four out of five of its customers are against testing cosmetics and household products on animals, the Co-op, Britain's largest retailer, launched its own campaign urging companies to end such tests.
In the United States, a survey by the American Medical Association found that 75 percent of Americans are against using animals to test cosmetics.(6) Hundreds of companies have responded by switching to animal-friendly test methods. To help consumers identify products that are truly cruelty-free, a coalition of national animal protection groups has developed the Corporate Standard of Compassion for Animals, which clarifies the non-animal- testing terminology and procedures used by manufacturers and makes available a cruelty-free logo for companies that are in compliance with the standard. Shoppers can support this initiative by purchasing products that comply with the corporate standard and boycotting those that don't and by asking local stores to carry cruelty-free items.
References
1. Rowan, A.N. Of Mice, Models, & Men: A Critical Evaluation of Animal Research (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1984).
2. Branna, Tom, "Animal Testing Alternatives: Moving Closer to Validation?" happi, February 1995.
3. Ibid.
4. Federal Register, Vol. 49, No. 105.
5. Ahrens, Frank, "Why Is This Rat Smiling?" The Washington Post, August 17, 1995.
6. Branna.
Alternatives to animal testing
FAQ - Animal Testing and Alternatives to Animal Testing
As one would imagine, in today's technologically advanced world, in which science has made monstrous steps in many promising directions, that many alternatives would exist to animal testing. This assumption is absolutely true. Many alternatives exist to the use of live animals in research (vivisection). Here are some alternatives to animals currently used:
* "Synthetic skin," called Corrositex
* Computer modeling
* Improved statistical design
* The Murine Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA)
Providing proof for this truth is that one of the top educational institutions in the world - Johns Hopkins - has a center devoted entirely to developing and promoting alternatives to animal testing - The Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing. It also managers Altweb, an on-line resource to "...serve as a gateway to alternatives news, information, and resources on the Internet and beyond [regarding alternatives to animal testing]."
More information from these resources is found below.
Another resource that exists to prove the viability and relevance of using non-animal testing methods is Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments (FRAME). Located in England , FRAME seeks to promote a moderate, but nonetheless determined, approach, by encouraging a realistic consideration of the ethical and scientific issues involved and the widest possible adoption of the Three Rs.
R efinement: minimize suffering and distress
R eduction: minimize number of animals used
R eplacement: avoid the use of living animals
More information from this resource is found below.
Contact Information for all three organizations just mentioned follows. Please visit their web sites for more information on their missions and for more information on alternatives to the use of animals in research. These sites should provide a more-than-adequate start to address any questions you may have regarding animal testing and alternatives to animal testing.
The Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing
Johns Hopkins School of Public Health
840-111 Market Place
Baltimore MD 21202-6709
Tel: 414-223-1693
http://caat.jhsph.edu/
From their web site at http://caat.jhsph.edu/:
The Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT) has worked with scientists since 1981 to find new methods to replace the use of laboratory animals in experiments, reduce the number of animals tested, and refine necessary tests to eliminate pain and distress.
We are an academic, science-based center affiliated with the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health . We believe the best science is humane science. Our programs seek to provide a better, safer, more humane future for people and animals.
We provide a variety of resources, including
* grants for scientists developing non-animal methods
* workshops on alternative methods
* books, newsletters, and other publications
We also manage Altweb , an international online clearinghouse of alternatives resources. See below.
Altweb
A Project of The Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing
Johns Hopkins School of Public Health
From the Altweb website: http://altweb.jhsph.edu/:
Altweb, the Alternatives to Animal Testing Web Site - http://altweb.jhsph.edu/, was created to serve as a gateway to alternatives news, information, and resources on the Internet and beyond [regarding alternatives to animal testing].
Altweb is intended to serve:
* Biomedical researchers
* Industry
* The international alternatives community
* The international regulatory community(ies)
* IACUCs and other institutional groups that review animal protocols
* The animal welfare community
* Individuals and groups who work with laboratory animals (technicians, veterinarians, etc.)
* Educators
* Students
* The general public
Altweb has five practical goals:
1. To assist scientists and others seeking to conduct a search for alternatives methods.
2. to serve as a CRP--"central reference point"--for alternatives information, publications, databases, calendars, and other resources.
3. to support the creation and maintenance of new alternative resources as needed, when no other organization can/will do so
4. to promote the use of alternatives resources by publicizing them on the site and through e-mail or other outreach
5. to facilitate communication and collaboration among members of the alternatives community, in particular those who work in database or information management.
Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments (FRAME)
Russell and Burch House
96-98 North Sherwood Street
Nottingham NG1 4EE
Tel: 44-0115-958-4740
Fax: 44-0115-950-3570
EM: frame@frame-uk.demon.co.uk
Website: http://www.frame.org.uk/
From their web site:
FRAME considers that the current scale of animal experimentation is unacceptable. However, we also recognise that immediate abolition of all animal experiments is not possible. Vital medical research must continue to find treatments for diseases which lessen the quality of human and animal life. New consumer products, medicines, and industrial and agricultural chemicals must be adequately tested in order to identify potential hazards to human and animal health, and to the environment.
FRAME advocates the Three Rs approach to this dilemma. Our long-term goal is the total elimination of laboratory animal use, through the development, validation and acceptance of replacement alternative methods. Until this goal is reached, we also support efforts to reduce the numbers of animals used through better science and better experimental design, and to refine procedures so that the suffering of any animals necessarily used is minimised. FRAME seeks to promote a moderate, but nonetheless determined, approach, by encouraging a realistic consideration of the ethical and scientific issues involved and the widest possible adoption of the Three Rs.
R efinement: minimise suffering and distress
R eduction: minimise number of animals used
R eplacement: avoid the use of living animals
Find out more on
REFINEMENT
REDUCTION
REPLACEMENT
FAQs on Animal Testing and Alternatives to Animal Testing
NOTE: All information below was derived directly from the web site from Altweb, the Alternatives to Animal Testing Web Site at http://altweb.jhsph.edu
* How are laboratory animals used?
* What does "alternatives to animal testing" mean?
* What kinds of alternatives are there?
* Why do some scientists say there are no alternatives to animal testing?
* What can I do if I am opposed to dissecting animals at school?
* What kinds of alternatives are there for the classroom?
* How can I get these alternatives at my school?
* What are some arguments against testing on animals?
* What are some arguments in favor of testing on animals?
* What are the benefits to people from animal testing? What discoveries have been made using animals?
* Are there any benefits to animals?
* Is there a list of companies that don't test on animals? What about a list of those that do?
* What do the words "cruelty-free" or "not tested on animals" on a product label really mean?
* How can I be sure my cosmetics are safe if they haven't been tested on animals?
* Why do most large companies test their products on animals, while many smaller companies can produce high-quality products without animal testing?
* What kinds of tests are done?
* What products are tested?
* What kinds of animals are used in testing?
* Where do scientists get their laboratory animals?
* Has anyone stopped using animals?
* What can I do to help?
* Will you add me to your mailing list?
* Can you send me pictures of laboratory animals?
* Where can I find information about research grants?
Q : How are laboratory animals used?
A : Laboratory animals most commonly are used in three main areas: biomedical research, product safety testing, and education. Biomedical researchers use animals in their efforts to understand the workings of the body and the processes of disease and health, and to develop new vaccines and treatments for various diseases. This sort of research isn't solely for the benefit of human health; it is aimed at developing new veterinary techniques as well.
Industry uses animals to test the safety and effectiveness of a wide range of consumer products, including drugs, cosmetics, household cleaning products, pesticides, industrial chemicals, and more.
Educators--from elementary school all the way up through graduate programs--use animals as part of the teaching process. Educational uses include dissecting earthworms or frogs in biology class, as well as advanced training in surgical techniques for veterinary and medical students.
Scientists also study animals to learn more about a given species, its biology and behavior. They may study animals as models of psychological or social behaviors. They may learn from the special skills or abilities of an animal as well. For example, Navy researchers have studied dolphin echolocation--their built-in biological sonar system--to improve the human-made sonar systems used on board ships.
In all these cases, if the animals are kept in captivity, or if they are subjected to pain or distress that is not a natural part of their environment, we are interested in finding alternative approaches to help replace the use of animals, reduce the number of animals used, or lessen any pain or distress suffered by the animals.
return to top
Q : What does "alternatives to animal testing" mean?
A : Alternative methods fall into three broad categories. These are called the 3 Rs: Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement. Replacement is what most people think of when you say "alternatives to animal testing": the animals are replaced, either by methods that don't involve animals at all (absolute replacement) or by those that use only the cells or tissues of animals (relative replacement). Many replacement alternatives involve these in vitro ("in glass") techniques, where the studies are done with cells or tissues in culture. If the cells come from human beings, it's absolute replacement. If they come from animals, it's relative replacement--the method doesn't require a living animal in the laboratory, but often the cells or tissues come from animals killed for that purpose.
Unfortunately, replacement isn't always an option. Some important kinds of testing just can't be done without animals, at least at this time. In these cases, researchers still can work to reduce the number of animals used in a given study. With careful experimental design and sophisticated statistical techniques, it is often possible to use far fewer animals and still get valid results.
Finally, for those animals that do undergo testing, scientists may refine their methods to lessen or eliminate pain, distress, or suffering and to make the animals more comfortable.
British researchers W. Russell and R. Burch formulated this notion of the 3 Rs in their 1959 book The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique, which argues that humane science is also the best science. You can find the full text of this important book on Altweb at http://altweb.jhsph.edu/publications/humane_exp/het-toc.htm .
return to top
Q : What kinds of alternatives are there?
One example of a replacement alternative is no longer considered an alternative--it has become the norm. Not too many years ago, if a woman wanted to find out if she was pregnant, she'd have to get a laboratory test that involved killing a rabbit. Now, she can buy a small kit over-the-counter that tests her urine for certain chemicals--the rabbits have been replaced.
Regulatory agencies in the United States and in Europe recently approved another sort of replacement test. This involves the use of a "synthetic skin," called Corrositex, which can be used in place of animals to test chemicals for skin corrositivity--that is, to see whether a substance will corrode or burn the skin. For an Altweb news article about this new alternative method, go to http://altweb.jhsph.edu/news/2000/march/20000322a.htm .
Computer modeling
Improved statistical design
The Murine Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA)
Computer modeling also can replace certain kinds of animal use, particularly in education. High school biology classes, for example, might practice dissection on a computer model rather than on real, live frogs. Even medical schools are beginning to develop "virtual reality" devices for students to practice on. You can find an example of a "Virtual Frog Dissection Kit" at http://www-itg.lbl.gov/ITG.hm.pg.docs/dissect/info.html . Plastic models and realistic manikins also can take the place of live animals for some educational purposes.
People can replace animals in some kinds of research. Skin sensitivity testing of cosmetics increasingly draws on human volunteers. Human clinical studies and epidemiological studies (looking at the occurrence and distribution of diseases in various populations of people) can reveal a great deal about the processes of health and disease.
Improved statistical design represents one form of reduction alternative. With sophisticated, low cost statistical packages available for the computer these days, investigators can get the most out of the data generated by each animal they use and so need fewer animals altogether.
Another type of reduction method involves sharing research animals. If one researcher is studying rat brain tissue, for example, when it comes time to kill the rat, he may allow other researchers to use the kidneys, liver, or other parts of the animal for their own studies. Re-designing studies to collect as much information as possible from the same set of animals can also reduce animal usage. This kind of sharing can be particularly effective in reducing the number of animals used within a given institution.
The Murine Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA), another newly accepted test used in product safety assessment, also is an example of a reduction alternative. This test, which determines the potential of chemicals to cause allergic skin reactions, requires use far fewer animals than the old method. For more details, see the Altweb news story at http://altweb.jhsph.edu/news/2000/january/20000110a.htm .
Refinement covers anything that serves to reduce the animals' pain and distress or to enhance their well-being. These alternatives may come in a great variety of forms. Giving an animal appropriate medication for pain is one example of a refinement alternative. The LLNA, mentioned above, serves as an example of refinement as well as reduction, because it is less painful than the previous method.
Techniques that are less invasive to the animal also may constitute refinement. For example, researchers can use such modern medical technologies as ultrasound or Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) to look at what is happening inside an animal without cutting into it.
Refinement also includes such things as giving animals bigger cages, offering them appropriate toys to play with so they won't get bored, and allowing them to have companions of their own kind (if that is a natural condition for the species).
The boundaries between these categories of alternatives aren't always clear-cut. For example, some alternative methods involve using lower organisms in place of species higher on the evolutionary scale. Such studies may use plants, microorganisms, invertebrate animals, or even early-stage vertebrates (e.g., chicken eggs) rather than vertebrate animals. Similarly, using frogs instead of mammals, or mice instead non-human primates, also may be considered alternative methods. However, depending on the nature of the study and the particular organisms involved--and on one's perspective regarding "lower" versus "higher" animals--such alternative methods may be viewed variously as replacement, reduction, or refinement techniques.
For more examples of alternative methods, see the Fund for Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments (FRAME) web site at http://www.frame.org.uk/3rs/3rsintro.htm and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) at http://www.hsus.org/ace/11388 . Also check the "Alternative Methodologies" chapter of the Animal Welfare Information Center (AWIC) book, Essentials for Animal Research: A Primer for Research Personnel. It is available online at http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/pubs/ noawicpubs/essentia.htm#2 .
return to top
Q : Why do some scientists say there are no alternatives to animal testing?
A : In general, they are thinking only of replacement alternatives. Many scientists feel that animal testing cannot be replaced completely by non-animal methods, particularly in biomedical research. They say we simply do not yet understand the complexities of the body well enough to be able to design suitable non-animal alternatives. But if you talk about the 3Rs--reduction and refinement, as well as replacement--most would agree that alternatives are possible.
return to top
Q : What can I do if I am opposed to dissecting animals at school?
A : Some countries and several states in the U.S. have laws or regulations that allow students to choose alternatives to dissection without penalty. Some schools have similar policies. Check to see what the policies are in your area.
A number of organizations offer support and materials to students who object to dissection or who wish to establish a student choice policy. These include the Humane Society of the United States ( http://www.hsus.org/ace/11369 ) and InterNICHE ( http://www.interniche.org ).
"The Use of Animals in Higher Education: Problems, Alternatives, and Recommendations," a book written by Dr. Jonathan Balcombe and published by the Humane Society Press, is an excellent resource on the issue of dissection. It is available online free of charge at http://www.hsus.org/ace/13059 .ÊOr contact the Humane Society of the United States to purchase a print edition (e-mail ari@hsus.org or call 301-258-3041).
return to top
Q : What kinds of alternatives are there for the classroom?
A : A variety of alternatives to dissection are available, including computer simulations, 3-D models, films, and interactive videos. Even medical schools are beginning to develop "virtual reality" devices for students to practice on.
For detailed information on some 3700 alternatives or supplements to the use of animals in education, at all levels of schooling, check the NORINA database at http://oslovet.veths.no/NORINA . The Norwegian School of Veterinary Science in Oslo compiled this English-language database of audiovisual and other alternatives in the biological sciences.
The European Resource Centre for Alternatives in Higher Education (EURCA) offers a smaller but content-rich alternatives database, featuring extensive product descriptions, reviews, and user comments. See http://www.eurca.org .
return to top
Q : How can I get these alternatives at my school?
A : A number of organizations operate programs that loan up-to-date dissection alternatives to students and teachers at no cost to the borrower except return postage. These include:
* The Humane Society of the United States Humane Education Loan Program at http://www.hsus.org/ace/11378
* The International Network for Humane Education (InterNICHE): http://www.interniche.org
* The National Anti-Vivisection Society (NAVS): http://www.navs.org/education/dissection_loan_program.cfm? SectionID=Education
* Animalearn: http://www.humanestudent.org
return to top
Q : What are some arguments against testing on animals?
A : Arguments against animal testing may question the morality, the necessity, or the validity of these studies--that is, whether we have the right to perform such tests, whether we need such tests, and whether the tests actually tell us anything useful.
Animal rights advocates argue that sentient animals have a right to their own life; they are not ours to do with as we please. In its broadest form, this argues against using animals or animal products in any way--that means maintaining a vegetarian diet, not wearing leather or fur, and, at its most extreme, not even keeping animals as pets.
