ALF Sabotage Vice President of HLS-Supplier Beckman Coulter

[Omaha Steve]

08 August 2012
Received anonymously:

During the early hours of August 5th, we visited Allison Blackwell, Senior Vice President of Beckman Coulter, at her lovely home in Yorba Linda (5715 Via Del Potrero, Yorba Linda, CA). Her and Beckman Coulter have been supplying HLS with the lab equipment used to test on animals for years. For this reason, her driveway, front door, porch and garage door were redecorated in red spray paint. The slogans "DROP HLS" and "PUPPY KILLER" was painted across her garage door. Red stain was thrown into her pool in the backyard turning the water and walls of the pool blood red, to remind her of the blood on her hands.

Allison, you know what to do to bring this to an end. Cut your losses and drop HLS. Until then expect to spend thousands more on damages because this is not a one time event.

As it reads across your drive way in red spray paint "THIS IS ONLY THE BEGINNING" --ALF

[Press Office note: Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS) has been exposed in seven consecutive undercover investigations demonstrating lab technicians simulating sex with animals, punching beagle puppies and violating numerous animal welfare regulations. The company kills 500 dogs and other animals every day testing such products as oven cleaners, pesticides and pharmaceuticals. Before losing their NYSE listing several years ago, HLS lost their listing on the London Stock Exchange after UK campaigners exposed atrocities occurring inside HLS facilities; the company currently teeters on the brink of bankruptcy. More information on the campaign to stop the atrocities at HLS, including additional targets worldwide, is available at www.shac.net

The Animal Liberation Front(ALF) utilizes economic sabotage in addition to the direct liberation of animals from conditions of abuse and imprisonment to halt needless animal suffering. By making it more expensive to trade in the lives of innocent, sentient beings, the ALF maintain the atrocities against our brothers and sisters are likely to occur in smaller numbers; their goal is to abolish the exploitation, imprisonment, torture and killing of innocent, non-human animals.]

[flvegan]

1. *snicker*

I'm not laughing. Honest.

[Raine]

7. Me either

Really.

[catbyte]

17. X 1000

[Llewlladdwr]

2. Terrorism. Plain and simple. nt

[Omaha Steve]

3. Why do people have to terrorize animals by using them for research?

Yep.

Terrorism.

[Llewlladdwr]

10. Because it saves HUMAN lives?

For example, I'd gladly trade the lives of millions of lab rats if it led to a cure for cancer.

Do you deny yourself access to modern medical procedures and drugs developed through animal research? It would seem hypocritical not to, don't you think?

[Omaha Steve]

14. Alternatives to Animal Testing

http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/alternatives-to-animal-testing.aspx

Alternatives to Animal Testing

One of the most significant trends in modern research in recent years has been the recognition that the results of animal tests are rarely relevant to humans. Studies in esteemed publications such as the Journal of the American Medical Association and the British Medical Journal have repeatedly concluded that because of the fundamental biological differences among species, animal tests do not reliably predict outcomes in humans. These same studies have also concluded that the overwhelming majority of animal experiments fail to lead to medical advances that improve the health of humans and, in fact, are often dangerously misleading.

The world's most forward-thinking scientists have accepted this conclusion and have moved on to develop, validate, and implement methods for studying diseases and testing products that save animals' lives and are actually relevant to human health.

Non-animal methods usually take less time to complete than the crude, archaic animal tests that they replace. In addition, they cost only a fraction of what animal experiments cost and are not affected by species differences that make applying test results to humans difficult or impossible. Effective, affordable, and humane research methods include sophisticated in vitro, genomic, and computer-modeling techniques as well as studies of human populations, volunteers, and patients.

FULL article at link.

[Llewlladdwr]

16. That's nice. Unresponsive, but nice.

Do you deny yourself access to medical procedures and drugs developed through animal research? Simple question...

[Omaha Steve]

21. You missed the point, it ain't working

>>> Do you want access to medical procedures and drugs developed through animal research that is unreliable??



A pigs heart valve I'm ok with. Rabbit tests for pregnancy is outdated by non-animal advance in science. (that is a point)

Animal research is counter productive. Not my words. If it isn't reliable, why do it?

http://theconversation.edu.au/animal-research-provides-a-flawed-model-so-why-not-stop-7890

Animal research provides a flawed model, so why not stop?

Much of the research involving the development of new drugs still uses animals. Apart from moral questions about inflicting pain and death on animals for the purpose of medical research, there are an increasing number of questions about the suitability of using laboratory animals for research into human diseases and drug testing.

There are many examples clearly showing that animal models are not predictive of human health. Recently, a group of scientists wrote an open letter in The Lancet (addressed to the UK prime minister and health secretary) pointing out that more than 90% of new drugs fail in clinical trials.

The authors of the letter say part of the reason for this is the reliance on animal testing to predict drug behaviour in people. They claim that animal tests do this with the same probability as the toss of a coin. And they suggest that animal research be replaced with promising new technologies that increase clinical predictability as well as improving efficiency and cost.

Other researchers have voiced similar concerns. An expert scientific group on phase one (screening for safety) clinical trials in the United Kingdom, for instance, concluded that pre-clinical animal studies may not reproduce the intended pharmacological effect, may give misleading results and, most significantly, may not reflect toxicity in humans.

FULL article at link.

[catbyte]

18. Give me a break Llewlladdwr

Most animal testing is for not lifesaving research but bullshit unnecessary cosmetics and other product testing. Animal testing is obsolete and unnecessarily cruel.

[Llewlladdwr]

20. That's your opinion.

Mine is that animal testing of medical procedures and drugs saves many, many human lives every year. I value humans over animals, so for me animal testing just makes sense.

Do you refuse to accept any drug or medical procedure that was developed using animal testing?

[Raine]

4. Terrorism to animals

exactly.

[NightWatcher]

6. I predict a short stay here for you, my friend

[Luminous Animal]

8. Do you have a pet? And if so, I challenge you to donate it to a testing lab.

You never know what human's life your suffering pet might save.

[Omaha Steve]

11. Advance science???

Face make up is science? Now global warming is science!

Why are there labels like these if animals are needed for testing? Our house looks for these logos on products when we shop.

[catbyte]

19. www.leapingbunny.org is a great site

for lists of cruelty-free products.

[Archae]

9. Once again these ditwits show how much they know about nature and science...

They learned all about nature by watching the Disney cartoon "Bambi" and learned all their science from "mad scientist" movies.

[aikoaiko]

12. I don't support this type of protest at a person's residence.

Do you?

[Enrique]

13. can someone explain the legalities

how can they announce they have done these things, and not get caught?

Also, are we sure this is authentic? They have a website, and this isn't there, although they list similar activities and it might be they just haven't updated their site yet.

[flvegan]

15. It's on Bite Back.

It's legit.

As for your first question...hmmmmm. LOL!