Vivisection at Auckland University

Sunday Times 25/3/90 revealed the names of the following individuals and their ongoing vivisection activities at Auckland University (listed below).

Peter Gluckman

(Auckland University Animal laboratory director)

Animal experiments opposed by Dr Millicent Morden, Physician and Surgeon, New York in the Abolitionist Sept Oct 1947 who wrote:

"Vivisection is the rock on which the noble medical profession - as well as the lives and the health of humanity - is being dashed to pieces."

Janusz Lipski

(Neurophysiologist)

Janusz Lipski plans to use 190 cats and 550 rats during the next three years. Approved by University's "Ethics Committee". Is a continuation of previous work. The animals are anaesthetised and then paralyzed with a drug, pancuronium bromide. Their heads are placed in a device called a stereotaxic frame, which holds them rigidly so brain surgery can be done. Electrodes are attached to nerves controlling breathing and circulation. The animals are connected to an external ventilator. Experiment lasts up to 18 hours, after which the animal is killed.

Projects involving this experimental approach funded by:
The Wellcome Trust (U.K.), The NZ Medical Research Council, the NZ Heart Foundation, the Auckland Medical Research Foundation.
The Auckland University Council has approved a $59,988 Auckland Medical Research Foundation grant for Lipski.

Experiment opposed by Dr Vernon Coleman, Television Medical Expert, Author of over 30 books on Health and Medical Practice who writes:

"The researchers who conduct these experiments usually argue that their work will benefit mankind. They dismiss protesters as ignorant and unreasonable. They claim it is necessary to maim, torture and kill animals in order to push back the frontiers of medical science. This is all absolute hogwash. I cannot think of a single breakthrough that was produced as a result of animal experiments."

Experiment opposed by Dr Andre Menache who wrote in the Israel Zootechnical Association Quarterly, December 1985:

"The results of animal experiments for use in human beings is one of the greatest tragedies and biggest mistakes in medical history."

Michael Eade

(Physiology Senior Lecturer)

Michael Eade uses dogs in experiments on intestinal blood-flow. In surgery, probes are placed around arteries supplying the intestines to find out whether the liver affects intestinal blood-flow. To simulate the effects of a meal, a solution of glucose, amino acids and fatty acids is fed into a vein by fine tubes. The dogs are killed in the experiments. Says Eade:

"The driving force for us is a desire to know what the hell is going on. I feel very strongly about that."

Experiment opposed by Sir Charles Bell, Scottish physician, surgeon, anatomist, physiologist, to whom medical science owes "Bell's Law" on motor and sensory nerves, of fundamental importance to medical practice... who wrote:

"Experiments have never been the means for discovery, and a survey of what has been attempted of late years in physiology will prove that the using of animals has done more to perpetuate error than to confirm the just views taken from the study of anatomy and natural motions."

Lois Armiger

(Research Fellow)

Lois Armiger will use about 135 dogs from Auckland pounds in simulated heart attacks brought about by blocking a coronary artery for periods of from one to six hours. The flow is then returned to either or all of its normal level. This will be carried out at Auckland University Medical School and Green Lane Hospital. Armiger has been awarded a Medical Research Council grant of $68,600.

Experiment opposed by Brandon Reines, Senior at Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine in Boston, Author of "Heart Research on Animals - a critique of animal models of cardiovascular disease"... who writes:

"The animal models of human coronary artery disease are extremely poor models; coronary artery disease is a disease of human beings."

John Gavin

(Cardiac Pathology Research)

John Gavin leads a cardiac pathology research programme. Says dogs provide an acceptable model for human hearts. Also says "Research showing one form of treatment was worse than another could not be done on humans, since they could not be badly treated for a condition".

Experiment opposed by Dr Moneim A. Fadali, M.D., Diplomate American Board of Surgery, Diplomate American Board of Thoracic Surgery, Diplomate Canadian Board of Surgery. One of America's most brilliant heart surgeons. Practising in Los Angeles for 30 years... who writes:

"Dogs have been extensively used in heart research, but their coronary arteries differ from those of humans - they have smaller connections with one another and the left coronary artery dominates, while in humans the right does so. In addition, the conduction system has a different pattern of blood supply, and, consequently, researchers have had difficulty in producing ischemic heart block in dogs, which occurs frequently in humans. The blood coagulation mechanism is unlike ours, therefore using dogs to test prosthetic devices and valves is unreliable. A dog's reaction to shock is also very different from that of humans. After massive blood loss a dog's intestines are congested, while in the human we see pallor and ischemia. No wonder conclusions from dog experiments extrapolated to human beings frequently bring about catastrophic results and regrettable failures, which occurred with the earlier models of heart valves and in the first several years of using the heart-lung machine."

Robin Norris

(Prof. Auckland University)

Robin Norris says his research team at Green Lane used about 30 dogs a year. Would not divulge the "research".

Experiment opposed by Mobilise! readers! Since the public, through its taxes pays Norris's salary to vivisect pound dogs.