A more moderate animal protection or animal welfare viewpoint is concerned more with our responsibility toward animals, that we have a moral obligation not to cause them unnecessary pain and distress. This stance does not necessarily argue against all animal testing.
Arguments against the need for animal testing may take at least a couple of forms. Some may consider the object of the testing to be trivial. Is it worth blinding rabbits so we can have a new kind of mascara? Another argument is that we don't need to use animals--we can use non-animal alternatives or computer simulations or test on human volunteers.
Another form of objection argues that we can't rely on the results of animal tests anyway. Humans are different from other animals, so the results of animal testing may not apply to us. Just because one species reacts to a given drug or chemical in a particular way doesn't necessarily mean another species will respond the same way. Furthermore, the argument goes, animals kept in unnatural conditions, or animals in pain or distress, aren't going to give accurate or consistent results anyway.
Altweb doesn't object to animal testing per se; rather, we advocate the development and use of alternative methods whenever possible. By this we mean methods that reduce animal use or refine methods to make them less painful or stressful to the animal, as well as replacement methods. We do not believe that all animal use can be replaced with non-animal alternatives in the immediate future. Our web site exists to speed the development and use of new alternative methods by providing a clearinghouse of information and resources to scientists, industry, and the public.
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) web site provides some statistics on pain and distress in laboratory animals at http://www.hsus.org/ace/11397 , plus additional information on the issue of pain and distress at http://www.hsus.org/ace/15808 .
The Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experimentation (FRAME) web site offers a set of links to web sites that argue against animal testing and those that argue in favor of it. You can find these pro/contra links at http://www.frame.org.uk/links/procontra.htm . Bear in mind that different sites will reflect the varying viewpoints of their respective organizations, and any one site may only give you part of the picture.
return to top
Q : What are some arguments in favor of testing on animals?
A : Here again, you can argue in terms of morality, necessity, and validity. The moral issue on this side concerns the need to protect human life and to improve the quality of life. The gains in human health and well-being outweigh the cost in animal suffering (which nonetheless should be kept to a minimum), in this viewpoint. It would be immoral to conduct such tests on humans, and so animals serve as our stand-ins for many kinds of testing and research. Those who support animal testing may care deeply about animals but don't place them on an equal status with humans.
Research on animals may be deemed necessary for a variety of reasons: to develop vaccines and treatments and cures for diseases; to ensure that new products are safe to use--that they won't blind us, burn our skin, or even kill us (which did happen in several instances, before product safety testing was required by law); and to help students--especially prospective doctors, veterinarians, and so on--learn their way around a body.
Animals do make good research subjects for many purposes, this view argues, and research on them can tell us a great deal about ourselves. Animals are, in many ways, biologically similar to humans and are susceptible to many of the same health problems. Some species may serve as particularly good models for certain aspects of human health or physiology. Much of what we know about the immune system, for example, has come from studies with mice, and much of what we know about the cardiovascular system has come from studies with dogs. Many heart surgery techniques--such as coronary bypass surgery, artificial heart valve insertion, and pacemaker implants--were studied first in dogs before being used in people.
Animals may make even better research subjects than humans in some regards. For example, many species have relatively short life cycles, so they can be studied throughout their entire life span or across several generations. Furthermore, scientists can control certain aspects of an animal's environment--diet, temperature, lighting, and so on--more easily than would be possible with people.
Supporters of the use of animals in research argue that alternative methods can't fully replace the use of animals--and may never do so. Neither cells grown outside a body nor computer programs can predict the complex interactions that occur in an entire living system.
At Altweb, we don't argue either for or against animal testing per se; rather, we argue in favor of the development and use of alternative methods. We work to replace animals tests with non-animal methods whenever possible, to reduce the number of animals used, and to refine test methods to minimize or eliminate pain and distress for the animals. Our web site exists to speed the development and use of new alternative methods by providing a clearinghouse of information and resources to scientists, industry, and the public.
The Foundation for Biomedical Research (FBR) web site presents a very positive view of animal testing. You can find their position paper and a lot of other information on the subject at http://www.fbresearch.org/facts.html .
In April 2000 the Seattle Post-Intelligencer ran a 5-part series on "Animals and Research." These opinion pieces, written by researchers in the field, argue the need for animal experimentation. The series is available online at http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/opinion/lead16.shtml .
The Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experimentation (FRAME) web site offers a set of links to web sites that argue against animal testing and others that argue in favor of it. You can find these pro/contra links at http://www.frame.org.uk/links/procontra.htm . Bear in mind that different sites will reflect the varying viewpoints of their respective organizations, and any one site may only give you part of the picture.
return to top
Q : What are the benefits to people from animal testing? What discoveries have been made using animals?
A : Countless medical treatments, techniques, and technologies have come about, at least in part, through animal experimentation. The development of immunization against such diseases as polio, diphtheria, mumps, measles, rubella, pertussis, and hepatitis all involved research on animals, as did the discovery of insulin and the study of diabetes. Animal research also has played a part in the development of organ transplantation, hip replacement, chemotherapy, cardiac pacemakers, coronary bypass surgery, ongoing efforts to understand and treat AIDS and Alzheimer's disease, and more.
Not everyone agrees, however, on the extent to which animal research was essential to all these discoveries, nor the extent to which is it necessary for future medical progress. The American Anti-Vivisectionist Society, for example, contends that "results derived from animal experiments have had a very minimal effect on the dramatic rise in life expectancy in the 20th century."
The organizations represented by Altweb, while accepting the value of animal research, work to promote the development and use of alternative methods whenever possible.
The Kids-4-Research site, especially the sections on "Diseases" and on "Animals," describes a variety of biomedical achievements involving animal research. You can find it at http://www.kids4research.org/ .
The Foundation for Biomedical Research site gives a very positive view of the role of animal testing in biomedical research. Look for the "Animal Research Facts" section at http://www.fbresearch.org/education/ .
In April 2000 the Seattle Post-Intelligencer ran a 5-part series on "Animals and Research." These are opinion pieces, written by researchers in the field, that argue the need for animal experimentation. They are available at http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/opinion/lead16.shtml .
return to top
Q : Are there any benefits to animals?
A : Animal research has played a role in many advances in veterinary medicine, including the development of vaccines for rabies, parvovirus, and distemper. Various devices and treatments developed through animal research--such as pacemakers, hip replacement, diabetes treatments, dental care, and chemotherapy--are used in veterinary as well as human medicine. Some animal research is aimed at developing alternatives to animal use, so that fewer animals will be needed in the future.
Not all research is conducted on laboratory animals. Pet owners looking for the best or newest treatment for their ailing dog or cat may agree to take part in a clinical study--similar to the human clinical trials that test the effectiveness of different drugs or treatment methods on people with pre-existing conditions or diseases.
Research on such matters as nutrition, housing requirements, or social behavior can help improve living conditions for captive and domestic animals. Some kinds of animal research may contribute to habitat restoration and conservation efforts for wild animals.
The second part of a 5-part newspaper series on "Animals and Research" deals with how animals benefit from research. This is available on the Internet at http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/opinion/anml2.shtml .
The Foundation for Biomedical Research web site describes some ways animal research may help animals. Go to their Animal Research Facts section ( http://www.fbresearch.org/facts.html ) and look for "Pets Get Fighting Chance in War on Cancer."
return to top
Q : Is there a list of companies that don't test on animals? What about a list of those that do?
A : We do not maintain such a list ourselves, nor can we verify the accuracy of the lists that are available. Please be aware that the various lists given below may use different criteria for which companies they include.
The Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics (CCIC) offers a list of companies that have adopted a "Corporate Standard of Compassion for Animals," agreeing not to test on animals during any stage of product development. This "shopping guide" is available online at http://www.leapingbunny.org/shopping_guide.htm . Or, they will mail you a free wallet-sized copy of the guide.
The National Anti-Vivisectionist Society offers a book for sale ($9.50) called "Personal Care for People Who Care." It briefly discusses some of the tests used and some of the alternatives, and it provides different symbols to indicate whether a given company does no animal testing whatsoever, versus one that may buy ingredients tested on animals and so forth. You can reach them by calling 1-800-888-NAVS or by writing to NAVS, 53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1552, Chicago, IL 60604.
The American Anti-Vivisectionist Society (AAVS) offers a free "Guide to Compassionate Shopping," which you can order online at http://aavs.org/./laboratories02.html . Or you can write to them at 801 Old York Rd. #204, Jenkintown, PA 19046, call (215) 887-0816, or fax (215) 887-2008.
return to top
Q : What does "cruelty-free" or "not tested on animals" really mean?
A : It can mean different things to different companies. Many cosmetics companies now advertise their products as "cruelty-free" or "not tested on animals." The U.S. government doesn't regulate the use of these terms, however, so the labels don't always mean the same thing. For example, "not tested on animals" may mean that the company attempts to determine the safety of finished products, made from ingredients known to be safe, using in vitro and other alternatives, including the use of human volunteers. Or, it may mean that the company doesn't test on animals itself but may buy ingredients from companies that do. Or it doesn't test final products on animals but does test ingredients on animals. Or it doesn't manufacture or buy any products or ingredients that have been tested on animals beyond a fixed cutoff date. Or the product and/or its ingredients have not been animal-tested within the past five years.
Be aware, too, that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration requires animal testing for pharmaceuticals and certain other products. This is not the case for cosmetics and toiletries, however. These items have to be tested to ensure customer safety, but they don't necessarily have to be tested on animals. This is where you'll see the words "cruelty-free" or "not tested on animals" on a product label.
For a good discussion of cruelty-free labeling, go to the Center for Laboratory Animal Welfare website at: http://www.labanimalwelfare.org/product_testing.html#crueltyfree .
return to top
Q : How can I be sure my cosmetics are safe, if they haven't been tested on animals?
A : New products still must undergo rigorous safety testing--whether they are tested on animals or not. These days, a cosmetics manufacturer may rely on some combination of computer modeling, in vitro tests, and trials with human volunteers, instead of on animal tests. The bottom line, however, is that all ingredients used in making cosmetics either have been tested on animals at some point or are known to be safe based on decades of use.
return to top
Q : Why do most large companies test their products on animals while many smaller companies can produce high-quality products without animal testing?
A : By law, all manufacturers must generate data proving their products are safe. This is easier to do if a company is small and makes a limited range of products using ingredients already known to be safe. Larger companies, which often create ingredients as well as final products, face a more difficult problem: they must ensure that new, previously untested ingredients are safe. Even in these cases, the company generally will conduct a series of non-animal tests before testing the new ingredient on animals. In this way, they often can reduce the number animals needed and cause less pain or suffering the animals that are tested on.
In some cases, companies that advertise themselves as "cruelty-free" actually purchase animal-tested ingredients from large companies to use in their "not tested on animals" products.
return to top
Q : What kinds of tests are done?
A : For product safety purposes, there are two basic types of tests used to assess the risks of routine or accidental exposure to various products. Acute-toxicity tests evaluate the risk of short-term exposure through normal use, accidental contact with the eyes or skin, and accidental ingestion. Chronic-toxicity tests assess the effects of long-term exposure--often at low levels--to certain substances. Here, researchers are looking at such things as the potential to cause cancer, birth defects, and developmental abnormalities.
The two tests that probably have caused the most public outcry are both examples of acute-toxicity tests. The Draize eye irritancy test uses rabbits to estimate the ability of a test substance to irritate or damage the eye. This involves putting the test substance into one of the rabbit's eyes and then scoring changes in various parts of the eye as compared to the untreated eye over a 7-day period.
This test was the subject of a major protest campaign in 1980, which ultimately led to substantial changes in the cosmetics industry and to greatly increased efforts toward the development of non-animal alternatives. Many companies no longer use the Draize test at all, though non-animal methods have not yet replaced it altogether. Where it is still used, the number of rabbits has been reduced dramatically, and the techniques have been refined considerably, using much lower dosages of the test chemicals and providing an anesthetic to ease the pain.
The other acute-toxicity test that has gotten a lot of publicity is called the LD50 test. LD50 means "lethal dose 50 percent." This test estimates the dosage of a substance needed to kill 50% of a group of rats or other test animals. In this test, groups of animals are given doses of particular chemical agent, such as a household product, to find out the amount needed to kill half of the animal subjects. The classic LD50 test has been banned in parts of Europe, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has announced that it no longer supports use of this test. Alternative methods still involve animals, but the numbers have been reduced and the techniques refined.
The Foundation for Biomedical Research (FBR) gives an extensive discussion of the Draize test. You can find their Animal Research Facts section at: http://www.fbresearch.org/facts.html . Then look for "Draize test" under "General Research Information." FBR is quite pro-research.
The Center for Laboratory Animal Welfare site offers a section on product safety testing, including a discussion of tests used. Their address is: http://www.labanimalwelfare.org/product_testing.html#product . This site takes an alternatives approach to the issues.
The Kids-4-Research site also has sections on product safety testing, including brief descriptions of some of the tests used. You can find them at: http://www.kids4research.org/ . As its name suggests, this site is pro-research.
return to top
Q : What products are tested?
A : Most products manufactured for human use must be tested for safety before they can be sold to the public. This includes drugs and vaccines (for both people and animals), cosmetics, shampoo and other personal care products, food additives, food packaging, household cleaners, pesticides, industrial chemicals, fabric treatments, and more.
return to top
Q : What kinds of animals are used in testing?
A : Rats and mice make up the vast majority (probably 85-90%) of animals used in research, education, and testing. Rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, dogs, cats, non-human primates, and assorted other animals are studied as well. Dogs, cats, and primates together comprise about 1% of research animals. The particular kind of animal varies with the kind of testing being done.
The Kids 4 Research web site ( http://www.kids4research.org/ ) has a section about the animals used for various kinds of research. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) site offers some figures on the numbers and kinds of animals used at http://www.hsus.org/ace/12509 .
return to top
Q : Where do scientists get their laboratory animals?
A : The vast majority of laboratory animals are mice and rats that were bred specifically for research. Nearly half of the dogs and cats used in research were bred for that purpose as well. Animal dealers are the primary source for the rest. They must be licensed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and must adhere to Animal Welfare Act standards of care. Some research facilities do get dog and cats from shelters and pounds, but this is subject to much stricter regulation than it once was. In many cases, state laws and local policies prevent this.
For a Humane Society (HSUS) statement against using animals from the pound for research purposes, go to http://www.hsus.org/ace/11431 .
For the Foundation for Biomedical Research view of the pet theft issue, go to http://www.fbresearch.org/facts.html .
return to top
Q : Has anyone stopped using animals?
A : The cosmetics industry, which 20 years ago tested nearly all its products on animals, has come close. Many companies have reduced their use of whole-animal testing by as much as 80 or 90%. Some have eliminated it altogether. One estimate suggests that the U.S. cosmetics industry as a whole has cut their use of animals for eye irritation tests by 87%. Eye irritation tests on rabbits were the subject of the first successful protest against animal testing back in 1980. Since that time, many cosmetics companies have put considerable money and effort into the search for alternatives to animal testing--which is part of why their animal use has dropped so dramatically. (The other part is that most ingredients used in cosmetics have already been tested on animal or shown to be safe through years of use.)
return to top
Q : What can I do to help?
A : One of the most important ways you can help is to learn as much as you can about alternatives to animal testing and then share that information with other people. The more people know about alternatives, the better. Be sure to tell them about all 3 Rs--reduction and refinement, as well as replacement.
If you're a student, write a report or give a talk at school. Suggest alternatives, where possible, if the question of dissection or animal experiments comes up in biology class, in science fairs or science projects. (See the FAQ about alternatives to dissection for more information on this issue.) It isn't enough just to protest against abuses of animals. We also need to raise a new generation of scientists who truly understand and care about these matters, and who will work to develop and use alternatives to animal testing. You can help make that happen.
You also can write, e-mail, or call your elected officials, federal and state regulatory agencies, and industry representatives and tell them we need to develop more alternative tests, we need to get those alternative methods that already exist scientifically validated, and we need to encourage government regulatory agencies to accept new alternatives methods so companies can start using them. Even if you're not yet of voting age, your voice can make a difference.
As you may be aware, you also can make a difference by choosing to support those companies that support alternatives to animal testing. Be aware, though, that this isn't a simple matter of looking for the words "cruelty-free" or "not tested on animals" on a product label. Please see the "cruelty-free labeling" FAQ for more information on this issue.
return to top
Q : Will you add me to your mailing list?
A : Gladly. To receive monthly e-mail updates, just send an e-mail to altweb@jhsph.edu with your name and the e-mail address you want the updates sent to.
return to top
Q : Can you send me pictures of laboratory animals?
A : As a firm and general policy we do not send pictures. Other organizations may be able to help you find the photographs you need.
return to top
Q : Where can I find information about research grants?
A : Altweb offers a directory of funding sources for alternatives research. You can find this at http://altweb.jhsph.edu/databases/funding/funding.htm . You also can check Grants Net, located at http://www.grantsnet.org . You will need to register with them, but it is a free service.
Animal Testing I Alternatives to Animal Testing I Cruelty Free Shopping and Buying I Cruelty Free Eating and Shopping I Charities and Animal Testing I List of Charities that Test on Animals I List of Charities that Don't Test on Animals I List of Companies that Test on Animals I List of Companies that Do Not Test on Animals I Animal Rights Websites I Animal Rights Books I Animal Rights Organizations I Health Issues and Animal Rights I Photos and Videos I Companion Animals (Pets) and Animal Rights I Animal Sanctuaries I Famous People / Quotes I Art and Culture and Animal Rights I RSS Feed I GEARI Blog I E Mail List Serve / Newsletter I Boycotts I Letter From the Author I Mission Statement I Contact GEARI I Link to GEARI I Help Keep GEARI Going - Donate to GEARI I Search GEARI.org I Additional Animal Rights Resources - Animal Rights Directories
For any additional questions and/or concerns, please visit our Contact GEARI page, or email:
justin@geari.org
The GEARI Store
Simple, Effective and Unique Messages to Open Minds and Increase Awareness
Send an Intelligent Message Without Saying a Word
Current
Awareness and Animal Rights News From the GEARI Blog:
News and Information as it Changes.
* Ohio Pet Antifreeze Poisoning Bill (H.B. 96) - Require Antifreeze Manufacturers to Increase Bitterness in Taste of Products to Prevent Poisoning Dogs
* Calico Dragon Bags: New Handbag Line With Bold Messages All About Animals and Their Rights, or Lack of Rights Rather
* NPR: Early Animal Rights Poem: “A Mouse’s Pleaâ€: A Touching Story of an Early Animal Rights Pioneer
* United States Supreme Court Rejects Ban on Videos of Animal Cruelty: Sickos Given the Legal Green Light to Film their Sick Abusive Torture Practices
* Website on World Animal Day – 4 October Every Year
XML FeedRSS Feed
Subscribe
Bookmark and Share
Bookmark and Share
Follow GEARI on Twitter
http://twitter.com/geari
Support GEARI:
Buy Cruelty-Free Products through these sources and Support GEARI!
GEARI Recomme…
Vegan Cupcakes Take Over the World: 75 D…
Isa Chandra M…
$10.85
V-dogfood
V-dogfood, LLC
$37.00
Garmont Men's Kiowa Vegan Hiking Boot,Forest…
Garmont
$86.86
Student's Vegetarian Cookbook, Revised: Qu…
Carole Raymo…
$10.04
Vegetarian Meals For People On-The-Go :…
Vimala Rodger…
$12.21
1234>
Amazon.com
Get WidgetPrivacy
Search Amazon.…
Showing 1 - 6 of 50 results
Vegan with a Vengeance …
Isa Chandra M…
$12.21
Veganomicon: The Ultimat…
Isa Chandra M…
$17.39
Deva Vegan Vitamins Da…
DEVA Vegan …
$22.92
Becoming Vegan: The …
Brenda Davis, …
$13.57
Vegan Cupcakes T…
Isa Chandra M…
$10.85
Bungalow360 Vegan Wall…
Bungalow
$18.00
12345>
Amazon.com
Get WidgetPrivacy
Google
Custom Search
Vimala Rodger…
cover - May 1, 2002)
Vimala Rodger…
Bungalow
Bungalow
Bungalow
As one would imagine, in today's technologically advanced world, in which science has made monstrous steps in many promising directions, that many alternatives would exist to animal testing. This assumption is absolutely true. Many alternatives exist to the use of live animals in research (vivisection). Here are some alternatives to animals currently used:
* "Synthetic skin," called Corrositex
* Computer modeling
* Improved statistical design
* The Murine Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA)
Providing proof for this truth is that one of the top educational institutions in the world - Johns Hopkins - has a center devoted entirely to developing and promoting alternatives to animal testing - The Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing. It also managers Altweb, an on-line resource to "...serve as a gateway to alternatives news, information, and resources on the Internet and beyond [regarding alternatives to animal testing]."
More information from these resources is found below.
Another resource that exists to prove the viability and relevance of using non-animal testing methods is Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments (FRAME). Located in England , FRAME seeks to promote a moderate, but nonetheless determined, approach, by encouraging a realistic consideration of the ethical and scientific issues involved and the widest possible adoption of the Three Rs.
R efinement: minimize suffering and distress
R eduction: minimize number of animals used
R eplacement: avoid the use of living animals
More information from this resource is found below.
Contact Information for all three organizations just mentioned follows. Please visit their web sites for more information on their missions and for more information on alternatives to the use of animals in research. These sites should provide a more-than-adequate start to address any questions you may have regarding animal testing and alternatives to animal testing.
The Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing
Johns Hopkins School of Public Health
840-111 Market Place
Baltimore MD 21202-6709
Tel: 414-223-1693
http://caat.jhsph.edu/
From their web site at http://caat.jhsph.edu/:
The Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT) has worked with scientists since 1981 to find new methods to replace the use of laboratory animals in experiments, reduce the number of animals tested, and refine necessary tests to eliminate pain and distress.
We are an academic, science-based center affiliated with the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health . We believe the best science is humane science. Our programs seek to provide a better, safer, more humane future for people and animals.
We provide a variety of resources, including
* grants for scientists developing non-animal methods
* workshops on alternative methods
* books, newsletters, and other publications
We also manage Altweb , an international online clearinghouse of alternatives resources. See below.
Altweb
A Project of The Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing
Johns Hopkins School of Public Health
From the Altweb website: http://altweb.jhsph.edu/:
Altweb, the Alternatives to Animal Testing Web Site - http://altweb.jhsph.edu/, was created to serve as a gateway to alternatives news, information, and resources on the Internet and beyond [regarding alternatives to animal testing].
Altweb is intended to serve:
* Biomedical researchers
* Industry
* The international alternatives community
* The international regulatory community(ies)
* IACUCs and other institutional groups that review animal protocols
* The animal welfare community
* Individuals and groups who work with laboratory animals (technicians, veterinarians, etc.)
* Educators
* Students
* The general public
Altweb has five practical goals:
1. To assist scientists and others seeking to conduct a search for alternatives methods.
2. to serve as a CRP--"central reference point"--for alternatives information, publications, databases, calendars, and other resources.
3. to support the creation and maintenance of new alternative resources as needed, when no other organization can/will do so
4. to promote the use of alternatives resources by publicizing them on the site and through e-mail or other outreach
5. to facilitate communication and collaboration among members of the alternatives community, in particular those who work in database or information management.
Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments (FRAME)
Russell and Burch House
96-98 North Sherwood Street
Nottingham NG1 4EE
Tel: 44-0115-958-4740
Fax: 44-0115-950-3570
EM: frame@frame-uk.demon.co.uk
Website: http://www.frame.org.uk/
From their web site:
FRAME considers that the current scale of animal experimentation is unacceptable. However, we also recognise that immediate abolition of all animal experiments is not possible. Vital medical research must continue to find treatments for diseases which lessen the quality of human and animal life. New consumer products, medicines, and industrial and agricultural chemicals must be adequately tested in order to identify potential hazards to human and animal health, and to the environment.
FRAME advocates the Three Rs approach to this dilemma. Our long-term goal is the total elimination of laboratory animal use, through the development, validation and acceptance of replacement alternative methods. Until this goal is reached, we also support efforts to reduce the numbers of animals used through better science and better experimental design, and to refine procedures so that the suffering of any animals necessarily used is minimised. FRAME seeks to promote a moderate, but nonetheless determined, approach, by encouraging a realistic consideration of the ethical and scientific issues involved and the widest possible adoption of the Three Rs.
R efinement: minimise suffering and distress
R eduction: minimise number of animals used
R eplacement: avoid the use of living animals
Find out more on
REFINEMENT
REDUCTION
REPLACEMENT
FAQs on Animal Testing and Alternatives to Animal Testing
NOTE: All information below was derived directly from the web site from Altweb, the Alternatives to Animal Testing Web Site at http://altweb.jhsph.edu
* How are laboratory animals used?
* What does "alternatives to animal testing" mean?
* What kinds of alternatives are there?
* Why do some scientists say there are no alternatives to animal testing?
* What can I do if I am opposed to dissecting animals at school?
* What kinds of alternatives are there for the classroom?
* How can I get these alternatives at my school?
* What are some arguments against testing on animals?
* What are some arguments in favor of testing on animals?
* What are the benefits to people from animal testing? What discoveries have been made using animals?
* Are there any benefits to animals?
* Is there a list of companies that don't test on animals? What about a list of those that do?
* What do the words "cruelty-free" or "not tested on animals" on a product label really mean?
* How can I be sure my cosmetics are safe if they haven't been tested on animals?
* Why do most large companies test their products on animals, while many smaller companies can produce high-quality products without animal testing?
* What kinds of tests are done?
* What products are tested?
* What kinds of animals are used in testing?
* Where do scientists get their laboratory animals?
* Has anyone stopped using animals?
* What can I do to help?
* Will you add me to your mailing list?
* Can you send me pictures of laboratory animals?
* Where can I find information about research grants?
Q : How are laboratory animals used?
A : Laboratory animals most commonly are used in three main areas: biomedical research, product safety testing, and education. Biomedical researchers use animals in their efforts to understand the workings of the body and the processes of disease and health, and to develop new vaccines and treatments for various diseases. This sort of research isn't solely for the benefit of human health; it is aimed at developing new veterinary techniques as well.
Industry uses animals to test the safety and effectiveness of a wide range of consumer products, including drugs, cosmetics, household cleaning products, pesticides, industrial chemicals, and more.
Educators--from elementary school all the way up through graduate programs--use animals as part of the teaching process. Educational uses include dissecting earthworms or frogs in biology class, as well as advanced training in surgical techniques for veterinary and medical students.
Scientists also study animals to learn more about a given species, its biology and behavior. They may study animals as models of psychological or social behaviors. They may learn from the special skills or abilities of an animal as well. For example, Navy researchers have studied dolphin echolocation--their built-in biological sonar system--to improve the human-made sonar systems used on board ships.
In all these cases, if the animals are kept in captivity, or if they are subjected to pain or distress that is not a natural part of their environment, we are interested in finding alternative approaches to help replace the use of animals, reduce the number of animals used, or lessen any pain or distress suffered by the animals.
return to top
Q : What does "alternatives to animal testing" mean?
A : Alternative methods fall into three broad categories. These are called the 3 Rs: Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement. Replacement is what most people think of when you say "alternatives to animal testing": the animals are replaced, either by methods that don't involve animals at all (absolute replacement) or by those that use only the cells or tissues of animals (relative replacement). Many replacement alternatives involve these in vitro ("in glass") techniques, where the studies are done with cells or tissues in culture. If the cells come from human beings, it's absolute replacement. If they come from animals, it's relative replacement--the method doesn't require a living animal in the laboratory, but often the cells or tissues come from animals killed for that purpose.
Unfortunately, replacement isn't always an option. Some important kinds of testing just can't be done without animals, at least at this time. In these cases, researchers still can work to reduce the number of animals used in a given study. With careful experimental design and sophisticated statistical techniques, it is often possible to use far fewer animals and still get valid results.
Finally, for those animals that do undergo testing, scientists may refine their methods to lessen or eliminate pain, distress, or suffering and to make the animals more comfortable.
British researchers W. Russell and R. Burch formulated this notion of the 3 Rs in their 1959 book The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique, which argues that humane science is also the best science. You can find the full text of this important book on Altweb at http://altweb.jhsph.edu/publications/humane_exp/het-toc.htm .
return to top
Q : What kinds of alternatives are there?
One example of a replacement alternative is no longer considered an alternative--it has become the norm. Not too many years ago, if a woman wanted to find out if she was pregnant, she'd have to get a laboratory test that involved killing a rabbit. Now, she can buy a small kit over-the-counter that tests her urine for certain chemicals--the rabbits have been replaced.
Regulatory agencies in the United States and in Europe recently approved another sort of replacement test. This involves the use of a "synthetic skin," called Corrositex, which can be used in place of animals to test chemicals for skin corrositivity--that is, to see whether a substance will corrode or burn the skin. For an Altweb news article about this new alternative method, go to http://altweb.jhsph.edu/news/2000/march/20000322a.htm .
Computer modeling
Improved statistical design
The Murine Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA)
Computer modeling also can replace certain kinds of animal use, particularly in education. High school biology classes, for example, might practice dissection on a computer model rather than on real, live frogs. Even medical schools are beginning to develop "virtual reality" devices for students to practice on. You can find an example of a "Virtual Frog Dissection Kit" at http://www-itg.lbl.gov/ITG.hm.pg.docs/dissect/info.html . Plastic models and realistic manikins also can take the place of live animals for some educational purposes.
People can replace animals in some kinds of research. Skin sensitivity testing of cosmetics increasingly draws on human volunteers. Human clinical studies and epidemiological studies (looking at the occurrence and distribution of diseases in various populations of people) can reveal a great deal about the processes of health and disease.
Improved statistical design represents one form of reduction alternative. With sophisticated, low cost statistical packages available for the computer these days, investigators can get the most out of the data generated by each animal they use and so need fewer animals altogether.
Another type of reduction method involves sharing research animals. If one researcher is studying rat brain tissue, for example, when it comes time to kill the rat, he may allow other researchers to use the kidneys, liver, or other parts of the animal for their own studies. Re-designing studies to collect as much information as possible from the same set of animals can also reduce animal usage. This kind of sharing can be particularly effective in reducing the number of animals used within a given institution.
The Murine Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA), another newly accepted test used in product safety assessment, also is an example of a reduction alternative. This test, which determines the potential of chemicals to cause allergic skin reactions, requires use far fewer animals than the old method. For more details, see the Altweb news story at http://altweb.jhsph.edu/news/2000/january/20000110a.htm .
Refinement covers anything that serves to reduce the animals' pain and distress or to enhance their well-being. These alternatives may come in a great variety of forms. Giving an animal appropriate medication for pain is one example of a refinement alternative. The LLNA, mentioned above, serves as an example of refinement as well as reduction, because it is less painful than the previous method.
Techniques that are less invasive to the animal also may constitute refinement. For example, researchers can use such modern medical technologies as ultrasound or Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) to look at what is happening inside an animal without cutting into it.
Refinement also includes such things as giving animals bigger cages, offering them appropriate toys to play with so they won't get bored, and allowing them to have companions of their own kind (if that is a natural condition for the species).
The boundaries between these categories of alternatives aren't always clear-cut. For example, some alternative methods involve using lower organisms in place of species higher on the evolutionary scale. Such studies may use plants, microorganisms, invertebrate animals, or even early-stage vertebrates (e.g., chicken eggs) rather than vertebrate animals. Similarly, using frogs instead of mammals, or mice instead non-human primates, also may be considered alternative methods. However, depending on the nature of the study and the particular organisms involved--and on one's perspective regarding "lower" versus "higher" animals--such alternative methods may be viewed variously as replacement, reduction, or refinement techniques.
For more examples of alternative methods, see the Fund for Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments (FRAME) web site at http://www.frame.org.uk/3rs/3rsintro.htm and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) at http://www.hsus.org/ace/11388 . Also check the "Alternative Methodologies" chapter of the Animal Welfare Information Center (AWIC) book, Essentials for Animal Research: A Primer for Research Personnel. It is available online at http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/pubs/ noawicpubs/essentia.htm#2 .
return to top
Q : Why do some scientists say there are no alternatives to animal testing?
A : In general, they are thinking only of replacement alternatives. Many scientists feel that animal testing cannot be replaced completely by non-animal methods, particularly in biomedical research. They say we simply do not yet understand the complexities of the body well enough to be able to design suitable non-animal alternatives. But if you talk about the 3Rs--reduction and refinement, as well as replacement--most would agree that alternatives are possible.
return to top
Q : What can I do if I am opposed to dissecting animals at school?
A : Some countries and several states in the U.S. have laws or regulations that allow students to choose alternatives to dissection without penalty. Some schools have similar policies. Check to see what the policies are in your area.
A number of organizations offer support and materials to students who object to dissection or who wish to establish a student choice policy. These include the Humane Society of the United States ( http://www.hsus.org/ace/11369 ) and InterNICHE ( http://www.interniche.org ).
"The Use of Animals in Higher Education: Problems, Alternatives, and Recommendations," a book written by Dr. Jonathan Balcombe and published by the Humane Society Press, is an excellent resource on the issue of dissection. It is available online free of charge at http://www.hsus.org/ace/13059 .ÊOr contact the Humane Society of the United States to purchase a print edition (e-mail ari@hsus.org or call 301-258-3041).
return to top
Q : What kinds of alternatives are there for the classroom?
A : A variety of alternatives to dissection are available, including computer simulations, 3-D models, films, and interactive videos. Even medical schools are beginning to develop "virtual reality" devices for students to practice on.
For detailed information on some 3700 alternatives or supplements to the use of animals in education, at all levels of schooling, check the NORINA database at http://oslovet.veths.no/NORINA . The Norwegian School of Veterinary Science in Oslo compiled this English-language database of audiovisual and other alternatives in the biological sciences.
The European Resource Centre for Alternatives in Higher Education (EURCA) offers a smaller but content-rich alternatives database, featuring extensive product descriptions, reviews, and user comments. See http://www.eurca.org .
return to top
Q : How can I get these alternatives at my school?
A : A number of organizations operate programs that loan up-to-date dissection alternatives to students and teachers at no cost to the borrower except return postage. These include:
* The Humane Society of the United States Humane Education Loan Program at http://www.hsus.org/ace/11378
* The International Network for Humane Education (InterNICHE): http://www.interniche.org
* The National Anti-Vivisection Society (NAVS): http://www.navs.org/education/dissection_loan_program.cfm? SectionID=Education
* Animalearn: http://www.humanestudent.org
return to top
Q : What are some arguments against testing on animals?
A : Arguments against animal testing may question the morality, the necessity, or the validity of these studies--that is, whether we have the right to perform such tests, whether we need such tests, and whether the tests actually tell us anything useful.
Animal rights advocates argue that sentient animals have a right to their own life; they are not ours to do with as we please. In its broadest form, this argues against using animals or animal products in any way--that means maintaining a vegetarian diet, not wearing leather or fur, and, at its most extreme, not even keeping animals as pets.
A more moderate animal protection or animal welfare viewpoint is concerned more with our responsibility toward animals, that we have a moral obligation not to cause them unnecessary pain and distress. This stance does not necessarily argue against all animal testing.
Arguments against the need for animal testing may take at least a couple of forms. Some may consider the object of the testing to be trivial. Is it worth blinding rabbits so we can have a new kind of mascara? Another argument is that we don't need to use animals--we can use non-animal alternatives or computer simulations or test on human volunteers.
Another form of objection argues that we can't rely on the results of animal tests anyway. Humans are different from other animals, so the results of animal testing may not apply to us. Just because one species reacts to a given drug or chemical in a particular way doesn't necessarily mean another species will respond the same way. Furthermore, the argument goes, animals kept in unnatural conditions, or animals in pain or distress, aren't going to give accurate or consistent results anyway.
Altweb doesn't object to animal testing per se; rather, we advocate the development and use of alternative methods whenever possible. By this we mean methods that reduce animal use or refine methods to make them less painful or stressful to the animal, as well as replacement methods. We do not believe that all animal use can be replaced with non-animal alternatives in the immediate future. Our web site exists to speed the development and use of new alternative methods by providing a clearinghouse of information and resources to scientists, industry, and the public.
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) web site provides some statistics on pain and distress in laboratory animals at http://www.hsus.org/ace/11397 , plus additional information on the issue of pain and distress at http://www.hsus.org/ace/15808 .
The Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experimentation (FRAME) web site offers a set of links to web sites that argue against animal testing and those that argue in favor of it. You can find these pro/contra links at http://www.frame.org.uk/links/procontra.htm . Bear in mind that different sites will reflect the varying viewpoints of their respective organizations, and any one site may only give you part of the picture.
return to top
Q : What are some arguments in favor of testing on animals?
A : Here again, you can argue in terms of morality, necessity, and validity. The moral issue on this side concerns the need to protect human life and to improve the quality of life. The gains in human health and well-being outweigh the cost in animal suffering (which nonetheless should be kept to a minimum), in this viewpoint. It would be immoral to conduct such tests on humans, and so animals serve as our stand-ins for many kinds of testing and research. Those who support animal testing may care deeply about animals but don't place them on an equal status with humans.
Research on animals may be deemed necessary for a variety of reasons: to develop vaccines and treatments and cures for diseases; to ensure that new products are safe to use--that they won't blind us, burn our skin, or even kill us (which did happen in several instances, before product safety testing was required by law); and to help students--especially prospective doctors, veterinarians, and so on--learn their way around a body.
Animals do make good research subjects for many purposes, this view argues, and research on them can tell us a great deal about ourselves. Animals are, in many ways, biologically similar to humans and are susceptible to many of the same health problems. Some species may serve as particularly good models for certain aspects of human health or physiology. Much of what we know about the immune system, for example, has come from studies with mice, and much of what we know about the cardiovascular system has come from studies with dogs. Many heart surgery techniques--such as coronary bypass surgery, artificial heart valve insertion, and pacemaker implants--were studied first in dogs before being used in people.
Animals may make even better research subjects than humans in some regards. For example, many species have relatively short life cycles, so they can be studied throughout their entire life span or across several generations. Furthermore, scientists can control certain aspects of an animal's environment--diet, temperature, lighting, and so on--more easily than would be possible with people.
Supporters of the use of animals in research argue that alternative methods can't fully replace the use of animals--and may never do so. Neither cells grown outside a body nor computer programs can predict the complex interactions that occur in an entire living system.
At Altweb, we don't argue either for or against animal testing per se; rather, we argue in favor of the development and use of alternative methods. We work to replace animals tests with non-animal methods whenever possible, to reduce the number of animals used, and to refine test methods to minimize or eliminate pain and distress for the animals. Our web site exists to speed the development and use of new alternative methods by providing a clearinghouse of information and resources to scientists, industry, and the public.
The Foundation for Biomedical Research (FBR) web site presents a very positive view of animal testing. You can find their position paper and a lot of other information on the subject at http://www.fbresearch.org/facts.html .
In April 2000 the Seattle Post-Intelligencer ran a 5-part series on "Animals and Research." These opinion pieces, written by researchers in the field, argue the need for animal experimentation. The series is available online at http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/opinion/lead16.shtml .
The Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experimentation (FRAME) web site offers a set of links to web sites that argue against animal testing and others that argue in favor of it. You can find these pro/contra links at http://www.frame.org.uk/links/procontra.htm . Bear in mind that different sites will reflect the varying viewpoints of their respective organizations, and any one site may only give you part of the picture.
return to top
Q : What are the benefits to people from animal testing? What discoveries have been made using animals?
A : Countless medical treatments, techniques, and technologies have come about, at least in part, through animal experimentation. The development of immunization against such diseases as polio, diphtheria, mumps, measles, rubella, pertussis, and hepatitis all involved research on animals, as did the discovery of insulin and the study of diabetes. Animal research also has played a part in the development of organ transplantation, hip replacement, chemotherapy, cardiac pacemakers, coronary bypass surgery, ongoing efforts to understand and treat AIDS and Alzheimer's disease, and more.
Not everyone agrees, however, on the extent to which animal research was essential to all these discoveries, nor the extent to which is it necessary for future medical progress. The American Anti-Vivisectionist Society, for example, contends that "results derived from animal experiments have had a very minimal effect on the dramatic rise in life expectancy in the 20th century."
The organizations represented by Altweb, while accepting the value of animal research, work to promote the development and use of alternative methods whenever possible.
The Kids-4-Research site, especially the sections on "Diseases" and on "Animals," describes a variety of biomedical achievements involving animal research. You can find it at http://www.kids4research.org/ .
The Foundation for Biomedical Research site gives a very positive view of the role of animal testing in biomedical research. Look for the "Animal Research Facts" section at http://www.fbresearch.org/education/ .
In April 2000 the Seattle Post-Intelligencer ran a 5-part series on "Animals and Research." These are opinion pieces, written by researchers in the field, that argue the need for animal experimentation. They are available at http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/opinion/lead16.shtml .
return to top
Q : Are there any benefits to animals?
A : Animal research has played a role in many advances in veterinary medicine, including the development of vaccines for rabies, parvovirus, and distemper. Various devices and treatments developed through animal research--such as pacemakers, hip replacement, diabetes treatments, dental care, and chemotherapy--are used in veterinary as well as human medicine. Some animal research is aimed at developing alternatives to animal use, so that fewer animals will be needed in the future.
Not all research is conducted on laboratory animals. Pet owners looking for the best or newest treatment for their ailing dog or cat may agree to take part in a clinical study--similar to the human clinical trials that test the effectiveness of different drugs or treatment methods on people with pre-existing conditions or diseases.
Research on such matters as nutrition, housing requirements, or social behavior can help improve living conditions for captive and domestic animals. Some kinds of animal research may contribute to habitat restoration and conservation efforts for wild animals.
The second part of a 5-part newspaper series on "Animals and Research" deals with how animals benefit from research. This is available on the Internet at http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/opinion/anml2.shtml .
The Foundation for Biomedical Research web site describes some ways animal research may help animals. Go to their Animal Research Facts section ( http://www.fbresearch.org/facts.html ) and look for "Pets Get Fighting Chance in War on Cancer."
return to top
Q : Is there a list of companies that don't test on animals? What about a list of those that do?
A : We do not maintain such a list ourselves, nor can we verify the accuracy of the lists that are available. Please be aware that the various lists given below may use different criteria for which companies they include.
The Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics (CCIC) offers a list of companies that have adopted a "Corporate Standard of Compassion for Animals," agreeing not to test on animals during any stage of product development. This "shopping guide" is available online at http://www.leapingbunny.org/shopping_guide.htm . Or, they will mail you a free wallet-sized copy of the guide.
The National Anti-Vivisectionist Society offers a book for sale ($9.50) called "Personal Care for People Who Care." It briefly discusses some of the tests used and some of the alternatives, and it provides different symbols to indicate whether a given company does no animal testing whatsoever, versus one that may buy ingredients tested on animals and so forth. You can reach them by calling 1-800-888-NAVS or by writing to NAVS, 53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1552, Chicago, IL 60604.
The American Anti-Vivisectionist Society (AAVS) offers a free "Guide to Compassionate Shopping," which you can order online at http://aavs.org/./laboratories02.html . Or you can write to them at 801 Old York Rd. #204, Jenkintown, PA 19046, call (215) 887-0816, or fax (215) 887-2008.
return to top
Q : What does "cruelty-free" or "not tested on animals" really mean?
A : It can mean different things to different companies. Many cosmetics companies now advertise their products as "cruelty-free" or "not tested on animals." The U.S. government doesn't regulate the use of these terms, however, so the labels don't always mean the same thing. For example, "not tested on animals" may mean that the company attempts to determine the safety of finished products, made from ingredients known to be safe, using in vitro and other alternatives, including the use of human volunteers. Or, it may mean that the company doesn't test on animals itself but may buy ingredients from companies that do. Or it doesn't test final products on animals but does test ingredients on animals. Or it doesn't manufacture or buy any products or ingredients that have been tested on animals beyond a fixed cutoff date. Or the product and/or its ingredients have not been animal-tested within the past five years.
Be aware, too, that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration requires animal testing for pharmaceuticals and certain other products. This is not the case for cosmetics and toiletries, however. These items have to be tested to ensure customer safety, but they don't necessarily have to be tested on animals. This is where you'll see the words "cruelty-free" or "not tested on animals" on a product label.
For a good discussion of cruelty-free labeling, go to the Center for Laboratory Animal Welfare website at: http://www.labanimalwelfare.org/product_testing.html#crueltyfree .
return to top
Q : How can I be sure my cosmetics are safe, if they haven't been tested on animals?
A : New products still must undergo rigorous safety testing--whether they are tested on animals or not. These days, a cosmetics manufacturer may rely on some combination of computer modeling, in vitro tests, and trials with human volunteers, instead of on animal tests. The bottom line, however, is that all ingredients used in making cosmetics either have been tested on animals at some point or are known to be safe based on decades of use.
return to top
Q : Why do most large companies test their products on animals while many smaller companies can produce high-quality products without animal testing?
A : By law, all manufacturers must generate data proving their products are safe. This is easier to do if a company is small and makes a limited range of products using ingredients already known to be safe. Larger companies, which often create ingredients as well as final products, face a more difficult problem: they must ensure that new, previously untested ingredients are safe. Even in these cases, the company generally will conduct a series of non-animal tests before testing the new ingredient on animals. In this way, they often can reduce the number animals needed and cause less pain or suffering the animals that are tested on.
In some cases, companies that advertise themselves as "cruelty-free" actually purchase animal-tested ingredients from large companies to use in their "not tested on animals" products.
return to top
Q : What kinds of tests are done?
A : For product safety purposes, there are two basic types of tests used to assess the risks of routine or accidental exposure to various products. Acute-toxicity tests evaluate the risk of short-term exposure through normal use, accidental contact with the eyes or skin, and accidental ingestion. Chronic-toxicity tests assess the effects of long-term exposure--often at low levels--to certain substances. Here, researchers are looking at such things as the potential to cause cancer, birth defects, and developmental abnormalities.
The two tests that probably have caused the most public outcry are both examples of acute-toxicity tests. The Draize eye irritancy test uses rabbits to estimate the ability of a test substance to irritate or damage the eye. This involves putting the test substance into one of the rabbit's eyes and then scoring changes in various parts of the eye as compared to the untreated eye over a 7-day period.
This test was the subject of a major protest campaign in 1980, which ultimately led to substantial changes in the cosmetics industry and to greatly increased efforts toward the development of non-animal alternatives. Many companies no longer use the Draize test at all, though non-animal methods have not yet replaced it altogether. Where it is still used, the number of rabbits has been reduced dramatically, and the techniques have been refined considerably, using much lower dosages of the test chemicals and providing an anesthetic to ease the pain.
The other acute-toxicity test that has gotten a lot of publicity is called the LD50 test. LD50 means "lethal dose 50 percent." This test estimates the dosage of a substance needed to kill 50% of a group of rats or other test animals. In this test, groups of animals are given doses of particular chemical agent, such as a household product, to find out the amount needed to kill half of the animal subjects. The classic LD50 test has been banned in parts of Europe, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has announced that it no longer supports use of this test. Alternative methods still involve animals, but the numbers have been reduced and the techniques refined.
The Foundation for Biomedical Research (FBR) gives an extensive discussion of the Draize test. You can find their Animal Research Facts section at: http://www.fbresearch.org/facts.html . Then look for "Draize test" under "General Research Information." FBR is quite pro-research.
The Center for Laboratory Animal Welfare site offers a section on product safety testing, including a discussion of tests used. Their address is: http://www.labanimalwelfare.org/product_testing.html#product . This site takes an alternatives approach to the issues.
The Kids-4-Research site also has sections on product safety testing, including brief descriptions of some of the tests used. You can find them at: http://www.kids4research.org/ . As its name suggests, this site is pro-research.
return to top
Q : What products are tested?
A : Most products manufactured for human use must be tested for safety before they can be sold to the public. This includes drugs and vaccines (for both people and animals), cosmetics, shampoo and other personal care products, food additives, food packaging, household cleaners, pesticides, industrial chemicals, fabric treatments, and more.
return to top
Q : What kinds of animals are used in testing?
A : Rats and mice make up the vast majority (probably 85-90%) of animals used in research, education, and testing. Rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, dogs, cats, non-human primates, and assorted other animals are studied as well. Dogs, cats, and primates together comprise about 1% of research animals. The particular kind of animal varies with the kind of testing being done.
The Kids 4 Research web site ( http://www.kids4research.org/ ) has a section about the animals used for various kinds of research. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) site offers some figures on the numbers and kinds of animals used at http://www.hsus.org/ace/12509 .
return to top
Q : Where do scientists get their laboratory animals?
A : The vast majority of laboratory animals are mice and rats that were bred specifically for research. Nearly half of the dogs and cats used in research were bred for that purpose as well. Animal dealers are the primary source for the rest. They must be licensed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and must adhere to Animal Welfare Act standards of care. Some research facilities do get dog and cats from shelters and pounds, but this is subject to much stricter regulation than it once was. In many cases, state laws and local policies prevent this.
For a Humane Society (HSUS) statement against using animals from the pound for research purposes, go to http://www.hsus.org/ace/11431 .
For the Foundation for Biomedical Research view of the pet theft issue, go to http://www.fbresearch.org/facts.html .
return to top
Q : Has anyone stopped using animals?
A : The cosmetics industry, which 20 years ago tested nearly all its products on animals, has come close. Many companies have reduced their use of whole-animal testing by as much as 80 or 90%. Some have eliminated it altogether. One estimate suggests that the U.S. cosmetics industry as a whole has cut their use of animals for eye irritation tests by 87%. Eye irritation tests on rabbits were the subject of the first successful protest against animal testing back in 1980. Since that time, many cosmetics companies have put considerable money and effort into the search for alternatives to animal testing--which is part of why their animal use has dropped so dramatically. (The other part is that most ingredients used in cosmetics have already been tested on animal or shown to be safe through years of use.)
return to top
Q : What can I do to help?
A : One of the most important ways you can help is to learn as much as you can about alternatives to animal testing and then share that information with other people. The more people know about alternatives, the better. Be sure to tell them about all 3 Rs--reduction and refinement, as well as replacement.
If you're a student, write a report or give a talk at school. Suggest alternatives, where possible, if the question of dissection or animal experiments comes up in biology class, in science fairs or science projects. (See the FAQ about alternatives to dissection for more information on this issue.) It isn't enough just to protest against abuses of animals. We also need to raise a new generation of scientists who truly understand and care about these matters, and who will work to develop and use alternatives to animal testing. You can help make that happen.
You also can write, e-mail, or call your elected officials, federal and state regulatory agencies, and industry representatives and tell them we need to develop more alternative tests, we need to get those alternative methods that already exist scientifically validated, and we need to encourage government regulatory agencies to accept new alternatives methods so companies can start using them. Even if you're not yet of voting age, your voice can make a difference.
As you may be aware, you also can make a difference by choosing to support those companies that support alternatives to animal testing. Be aware, though, that this isn't a simple matter of looking for the words "cruelty-free" or "not tested on animals" on a product label. Please see the "cruelty-free labeling" FAQ for more information on this issue.
return to top
Q : Will you add me to your mailing list?
A : Gladly. To receive monthly e-mail updates, just send an e-mail to altweb@jhsph.edu with your name and the e-mail address you want the updates sent to.
return to top
Q : Can you send me pictures of laboratory animals?
A : As a firm and general policy we do not send pictures. Other organizations may be able to help you find the photographs you need.
return to top
Q : Where can I find information about research grants?
A : Altweb offers a directory of funding sources for alternatives research. You can find this at http://altweb.jhsph.edu/databases/funding/funding.htm . You also can check Grants Net, located at http://www.grantsnet.org . You will need to register with them, but it is a free service.
Animal Testing I Alternatives to Animal Testing I Cruelty Free Shopping and Buying I Cruelty Free Eating and Shopping I Charities and Animal Testing I List of Charities that Test on Animals I List of Charities that Don't Test on Animals I List of Companies that Test on Animals I List of Companies that Do Not Test on Animals I Animal Rights Websites I Animal Rights Books I Animal Rights Organizations I Health Issues and Animal Rights I Photos and Videos I Companion Animals (Pets) and Animal Rights I Animal Sanctuaries I Famous People / Quotes I Art and Culture and Animal Rights I RSS Feed I GEARI Blog I E Mail List Serve / Newsletter I Boycotts I Letter From the Author I Mission Statement I Contact GEARI I Link to GEARI I Help Keep GEARI Going - Donate to GEARI I Search GEARI.org I Additional Animal Rights Resources - Animal Rights Directories
For any additional questions and/or concerns, please visit our Contact GEARI page, or email:
justin@geari.org
The GEARI Store
Simple, Effective and Unique Messages to Open Minds and Increase Awareness
Send an Intelligent Message Without Saying a Word
Current
Awareness and Animal Rights News From the GEARI Blog:
News and Information as it Changes.
* Ohio Pet Antifreeze Poisoning Bill (H.B. 96) - Require Antifreeze Manufacturers to Increase Bitterness in Taste of Products to Prevent Poisoning Dogs
* Calico Dragon Bags: New Handbag Line With Bold Messages All About Animals and Their Rights, or Lack of Rights Rather
* NPR: Early Animal Rights Poem: “A Mouse’s Pleaâ€: A Touching Story of an Early Animal Rights Pioneer
* United States Supreme Court Rejects Ban on Videos of Animal Cruelty: Sickos Given the Legal Green Light to Film their Sick Abusive Torture Practices
* Website on World Animal Day – 4 October Every Year
XML FeedRSS Feed
Subscribe
Bookmark and Share
Bookmark and Share
Follow GEARI on Twitter
http://twitter.com/geari
Support GEARI:
Buy Cruelty-Free Products through these sources and Support GEARI!
GEARI Recomme…
Vegan Cupcakes Take Over the World: 75 D…
Isa Chandra M…
$10.85
V-dogfood
V-dogfood, LLC
$37.00
Garmont Men's Kiowa Vegan Hiking Boot,Forest…
Garmont
$86.86
Student's Vegetarian Cookbook, Revised: Qu…
Carole Raymo…
$10.04
Vegetarian Meals For People On-The-Go :…
Vimala Rodger…
$12.21
1234>
Amazon.com
Get WidgetPrivacy
Search Amazon.…
Showing 1 - 6 of 50 results
Vegan with a Vengeance …
Isa Chandra M…
$12.21
Veganomicon: The Ultimat…
Isa Chandra M…
$17.39
Deva Vegan Vitamins Da…
DEVA Vegan …
$22.92
Becoming Vegan: The …
Brenda Davis, …
$13.57
Vegan Cupcakes T…
Isa Chandra M…
$10.85
Bungalow360 Vegan Wall…
Bungalow
$18.00
12345>
Amazon.com
Get WidgetPrivacy
Custom Search
Vimala Rodger…
cover - May 1, 2002)
Vimala Rodger…
Bungalow
Bungalow
Bungalow
Animal Testing Alternatives
Authoritative, timely and relevant animal rights information for your research needs.
GEARI is a non-profit, educational group dedicated to assisting you in your search for animal rights related information as well as to raising awareness to the many issues affecting other-than human animals, the environment and human health. We are dedicated to providing you with relevant, timely, and authoritative animal rights related information. We seek to be your reference source and starting point for animal rights related information and research.
More About Our Mission
Information We Cover
*
Animal Rights Books
*
Animal Rights Directories
*
Animal Rights Information Resources
*
Animal Rights Organizations
*
Animal Rights Web Sites - By Issue
*
Animal Testing
*
Companies and Charities that Do and Do Not Test on Animals
*
Companion Animals (Pets) and Animal Rights
*
Cruelty Free Companies
*
Entertainment Issues - Zoos, Circuses, Traveling Animal Acts, etc.
*
Environmental Issues and Animal Rights
*
Food Issues and Animal Rights
*
Health Issues and Animal Rights
*
Information for Individual or School Research Projects
*
Photos and Videos - In Vivisection Labs, Slaughterhouses, etc.
Google
Web www.geari.org
delicious Delicious Tags - Find the Information you Need by Keyword
* AfricaAnimalRights
* AlternativestoAnimalTesting
* AmericanHorseSlaughterPreventionAct
* AnimalAbuse
* AnimalCruelty
* AnimalEnterpriseTerrorismAct
* AnimalExperiments
* AnimalRights
* AnimalRightsLegislation
* AnimalsInEntertainment
* AnimalsLeftInCars
* AnimalTesting
* AustraliaAnimalRights
* BearHunting
* CaliforniaAnimalRights
* CanadianBabySealSlaughter
* CanadianSealHunt
* CannedHunting
* Cats
* CelebritiesAndAnimalRights
* China
* ChinaAndAnimalRights
* ChinaandCrueltytoAnimals
* ClonedMeat
* Cloning
* CockFighting
* CrueltyFreeCompanies
* CrueltyFreeLiving
* Culling
* DogFighting
* DogFur,
* DogKilling
* DogKilling,
* DogRacing
* Dogs
* DutchAnimalRights
* EatingDogs
* Eggs
* ElephantAbuseInZoos
* ElephantDeathsInZoos
* Elephants
* ElephantsAbuse
* ElephantsInCaptivity
* ElephantsInZoos
* EndangeredSpecies
* EnglandAnimalRights
* EuropeanUnion
* Extinction
* FarmAnimals
* FBI
* FBIAnimalRights
* Fur
* GreyhoundRacing
* Greyhounds
* HorseRacing
* Horses
* HorseSlaughter
* Hunting
* HuntingdonLifeSciences
* Iditarod
* IditarodCruelty
* IllegalWildlifeTrade
* IndiaAnimalRights
* IsrealiInvasion
* Legislation
* LitigationAnimalRights
* LiveAnimalKilling
* MedicalSchoolsAnimalTesting
* MenuDogCatFoodRecall
* PetShops
* PetStores
* PharmaceuticalAnimalTesting
* PharmaceuticalIndustry
* Pharmaceuticals
* Poaching
* PoliticsAnimalRights
* Primates
* PrimatesAnimalTesting
* PuppyMills
* RareSpecies
* ReligionAndAnimalRights
* ScotlandAnimalRights
* SealClubbing
* SealSlaughter
* Sheep
* slaughterhouses
* SlaughterMethods
* UCLA
* UnitedStates
* UniversitesAndCollegesAndAnimalAbuse
* VeganShampooSoapShoesClothes
* Vegetarianism
* Vivisection
* War
* Whales
* Whaling
* Wildlife
* WildLifeKilling
* ZooDeaths
* Zoos
animalrightsresources I am animalrightsresources on Delicious
delicious Add me to your network
Help Keep the GEARI Blog and the Mission of GEARI Alive.
Make a Secure Donation.
Donation Funds Go to Server Costs for geari.org and for Costs Associated With Research Resources We Use.
Thank You.
Google
Custom Search
Animal Testing I Alternatives to Animal Testing I How to Shop and Buy Cruelty Free I Cruelty Free Shopping and Buying of Personal Products, Cosmetics, Cleaners, Food, Clothes I Cruelty Free Eating and Shopping I Charities and Animal Testing I List of Charities that Test on Animals I List of Charities that Don't Test on Animals I List of Companies that Test on Animals I List of Companies that Do Not Test on Animals I Animal Rights Websites I Animal Rights Books I Animal Rights Organizations I Health Issues and Animal Rights I Photos and Videos I Companion Animals (Pets) and Animal Rights I Animal Sanctuaries I Famous People / Quotes I Art and Culture and Animal Rights I RSS Feed I GEARI Blog I Mission Statement I Contact GEARI I Link to GEARI I Help Keep GEARI Going - Donate to GEARI I Search GEARI.org I Additional Research Tools for Animal Rights Related Information
For any additional questions and/or concerns, please visit our Contact GEARI page, or email:
justin@geari.org
Last Revised 8-1-09
The GEARI Store
Simple, Effective and Unique Messages to Open Minds and Increase Awareness
Send an Intelligent Message Without Saying a Word
Current
Awareness and Animal Rights News From the GEARI Blog:
News and Information as it Changes.
* Ohio Pet Antifreeze Poisoning Bill (H.B. 96) - Require Antifreeze Manufacturers to Increase Bitterness in Taste of Products to Prevent Poisoning Dogs
* Calico Dragon Bags: New Handbag Line With Bold Messages All About Animals and Their Rights, or Lack of Rights Rather
* NPR: Early Animal Rights Poem: “A Mouse’s Pleaâ€: A Touching Story of an Early Animal Rights Pioneer
* United States Supreme Court Rejects Ban on Videos of Animal Cruelty: Sickos Given the Legal Green Light to Film their Sick Abusive Torture Practices
* Website on World Animal Day – 4 October Every Year
XML FeedRSS Feed
Subscribe
Bookmark and Share
Bookmark and Share
Follow GEARI on Twitter
http://twitter.com/geari
Support GEARI:
Buy Cruelty-Free Products through these sources and Support GEARI!
GEARI Recomme…
Vegetarian Times (1-year)
Active Interes…
$12.00
Vegetarian Cooking for Everyone
Deborah Madi…
$25.30
Student's Vegetarian Cookbook, Revised: Qu…
Carole Raymo…
$10.04
Vegetarian Journal
Vegetarian Re…
$20.00
Vegan Cupcakes Take Over the World: 75 D…
Isa Chandra M…
$10.85
1234>
Amazon.com
Get WidgetPrivacy
Search Amazon.…
Showing 1 - 6 of 50 results
Vegan with a Vengeance …
Isa Chandra M…
$12.21
Veganomicon: The Ultimat…
Isa Chandra M…
$17.39
Deva Vegan Vitamins Da…
DEVA Vegan …
$22.92
Becoming Vegan: The …
Brenda Davis, …
$13.57
Vegan Cupcakes T…
Isa Chandra M…
$10.85
Bungalow360 Vegan Wall…
Bungalow
$18.00
12345>
Amazon.com
Get WidgetPrivacy
Google
Custom Search
Isa Chandra M…
, 2006)
Isa Chandra M…
Bungalow
Bungalow
Bungalow
GEARI is a non-profit, educational group dedicated to assisting you in your search for animal rights related information as well as to raising awareness to the many issues affecting other-than human animals, the environment and human health. We are dedicated to providing you with relevant, timely, and authoritative animal rights related information. We seek to be your reference source and starting point for animal rights related information and research.
More About Our Mission
Information We Cover
*
Animal Rights Books
*
Animal Rights Directories
*
Animal Rights Information Resources
*
Animal Rights Organizations
*
Animal Rights Web Sites - By Issue
*
Animal Testing
*
Companies and Charities that Do and Do Not Test on Animals
*
Companion Animals (Pets) and Animal Rights
*
Cruelty Free Companies
*
Entertainment Issues - Zoos, Circuses, Traveling Animal Acts, etc.
*
Environmental Issues and Animal Rights
*
Food Issues and Animal Rights
*
Health Issues and Animal Rights
*
Information for Individual or School Research Projects
*
Photos and Videos - In Vivisection Labs, Slaughterhouses, etc.
Web www.geari.org
delicious Delicious Tags - Find the Information you Need by Keyword
* AfricaAnimalRights
* AlternativestoAnimalTesting
* AmericanHorseSlaughterPreventionAct
* AnimalAbuse
* AnimalCruelty
* AnimalEnterpriseTerrorismAct
* AnimalExperiments
* AnimalRights
* AnimalRightsLegislation
* AnimalsInEntertainment
* AnimalsLeftInCars
* AnimalTesting
* AustraliaAnimalRights
* BearHunting
* CaliforniaAnimalRights
* CanadianBabySealSlaughter
* CanadianSealHunt
* CannedHunting
* Cats
* CelebritiesAndAnimalRights
* China
* ChinaAndAnimalRights
* ChinaandCrueltytoAnimals
* ClonedMeat
* Cloning
* CockFighting
* CrueltyFreeCompanies
* CrueltyFreeLiving
* Culling
* DogFighting
* DogFur,
* DogKilling
* DogKilling,
* DogRacing
* Dogs
* DutchAnimalRights
* EatingDogs
* Eggs
* ElephantAbuseInZoos
* ElephantDeathsInZoos
* Elephants
* ElephantsAbuse
* ElephantsInCaptivity
* ElephantsInZoos
* EndangeredSpecies
* EnglandAnimalRights
* EuropeanUnion
* Extinction
* FarmAnimals
* FBI
* FBIAnimalRights
* Fur
* GreyhoundRacing
* Greyhounds
* HorseRacing
* Horses
* HorseSlaughter
* Hunting
* HuntingdonLifeSciences
* Iditarod
* IditarodCruelty
* IllegalWildlifeTrade
* IndiaAnimalRights
* IsrealiInvasion
* Legislation
* LitigationAnimalRights
* LiveAnimalKilling
* MedicalSchoolsAnimalTesting
* MenuDogCatFoodRecall
* PetShops
* PetStores
* PharmaceuticalAnimalTesting
* PharmaceuticalIndustry
* Pharmaceuticals
* Poaching
* PoliticsAnimalRights
* Primates
* PrimatesAnimalTesting
* PuppyMills
* RareSpecies
* ReligionAndAnimalRights
* ScotlandAnimalRights
* SealClubbing
* SealSlaughter
* Sheep
* slaughterhouses
* SlaughterMethods
* UCLA
* UnitedStates
* UniversitesAndCollegesAndAnimalAbuse
* VeganShampooSoapShoesClothes
* Vegetarianism
* Vivisection
* War
* Whales
* Whaling
* Wildlife
* WildLifeKilling
* ZooDeaths
* Zoos
animalrightsresources I am animalrightsresources on Delicious
delicious Add me to your network
Help Keep the GEARI Blog and the Mission of GEARI Alive.
Make a Secure Donation.
Donation Funds Go to Server Costs for geari.org and for Costs Associated With Research Resources We Use.
Thank You.
Custom Search
Animal Testing I Alternatives to Animal Testing I How to Shop and Buy Cruelty Free I Cruelty Free Shopping and Buying of Personal Products, Cosmetics, Cleaners, Food, Clothes I Cruelty Free Eating and Shopping I Charities and Animal Testing I List of Charities that Test on Animals I List of Charities that Don't Test on Animals I List of Companies that Test on Animals I List of Companies that Do Not Test on Animals I Animal Rights Websites I Animal Rights Books I Animal Rights Organizations I Health Issues and Animal Rights I Photos and Videos I Companion Animals (Pets) and Animal Rights I Animal Sanctuaries I Famous People / Quotes I Art and Culture and Animal Rights I RSS Feed I GEARI Blog I Mission Statement I Contact GEARI I Link to GEARI I Help Keep GEARI Going - Donate to GEARI I Search GEARI.org I Additional Research Tools for Animal Rights Related Information
For any additional questions and/or concerns, please visit our Contact GEARI page, or email:
justin@geari.org
Last Revised 8-1-09
The GEARI Store
Simple, Effective and Unique Messages to Open Minds and Increase Awareness
Send an Intelligent Message Without Saying a Word
Current
Awareness and Animal Rights News From the GEARI Blog:
News and Information as it Changes.
* Ohio Pet Antifreeze Poisoning Bill (H.B. 96) - Require Antifreeze Manufacturers to Increase Bitterness in Taste of Products to Prevent Poisoning Dogs
* Calico Dragon Bags: New Handbag Line With Bold Messages All About Animals and Their Rights, or Lack of Rights Rather
* NPR: Early Animal Rights Poem: “A Mouse’s Pleaâ€: A Touching Story of an Early Animal Rights Pioneer
* United States Supreme Court Rejects Ban on Videos of Animal Cruelty: Sickos Given the Legal Green Light to Film their Sick Abusive Torture Practices
* Website on World Animal Day – 4 October Every Year
XML FeedRSS Feed
Subscribe
Bookmark and Share
Bookmark and Share
Follow GEARI on Twitter
http://twitter.com/geari
Support GEARI:
Buy Cruelty-Free Products through these sources and Support GEARI!
GEARI Recomme…
Vegetarian Times (1-year)
Active Interes…
$12.00
Vegetarian Cooking for Everyone
Deborah Madi…
$25.30
Student's Vegetarian Cookbook, Revised: Qu…
Carole Raymo…
$10.04
Vegetarian Journal
Vegetarian Re…
$20.00
Vegan Cupcakes Take Over the World: 75 D…
Isa Chandra M…
$10.85
1234>
Amazon.com
Get WidgetPrivacy
Search Amazon.…
Showing 1 - 6 of 50 results
Vegan with a Vengeance …
Isa Chandra M…
$12.21
Veganomicon: The Ultimat…
Isa Chandra M…
$17.39
Deva Vegan Vitamins Da…
DEVA Vegan …
$22.92
Becoming Vegan: The …
Brenda Davis, …
$13.57
Vegan Cupcakes T…
Isa Chandra M…
$10.85
Bungalow360 Vegan Wall…
Bungalow
$18.00
12345>
Amazon.com
Get WidgetPrivacy
Custom Search
Isa Chandra M…
, 2006)
Isa Chandra M…
Bungalow
Bungalow
Bungalow
Sci Fi Article
Promenade #8
The World Divided
by
Amitakh Stanford
22nd July 2008
The world affairs are very much influenced and monitored by the alien powers. The Reptilians and the Vulturites have thus far been the two most powerful alien influences on human affairs. Within the Reptilian ranks, there are two distinct factions: one seeks conquest and control via religions; the other uses a secular approach. Presently, these two factions within the Reptilian ranks are at loggerheads.
As I wrote in The Revised Anunnaki Protocols - The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, the Reptilians had a unified agenda for world dominance that entailed the merging of the British Empire with the Catholic Empire for ultimate world control, the former of which was primarily directed by the Secular Reptilians, whilst the latter was primarily influenced by the Religious Reptilians.
As part of this plan, the British were influenced by their Reptilian controllers to instigate the American rebellion in the mid-eighteenth century. The British planned on crushing this rebellion and making it an example for all of their colonies that might consider resisting British rule.
As a very unusual response to world events, the Attas of the True Light intervened in the American rebellion, and supported the colonists, which resulted in a full-blown revolution that was won by the virtually impotent colonists. Even today, most people attribute the miracle of the victory to God, but very few have suspected that it was the workings of the True Light God that won the day for the colonists. The God of this world is the Principle of Darkness. Most think it was the God of this world (Darkness) who assisted the colonists, because people do not suspect that the God that appears most often in the Bible is the Principle of Darkness. Very few realize that Jesus has very little to do with the Bible, and even less to do with Christianity, although His name has been hijacked by the ruling elite and inserted in the Bible for their own agenda. Further, the religion known as Christianity was created by the ruling elite in absolute opposition to what Jesus stands for.
When the British were defeated by the colonists, the Reptilian plan for world conquest had to be revised. The new plans encompassed plans within the plans. The Secular Reptilians had always secretly planned on crushing the power of the Religious Reptilians. This means that the Church would have been curtailed if the British Empire and the Catholic Empire had been merged after the anticipated defeat of the American colonists.
With the American colonists' victory, the Reptilian ruling elite totally revised its plans and invited nearly all of the alien groups on Earth to participate in the Alternate Alien Plan for the New World Order. There has always been a tacit agreement amongst the aliens on Earth, for their own particular benefits, to keep their respective existences on Earth secret from humans. The Reptilians were so strong prior to the American Revolution that no other alien group could challenge them. However, it was their defeat that forced the Reptilians to involve the other groups, who saw The Revised Anunnaki Protocols as an opportunity for a slice of the NWO "glory".
Hence, the Reptilians are not united in their push for the NWO. The Secular Reptilians believe that "iron fist" policies are much easier and more effective to employ without the "baggage" of religions. However, the Religious Reptilians enjoy being worshipped and they desire the adoration from their subjects. That is, the Secular Reptilians are more prone to rule by oppression, whilst the Religious Reptilians enjoy mocking the humans by watching them worship and offer sacrifices to the Anunnaki "god".
On the other hand, the Vulturites have blended their secular and religious factions and constructed a formidable alien group that can swing with the times, sometimes leaning more towards the secular, whilst other times swinging more towards the religious. The Vulturites realize that they must put unity above any differences within the group in order to stand up to the far more powerful Reptilians.
Even now, the Reptilians continue to disagree amongst themselves, which has given the Vulturites the opportunity to grow stronger. Right now, due to various advantages and certain daring opportunistic manoeuvres that the Vulturites have undertaken, the two sides are nearly on par with one another.
Aliens in human bodies are disadvantaged in the sense that they are unable to receive direct "orders" from their alien "bosses". This is because the human bodies have filtering mechanisms in them in order to keep all of them in ignorance. This is frustrating for all types of beings who attempt to do any work on Earth in human bodies. This system was intentionally set up by Darkness to protect Its powers.
Because of the difficulties that Reptilians in alien bodies have in communicating the "orders" to the Reptilian agents in human bodies, mix ups and confusion often occur. Time is of the essence, and it is unlikely that the Reptilians have enough time to mend their differences and unify against the Vulturites before it is too late for them. Therefore, it will be necessary for the stronger Secular Reptilians to move on their own, and very soon, or all Reptilians will be greatly disadvantaged.
The Vulturites have been able to lead NATO ever eastward, which has allowed them to collect more and more power bases, which has further strengthened their positions. If the Vulturites are allowed to continue their forward advancement unchecked, it could change the course of things in the world. However, the Vulturites have spread their forces too thin in taking all of the daring steps. If they continue their "conquests" by extending their military operations into a conflict with Iran, or if they have to pour a lot of resources into protecting Israel at this time, the risk of loss is very high.
It appears that the Vulturites have begun to recognize how precarious their situation is, because they are beginning to back off from their bluffs against Iran, and have directed Israel to take a more reasonable stance in dealing with certain groups in the Middle-East. The Vulturites have not backed off on their plan for world conquest, they are just trying to pull back enough to re-group, re-fresh their militaries, and solidify their positions for subsequent battles. If the Vulturites are allowed to do this, the Reptilians will be severely disadvantaged.
Both sides of the ruling elite are keeping the media low-key on reporting significant political, financial and military events around the world. The Reptilians are now at a crossroads which could determine who will be the ultimate controller of the Earth. Their plans have changed slightly in some ways. The Secular Reptilians had planned to steadily build up their positions and military assets until the opportunity was ripe for the picking. They had planned to denude the Religious Reptilians and the Vulturites in one fell swoop, which would have worked if the Vulturites had not been so aggressive.
Many events that have shaped the world today are difficult to comprehend because alien agendas are hidden from human eyes. I will list several major events that have greatly affected human affairs in the past few centuries by stating the alien plans and conflicts along with the victorious sides.
The American Revolution was a concerted effort by both the Religious and Secular Reptilians, however, it was a total failure for the Reptilians because the Attas of the Light intervened to protect the Rescue Mission, and to deter the horrendous plan the Reptilians had for the world. Thus, the Reptilian plan was thwarted. This incident had co-incidental effects, which led to many different alien groups coming forward to challenge the Reptilians for supremacy over the Earth. The Reptilians had previously enjoyed controlling the Earth via the Secular Empire of the United Kingdom and the Religious Empire of the Catholic Church.
The Secular Reptilians were forced to alter their plans for world conquest. This led to the pretence that other alien groups were allowed to participate in the world domination by the Reptilians. All the while, the Reptilians intended to discard or subjugate all of the minor alien groups, and the Vulturites. Further, the Secular Reptilians planned on quashing the power of the Religious Reptilians when they took over.
The introduction of Darwinian evolutionary theory was engineered by the Secular Reptilians to reduce the global influence of religions and spur the influence of science throughout the world. This strategy proved so appealing to the ego of humans and aliens in human bodies, that it has gained enormous acceptance throughout the academic world. This has, in turn, given the Secular Reptilians immense power over the Religious Reptilians.
World War I was instigated by the Secular Reptilians, which they were extraordinarily successful in implementing and executing. As a result of this tremendous success for the Secular Reptilians, two enormous nations were eventually brought under secular control. Those were the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the People's Republic of China.
To counter the huge gains being made by the Secular Reptilians, the Religious Reptilians brought about the Great Depression of the 1930s by collapsing the finances worldwide, and brought Adolf Hitler to power in Nazi Germany. Hitler formed the axis powers by combining various nations that were under the domination of the Religious Reptilians, which most notably included Italy and Japan. Whilst some people might find it surprising that Religious Reptilians would involve themselves in wars, it should be remembered that Religious Reptilians can be brutally totalitarian and militaristic. This is evidenced by the Inquisitions and the Crusades.
Whilst outwardly Hitler's regime appeared to be focused on white supremacy issues, underlying Hitler's power base was predominately the Church, although there were other forces aligning, particularly in the case of Japan joining the axis powers. Regardless of what history has recorded or how things appear on the surface, Hitler's two ultimate targets were the U.S.S.R. and China.
As the Religious Reptilians began sweeping through Europe, there was not too much resistance from either the United Kingdom or the United States because at the time, both nations were under the influence of the Religious Reptilians. However, there was a shift in power during the course of World War II, and both the United States and Great Britain came under the influence of Secular Reptilians, and they in turn drove all their forces against the axis powers. The astonishing defeat of the Religious Reptilians in WWII has resulted in a tremendous turn of events, and empowered the Secular Reptilians, who have had the upper hand ever since. The Religious Reptilians' desperate, all-out attempt at world conquest by backing Aldolf Hitler and the axis parties proved disastrous for them.
Ironically, the nation of Israel was formed by the Secular Reptilians who were in power in Great Britain. This was a shift, since the Jewish people had been under the watchful eyes of the Religious Reptilians up to that point.
The Religious Reptilians took power temporarily in both the United States and the U.S.S.R., which resulted in the dismantling of the latter nation into 13 separate nation states. This move caused a major set-back for the Secular Reptilians. When the Religious Reptilians joined forces in the late twentieth century, it led to the dismantling of the U.S.S.R. and the Eastern Bloc in Europe. However, when the Vulturites were given what were hoped to be temporary reins of the U.S.A., they seized on the opportunity to drive NATO right up to the Russian frontiers.
The Secular Reptilians prefer a more totalitarian approach to things than the Religious Reptilians, as already mentioned. The Bill of Rights, which includes a citizen's right to bear arms, was very disruptive to the Secular Reptilians, so they decided to move their base from America to China. Before moving, they transferred information and technology to China. As soon as the Secular Reptilians moved out of the U.S., the Vulturites seized the opportunity, and became very aggressive.
Currently, NATO is predominately under the influence of the Vulturites. This sets a very explosive stage. Will the Secular Reptilians challenge the Vulturites now, or will the Vulturites take over control due to inaction by the Secular Reptilians? The Religious Reptilians have been incapacitated, and cannot mount a serious challenge at this time. This is due to many reasons. As people become more affluent, they are less concerned with spiritual matters and the after-life. They are more concerned with day-to-day living than with abstract promises of everlasting life.
There are four predominant alien groups on Earth. Two of them are the Religious and Secular Reptilians which I have already mentioned. The third is the Vulturites, and the fourth is the Greys.
The Greys are currently allied with the Reptilians, and they have vast numbers on the planet. The Greys have resided underground for so long that they have developed various physiological deficiencies due to their living situations. This has made it difficult for them to take on human bodies and live on the surface. Fluoride was found to assist them, so it has been added to drinking supplies where the Greys are located or re-locating to.
The nation of Israel is in a most precarious situation. The Zionists were being backed by the Religious Reptilians until those aliens backed Hitler to launch a war in Europe and eliminated many of the Jewish people. This is another example of the ruling elite playing out another version of good guys and bad guys under the same boss. The Jews were later assisted by the Secular Reptilians, who helped them to found the nation of Israel and had protected that nation until about the turn of the twenty-first century, when the Vulturites took over the protector role by default. However, the Vulturites have no desire to assist Israel, and only kept up the impression that they would for transitory political reasons. Israel has now become a big liability to the Vulturites, who will soon abandon it, leaving it without alien sponsorship in the midst of the alien wars. This means that Israel has to be very careful in all of its political and military operations, and guard itself against betrayals.
Australia is the launching pad for the NWO, and is undergoing transition from a democratic nation to a totalitarian one, even though the illusion of democracy is being maintained. Australia was a good stepping stone for the NWO because it has no express bill of rights, and there is no absolute right of the people to bear arms. Nearly all of the guns in Australia were restricted by staging a single "lone gunman" event in Port Arthur, Tasmania. As an example, the ruling elite has staged scores of "lone gunman" incidents in America without successfully taking the guns from the people. This is because Americans have a constitutional right to bear arms which the ruling elite has not been able to abolish, despite numerous attempts to do so.
Australia is a small nation with a relatively small military. Since it plays such an important role in the launching of the NWO, it is also a target. The nation will not be self governing for too long as it will succumb to external rule. This will happen when the Religious Reptilians currently in power in Australia are ousted by Secular Reptilians from another nation. It could entail a shooting war on Australian soil.
The death of Saddam Hussein was instigated by Vulturite-influenced agents after he was abandoned by the Secular Reptilians. Milosovich and Arafat were also removed by Vulturites after they were abandoned by the Reptilians. These three moves have strengthened the Vulturite positions much more than could have been expected.
The Reptilians planned to let the Vulturites do most of the dirty work and let them think that they were enjoying some victories. But, the situation is now out of control as the Vulturites grow in strength, even though they have stretched themselves too far. If the Vulturites are allowed enough time to re-group, they will re-commence their attacks and continue to erode the Reptilian territories until they have an overwhelming advantage over the Reptilians.
Hence, should the Reptilians delay their moves for too long, they will have a difficult match against the Vulturites. Right now the Vulturites are vulnerable because they have over-extended their resources. They could not effectively ward off a Reptilian strike at this time. Should the Secular Reptilians make their move now, they are almost assured a victory over the Vulturites.
As part of the ruling elites' plans, we live in a world where citizens are in a sense being subliminally attacked, manipulated, influenced and controlled by unseen forces. Drinking water is being bombarded with chemicals for many reasons. Mind control techniques infest the internet, and those who use it too much are in danger of being programmed considerably. These forces can come from many levels of existence, but, presently, the ruling elite is playing a key role by gathering information and programming people in the physical.
The ruling elite collect information on everyone in the world to use it against them by distorting whatever has gone on and to libel them when it suits their purposes. This is done to anyone whom the ruling elite perceive as a threat to their system.
Agents of the ruling elite are involved in many fields and have many branches throughout the world. The small town of Stanthorpe, Queensland, Australia is a hot spot of ruling elite activities. Further, it is an alien congregation point. There is a diversity of alien races residing in human bodies and even in alien bodies in the region. This is a formula for conflict, which many in Stanthorpe are feeling, but not really understanding.
Recently, there was a hard-fought attempt to resist forced amalgamation of shires, which Stanthorpe lost, and it was swallowed up into a super shire that includes what used to be many individual shires. Many of the surrounding shires house certain alien groups, whether in human bodies or otherwise. This part of the world contains many "twin" faces. That is, some of the residents have look-alike faces to people in diverse parts of the world. Ironically, the look-alike people in Australia are often in humble positions, whilst their counter-parts are often professional people in positions of high repute. It appears to be a dumping ground for alien clones. No wonder there is a support base in the area to maintain this activity.
In this small area, there is a vastly disproportionate payroll of ruling elite agents. These agents work for opposing parties, hence there is a battleground here that has been identified by some of the ruling elite, and they are having their agents keep tabs on the situation. The state government desired to take control of the Stanthorpe area. It is a special and isolated location. To break up the power structure in the community, Stanthorpe was targeted for swallowing up in a forced amalgamation of shires. Whilst many other shires were forced to amalgamate, the real target by the government was Stanthorpe.
Stanthorpe is a relatively wealthy community which attracts many artists and independent sorts of people. Many people are drawn to the community, but they often do not know why that is the case. Others have expressed a distinct unfriendliness about the town and say they sense something weird is going on there.
After the forced amalgamation, a newly formed shire called Southern Downs emerged, where a lot of data collecting is going on. Human and animal tissue and fluid samples are being collected and analysed in laboratories because there are so many aliens in the area. The purpose is nefarious. The data is being used to develop "poisons" to debilitate certain alien groups whilst leaving other alien groups relatively unharmed. This is a delicate process. It also injures certain humans, animals and plants in the process. This collateral damage is of no consequence to the ruling elite. In other words, the ruling elite are enacting an undeclared war on Stanthorpe and surrounding areas.
Incidentally, Australian patriots have also congregated in the surrounding areas. This is seen as a potential threat by the ruling elite. However, the Australian patriots are not too much of a concern to the government at this time because Australians have been effectively disarmed after a single, staged "lone gunman" episode took place in Port Arthur, Tasmania. Port Arthur housed a former prison that has been converted into a family tourist attraction. The "lone gunman" supposedly went on a rampage that could only be believed if he had been trained in mass murder tactics, which he had not. The news stories about him are non-credible; it is bizarre that they have been believed, but such is the power of propaganda. Immediately after the incident, gun ownership was severely curtailed. It could not have happened so swiftly and smoothly without a lot of support from the ruling elite. Many of the politicians here knew there was something very fishy about the Port Arthur incident. Clearly, the whole episode was done to disarm Australians in preparation for later takeover by the ruling elite.
Whilst Stanthorpe has been the main focus of many attacks by the ruling elite, they try to deflect attention by going after other areas simultaneously so as not to arouse suspicion. However, the New England Highway has been targeted by aliens with subtle beams to cause confusion, programming and physical accidents to occur on the stretch, especially between the towns of Warwick and Stanthorpe. There is a sleepy energy that is directed at the highway to cause numerous fatigue-related incidents. They are trying to programme people who drive through the corridor and to suck brain energy from the victims on the road. Some road signs that are ostensibly placed to remind people to drive safely have been physically placed to crowd the roadway, are painted with obnoxious colours, and have actually become road hazards. There are also signals being beamed at drivers to cause stupor and sudden uncontrollable sleepiness. In short, the aliens have declared war upon the motorists, particularly the truck drivers.
Orchards, vineyards and other agricultural enterprises have flourished in the area, but that is about to change because the ruling elite have other plans for the region, and they do not want it to be financially self-sufficient, like it was before the forced amalgamation. With the forced amalgamation, the shire lost its $13 million surplus to pay debts for the super shire - the Southern Downs - it was forced to join. The people in Stanthorpe fought the amalgamation, but the ruling elite programmed a vocal minority to go along with the amalgamation. This resulted in overturning the will of more than 80 percent of the community, who opposed the forced amalgamation. The people in the town are now starting to lament how they have been disadvantaged by the forced amalgamation. It is too late now.
Most agents who work for the ruling elite are unaware that they have been coded in a way unknown to them. The ruling elite are unaware that certain aliens opposed to them have the technology to detect their agents from a distance. In fact, it is possible to detect the number of ruling elite agents in any area. Unbeknown to them, the trackers have become the tracked because they leave such obvious "footprints" everywhere they go.
The ruling elite has declared war on Stanthorpe, which is one of the reasons we are here. However, the main reason is because the Atu-waa is also nearby, as is the earthly civilian headquarters for the Reptilians. We are also observing the underground alien bases that run for over 100 kilometres from Stanthorpe.
With so much alien activity, there are a lot of UFO sightings in the area. Sometimes, alien craft hover so daringly that they often do not even cloak their ships in invisibility shields. We watched one land and take off very near to our property. It did not even attempt to hide itself, but it did scramble our telephones whilst it was here.
Stanthorpe once banned Alsatian (German shepherd) dogs in 1939. This was a precursor to breed-banning that has taken hold worldwide. The ruling elite are frightened of big dogs. This is for several reasons. One reason is that dogs can sense aliens, and the big ones are threatening to them. In seizure situations, such as the one staged in Waco, Texas, the dogs were nearly the first thing the ruling elite forces killed before entering the compound. This tactic is used in many seizure situations worldwide, from small scale to large-scale events. In other words, dogs are often killed to clear the way for the arrests.
Like it is represented in the board game of Risk, Australia is so isolated that it becomes a strong strategic point for world conquest. It is close to Antarctica, which will be a very significant place once the polar ice in the Northern Hemisphere vanishes.
Ata-i-lek has recently spent ten days in Australia, with most of his stay near Sydney. He and others have had an energy feast drawing off energy from tens of thousands of young people especially. The Religious Reptilians have been building an energy force in New South Wales, Australia. The main events took place within 500 miles of the Atu-waa, which was no co-incidence. The Light watched these events very closely.
Leading up to and during Ata-i-lek's visit, the news media blanketed the airwaves with a story about a convicted paedophile and another about a surgeon charged with manslaughter. The media has certain "cover" stories that they present whenever the need arises to distract the public. Child kidnapping and child murders happen every day, but there are a few that attract international attention, and appear in the news whenever they are needed. The readers probably know exactly which ones I am referring to, and whenever they see them re-appear in the news, they should be questioning what is really behind the most current resurrection of these stories. Another favourite news tactic is to place undue emphasis on various unimportant political elections around the world.
The news media is now using inexperienced and less qualified presenters to address the non-stories. Also, the media is extracting foolish statements from people they interview and using short video clips to then stir up the public at large. If they interview enough people, they will be able to cut-and-paste until they have their silly sound bytes to support whatever they are pushing.
The media can build or break celebrities and organizations. The ruling elite know how to use propaganda wars, so the various alien groups have invested heavily in media because they know the media is powerful.
The plans to restrict travel in private motorcars and on commercial airlines are now in full swing. Oil prices, road congestion, inflation, recession are all taking a toll, and it will not be long before most overseas travelling will be done by the wealthy and the privileged ones.
Citizens' rights are being taken away more and more; things are being done more and more despotically. Most of the people do not take enough interest in what is going on to concern themselves with the issues. Many are oblivious to what is going on; they carry on their lives by looking through rose-coloured glasses or they have given up the fight.
Whilst Australia is only a regional military power, the ruling elite has other plans for this isolated, yet strategically placed, continent. It is easy to defend, close to Antarctica and a stepping stone to the huge Muslim nation of Indonesia. Up until recently, the ruling elite believed that it could entice the Vulturites to use their military forces to conquer Indonesia from Australia, but the Vulturites have not taken the bait, so different plans are being hatched.
Indonesia will not shout out, "Selamat datang!" to welcome external military forces. They have other plans too.
The alien wars are being watched closely by many independent alien groups. Most of these are attempting to remain neutral. Most parties are sending out misinformation which is confusing even themselves.
Although the Religious Reptilians are at present "pulling the strings" in Australian matters, they are about to be taken over by a different puppet master, and the Australian dance will be directed by externally-based Secular Reptilians.
The alien wars are about to take many twists. The world will plunge itself in wars, poverty, social, financial, spiritual and political unrest, and will face many natural and un-natural challenges.
The World Divided
by
Amitakh Stanford
22nd July 2008
The world affairs are very much influenced and monitored by the alien powers. The Reptilians and the Vulturites have thus far been the two most powerful alien influences on human affairs. Within the Reptilian ranks, there are two distinct factions: one seeks conquest and control via religions; the other uses a secular approach. Presently, these two factions within the Reptilian ranks are at loggerheads.
As I wrote in The Revised Anunnaki Protocols - The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, the Reptilians had a unified agenda for world dominance that entailed the merging of the British Empire with the Catholic Empire for ultimate world control, the former of which was primarily directed by the Secular Reptilians, whilst the latter was primarily influenced by the Religious Reptilians.
As part of this plan, the British were influenced by their Reptilian controllers to instigate the American rebellion in the mid-eighteenth century. The British planned on crushing this rebellion and making it an example for all of their colonies that might consider resisting British rule.
As a very unusual response to world events, the Attas of the True Light intervened in the American rebellion, and supported the colonists, which resulted in a full-blown revolution that was won by the virtually impotent colonists. Even today, most people attribute the miracle of the victory to God, but very few have suspected that it was the workings of the True Light God that won the day for the colonists. The God of this world is the Principle of Darkness. Most think it was the God of this world (Darkness) who assisted the colonists, because people do not suspect that the God that appears most often in the Bible is the Principle of Darkness. Very few realize that Jesus has very little to do with the Bible, and even less to do with Christianity, although His name has been hijacked by the ruling elite and inserted in the Bible for their own agenda. Further, the religion known as Christianity was created by the ruling elite in absolute opposition to what Jesus stands for.
When the British were defeated by the colonists, the Reptilian plan for world conquest had to be revised. The new plans encompassed plans within the plans. The Secular Reptilians had always secretly planned on crushing the power of the Religious Reptilians. This means that the Church would have been curtailed if the British Empire and the Catholic Empire had been merged after the anticipated defeat of the American colonists.
With the American colonists' victory, the Reptilian ruling elite totally revised its plans and invited nearly all of the alien groups on Earth to participate in the Alternate Alien Plan for the New World Order. There has always been a tacit agreement amongst the aliens on Earth, for their own particular benefits, to keep their respective existences on Earth secret from humans. The Reptilians were so strong prior to the American Revolution that no other alien group could challenge them. However, it was their defeat that forced the Reptilians to involve the other groups, who saw The Revised Anunnaki Protocols as an opportunity for a slice of the NWO "glory".
Hence, the Reptilians are not united in their push for the NWO. The Secular Reptilians believe that "iron fist" policies are much easier and more effective to employ without the "baggage" of religions. However, the Religious Reptilians enjoy being worshipped and they desire the adoration from their subjects. That is, the Secular Reptilians are more prone to rule by oppression, whilst the Religious Reptilians enjoy mocking the humans by watching them worship and offer sacrifices to the Anunnaki "god".
On the other hand, the Vulturites have blended their secular and religious factions and constructed a formidable alien group that can swing with the times, sometimes leaning more towards the secular, whilst other times swinging more towards the religious. The Vulturites realize that they must put unity above any differences within the group in order to stand up to the far more powerful Reptilians.
Even now, the Reptilians continue to disagree amongst themselves, which has given the Vulturites the opportunity to grow stronger. Right now, due to various advantages and certain daring opportunistic manoeuvres that the Vulturites have undertaken, the two sides are nearly on par with one another.
Aliens in human bodies are disadvantaged in the sense that they are unable to receive direct "orders" from their alien "bosses". This is because the human bodies have filtering mechanisms in them in order to keep all of them in ignorance. This is frustrating for all types of beings who attempt to do any work on Earth in human bodies. This system was intentionally set up by Darkness to protect Its powers.
Because of the difficulties that Reptilians in alien bodies have in communicating the "orders" to the Reptilian agents in human bodies, mix ups and confusion often occur. Time is of the essence, and it is unlikely that the Reptilians have enough time to mend their differences and unify against the Vulturites before it is too late for them. Therefore, it will be necessary for the stronger Secular Reptilians to move on their own, and very soon, or all Reptilians will be greatly disadvantaged.
The Vulturites have been able to lead NATO ever eastward, which has allowed them to collect more and more power bases, which has further strengthened their positions. If the Vulturites are allowed to continue their forward advancement unchecked, it could change the course of things in the world. However, the Vulturites have spread their forces too thin in taking all of the daring steps. If they continue their "conquests" by extending their military operations into a conflict with Iran, or if they have to pour a lot of resources into protecting Israel at this time, the risk of loss is very high.
It appears that the Vulturites have begun to recognize how precarious their situation is, because they are beginning to back off from their bluffs against Iran, and have directed Israel to take a more reasonable stance in dealing with certain groups in the Middle-East. The Vulturites have not backed off on their plan for world conquest, they are just trying to pull back enough to re-group, re-fresh their militaries, and solidify their positions for subsequent battles. If the Vulturites are allowed to do this, the Reptilians will be severely disadvantaged.
Both sides of the ruling elite are keeping the media low-key on reporting significant political, financial and military events around the world. The Reptilians are now at a crossroads which could determine who will be the ultimate controller of the Earth. Their plans have changed slightly in some ways. The Secular Reptilians had planned to steadily build up their positions and military assets until the opportunity was ripe for the picking. They had planned to denude the Religious Reptilians and the Vulturites in one fell swoop, which would have worked if the Vulturites had not been so aggressive.
Many events that have shaped the world today are difficult to comprehend because alien agendas are hidden from human eyes. I will list several major events that have greatly affected human affairs in the past few centuries by stating the alien plans and conflicts along with the victorious sides.
The American Revolution was a concerted effort by both the Religious and Secular Reptilians, however, it was a total failure for the Reptilians because the Attas of the Light intervened to protect the Rescue Mission, and to deter the horrendous plan the Reptilians had for the world. Thus, the Reptilian plan was thwarted. This incident had co-incidental effects, which led to many different alien groups coming forward to challenge the Reptilians for supremacy over the Earth. The Reptilians had previously enjoyed controlling the Earth via the Secular Empire of the United Kingdom and the Religious Empire of the Catholic Church.
The Secular Reptilians were forced to alter their plans for world conquest. This led to the pretence that other alien groups were allowed to participate in the world domination by the Reptilians. All the while, the Reptilians intended to discard or subjugate all of the minor alien groups, and the Vulturites. Further, the Secular Reptilians planned on quashing the power of the Religious Reptilians when they took over.
The introduction of Darwinian evolutionary theory was engineered by the Secular Reptilians to reduce the global influence of religions and spur the influence of science throughout the world. This strategy proved so appealing to the ego of humans and aliens in human bodies, that it has gained enormous acceptance throughout the academic world. This has, in turn, given the Secular Reptilians immense power over the Religious Reptilians.
World War I was instigated by the Secular Reptilians, which they were extraordinarily successful in implementing and executing. As a result of this tremendous success for the Secular Reptilians, two enormous nations were eventually brought under secular control. Those were the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the People's Republic of China.
To counter the huge gains being made by the Secular Reptilians, the Religious Reptilians brought about the Great Depression of the 1930s by collapsing the finances worldwide, and brought Adolf Hitler to power in Nazi Germany. Hitler formed the axis powers by combining various nations that were under the domination of the Religious Reptilians, which most notably included Italy and Japan. Whilst some people might find it surprising that Religious Reptilians would involve themselves in wars, it should be remembered that Religious Reptilians can be brutally totalitarian and militaristic. This is evidenced by the Inquisitions and the Crusades.
Whilst outwardly Hitler's regime appeared to be focused on white supremacy issues, underlying Hitler's power base was predominately the Church, although there were other forces aligning, particularly in the case of Japan joining the axis powers. Regardless of what history has recorded or how things appear on the surface, Hitler's two ultimate targets were the U.S.S.R. and China.
As the Religious Reptilians began sweeping through Europe, there was not too much resistance from either the United Kingdom or the United States because at the time, both nations were under the influence of the Religious Reptilians. However, there was a shift in power during the course of World War II, and both the United States and Great Britain came under the influence of Secular Reptilians, and they in turn drove all their forces against the axis powers. The astonishing defeat of the Religious Reptilians in WWII has resulted in a tremendous turn of events, and empowered the Secular Reptilians, who have had the upper hand ever since. The Religious Reptilians' desperate, all-out attempt at world conquest by backing Aldolf Hitler and the axis parties proved disastrous for them.
Ironically, the nation of Israel was formed by the Secular Reptilians who were in power in Great Britain. This was a shift, since the Jewish people had been under the watchful eyes of the Religious Reptilians up to that point.
The Religious Reptilians took power temporarily in both the United States and the U.S.S.R., which resulted in the dismantling of the latter nation into 13 separate nation states. This move caused a major set-back for the Secular Reptilians. When the Religious Reptilians joined forces in the late twentieth century, it led to the dismantling of the U.S.S.R. and the Eastern Bloc in Europe. However, when the Vulturites were given what were hoped to be temporary reins of the U.S.A., they seized on the opportunity to drive NATO right up to the Russian frontiers.
The Secular Reptilians prefer a more totalitarian approach to things than the Religious Reptilians, as already mentioned. The Bill of Rights, which includes a citizen's right to bear arms, was very disruptive to the Secular Reptilians, so they decided to move their base from America to China. Before moving, they transferred information and technology to China. As soon as the Secular Reptilians moved out of the U.S., the Vulturites seized the opportunity, and became very aggressive.
Currently, NATO is predominately under the influence of the Vulturites. This sets a very explosive stage. Will the Secular Reptilians challenge the Vulturites now, or will the Vulturites take over control due to inaction by the Secular Reptilians? The Religious Reptilians have been incapacitated, and cannot mount a serious challenge at this time. This is due to many reasons. As people become more affluent, they are less concerned with spiritual matters and the after-life. They are more concerned with day-to-day living than with abstract promises of everlasting life.
There are four predominant alien groups on Earth. Two of them are the Religious and Secular Reptilians which I have already mentioned. The third is the Vulturites, and the fourth is the Greys.
The Greys are currently allied with the Reptilians, and they have vast numbers on the planet. The Greys have resided underground for so long that they have developed various physiological deficiencies due to their living situations. This has made it difficult for them to take on human bodies and live on the surface. Fluoride was found to assist them, so it has been added to drinking supplies where the Greys are located or re-locating to.
The nation of Israel is in a most precarious situation. The Zionists were being backed by the Religious Reptilians until those aliens backed Hitler to launch a war in Europe and eliminated many of the Jewish people. This is another example of the ruling elite playing out another version of good guys and bad guys under the same boss. The Jews were later assisted by the Secular Reptilians, who helped them to found the nation of Israel and had protected that nation until about the turn of the twenty-first century, when the Vulturites took over the protector role by default. However, the Vulturites have no desire to assist Israel, and only kept up the impression that they would for transitory political reasons. Israel has now become a big liability to the Vulturites, who will soon abandon it, leaving it without alien sponsorship in the midst of the alien wars. This means that Israel has to be very careful in all of its political and military operations, and guard itself against betrayals.
Australia is the launching pad for the NWO, and is undergoing transition from a democratic nation to a totalitarian one, even though the illusion of democracy is being maintained. Australia was a good stepping stone for the NWO because it has no express bill of rights, and there is no absolute right of the people to bear arms. Nearly all of the guns in Australia were restricted by staging a single "lone gunman" event in Port Arthur, Tasmania. As an example, the ruling elite has staged scores of "lone gunman" incidents in America without successfully taking the guns from the people. This is because Americans have a constitutional right to bear arms which the ruling elite has not been able to abolish, despite numerous attempts to do so.
Australia is a small nation with a relatively small military. Since it plays such an important role in the launching of the NWO, it is also a target. The nation will not be self governing for too long as it will succumb to external rule. This will happen when the Religious Reptilians currently in power in Australia are ousted by Secular Reptilians from another nation. It could entail a shooting war on Australian soil.
The death of Saddam Hussein was instigated by Vulturite-influenced agents after he was abandoned by the Secular Reptilians. Milosovich and Arafat were also removed by Vulturites after they were abandoned by the Reptilians. These three moves have strengthened the Vulturite positions much more than could have been expected.
The Reptilians planned to let the Vulturites do most of the dirty work and let them think that they were enjoying some victories. But, the situation is now out of control as the Vulturites grow in strength, even though they have stretched themselves too far. If the Vulturites are allowed enough time to re-group, they will re-commence their attacks and continue to erode the Reptilian territories until they have an overwhelming advantage over the Reptilians.
Hence, should the Reptilians delay their moves for too long, they will have a difficult match against the Vulturites. Right now the Vulturites are vulnerable because they have over-extended their resources. They could not effectively ward off a Reptilian strike at this time. Should the Secular Reptilians make their move now, they are almost assured a victory over the Vulturites.
As part of the ruling elites' plans, we live in a world where citizens are in a sense being subliminally attacked, manipulated, influenced and controlled by unseen forces. Drinking water is being bombarded with chemicals for many reasons. Mind control techniques infest the internet, and those who use it too much are in danger of being programmed considerably. These forces can come from many levels of existence, but, presently, the ruling elite is playing a key role by gathering information and programming people in the physical.
The ruling elite collect information on everyone in the world to use it against them by distorting whatever has gone on and to libel them when it suits their purposes. This is done to anyone whom the ruling elite perceive as a threat to their system.
Agents of the ruling elite are involved in many fields and have many branches throughout the world. The small town of Stanthorpe, Queensland, Australia is a hot spot of ruling elite activities. Further, it is an alien congregation point. There is a diversity of alien races residing in human bodies and even in alien bodies in the region. This is a formula for conflict, which many in Stanthorpe are feeling, but not really understanding.
Recently, there was a hard-fought attempt to resist forced amalgamation of shires, which Stanthorpe lost, and it was swallowed up into a super shire that includes what used to be many individual shires. Many of the surrounding shires house certain alien groups, whether in human bodies or otherwise. This part of the world contains many "twin" faces. That is, some of the residents have look-alike faces to people in diverse parts of the world. Ironically, the look-alike people in Australia are often in humble positions, whilst their counter-parts are often professional people in positions of high repute. It appears to be a dumping ground for alien clones. No wonder there is a support base in the area to maintain this activity.
In this small area, there is a vastly disproportionate payroll of ruling elite agents. These agents work for opposing parties, hence there is a battleground here that has been identified by some of the ruling elite, and they are having their agents keep tabs on the situation. The state government desired to take control of the Stanthorpe area. It is a special and isolated location. To break up the power structure in the community, Stanthorpe was targeted for swallowing up in a forced amalgamation of shires. Whilst many other shires were forced to amalgamate, the real target by the government was Stanthorpe.
Stanthorpe is a relatively wealthy community which attracts many artists and independent sorts of people. Many people are drawn to the community, but they often do not know why that is the case. Others have expressed a distinct unfriendliness about the town and say they sense something weird is going on there.
After the forced amalgamation, a newly formed shire called Southern Downs emerged, where a lot of data collecting is going on. Human and animal tissue and fluid samples are being collected and analysed in laboratories because there are so many aliens in the area. The purpose is nefarious. The data is being used to develop "poisons" to debilitate certain alien groups whilst leaving other alien groups relatively unharmed. This is a delicate process. It also injures certain humans, animals and plants in the process. This collateral damage is of no consequence to the ruling elite. In other words, the ruling elite are enacting an undeclared war on Stanthorpe and surrounding areas.
Incidentally, Australian patriots have also congregated in the surrounding areas. This is seen as a potential threat by the ruling elite. However, the Australian patriots are not too much of a concern to the government at this time because Australians have been effectively disarmed after a single, staged "lone gunman" episode took place in Port Arthur, Tasmania. Port Arthur housed a former prison that has been converted into a family tourist attraction. The "lone gunman" supposedly went on a rampage that could only be believed if he had been trained in mass murder tactics, which he had not. The news stories about him are non-credible; it is bizarre that they have been believed, but such is the power of propaganda. Immediately after the incident, gun ownership was severely curtailed. It could not have happened so swiftly and smoothly without a lot of support from the ruling elite. Many of the politicians here knew there was something very fishy about the Port Arthur incident. Clearly, the whole episode was done to disarm Australians in preparation for later takeover by the ruling elite.
Whilst Stanthorpe has been the main focus of many attacks by the ruling elite, they try to deflect attention by going after other areas simultaneously so as not to arouse suspicion. However, the New England Highway has been targeted by aliens with subtle beams to cause confusion, programming and physical accidents to occur on the stretch, especially between the towns of Warwick and Stanthorpe. There is a sleepy energy that is directed at the highway to cause numerous fatigue-related incidents. They are trying to programme people who drive through the corridor and to suck brain energy from the victims on the road. Some road signs that are ostensibly placed to remind people to drive safely have been physically placed to crowd the roadway, are painted with obnoxious colours, and have actually become road hazards. There are also signals being beamed at drivers to cause stupor and sudden uncontrollable sleepiness. In short, the aliens have declared war upon the motorists, particularly the truck drivers.
Orchards, vineyards and other agricultural enterprises have flourished in the area, but that is about to change because the ruling elite have other plans for the region, and they do not want it to be financially self-sufficient, like it was before the forced amalgamation. With the forced amalgamation, the shire lost its $13 million surplus to pay debts for the super shire - the Southern Downs - it was forced to join. The people in Stanthorpe fought the amalgamation, but the ruling elite programmed a vocal minority to go along with the amalgamation. This resulted in overturning the will of more than 80 percent of the community, who opposed the forced amalgamation. The people in the town are now starting to lament how they have been disadvantaged by the forced amalgamation. It is too late now.
Most agents who work for the ruling elite are unaware that they have been coded in a way unknown to them. The ruling elite are unaware that certain aliens opposed to them have the technology to detect their agents from a distance. In fact, it is possible to detect the number of ruling elite agents in any area. Unbeknown to them, the trackers have become the tracked because they leave such obvious "footprints" everywhere they go.
The ruling elite has declared war on Stanthorpe, which is one of the reasons we are here. However, the main reason is because the Atu-waa is also nearby, as is the earthly civilian headquarters for the Reptilians. We are also observing the underground alien bases that run for over 100 kilometres from Stanthorpe.
With so much alien activity, there are a lot of UFO sightings in the area. Sometimes, alien craft hover so daringly that they often do not even cloak their ships in invisibility shields. We watched one land and take off very near to our property. It did not even attempt to hide itself, but it did scramble our telephones whilst it was here.
Stanthorpe once banned Alsatian (German shepherd) dogs in 1939. This was a precursor to breed-banning that has taken hold worldwide. The ruling elite are frightened of big dogs. This is for several reasons. One reason is that dogs can sense aliens, and the big ones are threatening to them. In seizure situations, such as the one staged in Waco, Texas, the dogs were nearly the first thing the ruling elite forces killed before entering the compound. This tactic is used in many seizure situations worldwide, from small scale to large-scale events. In other words, dogs are often killed to clear the way for the arrests.
Like it is represented in the board game of Risk, Australia is so isolated that it becomes a strong strategic point for world conquest. It is close to Antarctica, which will be a very significant place once the polar ice in the Northern Hemisphere vanishes.
Ata-i-lek has recently spent ten days in Australia, with most of his stay near Sydney. He and others have had an energy feast drawing off energy from tens of thousands of young people especially. The Religious Reptilians have been building an energy force in New South Wales, Australia. The main events took place within 500 miles of the Atu-waa, which was no co-incidence. The Light watched these events very closely.
Leading up to and during Ata-i-lek's visit, the news media blanketed the airwaves with a story about a convicted paedophile and another about a surgeon charged with manslaughter. The media has certain "cover" stories that they present whenever the need arises to distract the public. Child kidnapping and child murders happen every day, but there are a few that attract international attention, and appear in the news whenever they are needed. The readers probably know exactly which ones I am referring to, and whenever they see them re-appear in the news, they should be questioning what is really behind the most current resurrection of these stories. Another favourite news tactic is to place undue emphasis on various unimportant political elections around the world.
The news media is now using inexperienced and less qualified presenters to address the non-stories. Also, the media is extracting foolish statements from people they interview and using short video clips to then stir up the public at large. If they interview enough people, they will be able to cut-and-paste until they have their silly sound bytes to support whatever they are pushing.
The media can build or break celebrities and organizations. The ruling elite know how to use propaganda wars, so the various alien groups have invested heavily in media because they know the media is powerful.
The plans to restrict travel in private motorcars and on commercial airlines are now in full swing. Oil prices, road congestion, inflation, recession are all taking a toll, and it will not be long before most overseas travelling will be done by the wealthy and the privileged ones.
Citizens' rights are being taken away more and more; things are being done more and more despotically. Most of the people do not take enough interest in what is going on to concern themselves with the issues. Many are oblivious to what is going on; they carry on their lives by looking through rose-coloured glasses or they have given up the fight.
Whilst Australia is only a regional military power, the ruling elite has other plans for this isolated, yet strategically placed, continent. It is easy to defend, close to Antarctica and a stepping stone to the huge Muslim nation of Indonesia. Up until recently, the ruling elite believed that it could entice the Vulturites to use their military forces to conquer Indonesia from Australia, but the Vulturites have not taken the bait, so different plans are being hatched.
Indonesia will not shout out, "Selamat datang!" to welcome external military forces. They have other plans too.
The alien wars are being watched closely by many independent alien groups. Most of these are attempting to remain neutral. Most parties are sending out misinformation which is confusing even themselves.
Although the Religious Reptilians are at present "pulling the strings" in Australian matters, they are about to be taken over by a different puppet master, and the Australian dance will be directed by externally-based Secular Reptilians.
The alien wars are about to take many twists. The world will plunge itself in wars, poverty, social, financial, spiritual and political unrest, and will face many natural and un-natural challenges.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)