To understand the enormity of events unfolding universally it is essential to shift the scene to Switzerland where Franz Weber, nationally celebrated for various ecology-oriented initiatives, in tandem with the leader of the new abolitionist movement, the charismatic and popular Hans Ruesch, who was by this time NZAVS' Patron, and whose principles our Society had long adopted, were launching a Swiss Initiative for a total and immediate ban on all animal experiments, not just because of the cruelty, but because of the increasing incidence of pharmacological and therapeutic catastrophes for which they are responsible.

Like a mirror image of occurrences in New Zealand, the stab in the back came not from the combined pharma/medi/chemi industries, but from their agents serving as leaders in the various animal welfare A/V groups who ridiculed the Initiative as "Unreasonable and unrealistic", before proceeding to launch their own Initiative for a harmless and ambiguous:

(a.) Animal experiments that cause pain, suffering or harm to the animal be forbidden in the entire territory of the Confederation.
(b.) The Federal legislation determines the exceptions to this prohibition.

(Which, aside from being illogical and fundamentally unsound was neither cogent nor effectual as before the ink was dry on the paper (a.) was neutralised by (b.).)

The three Goliaths which thus sabotaged the Swiss Petition were:

1. The Swiss counterpart of Britain's RSPCA
2. The American SPCA
3. The U.S. Humane Society...

All of which had millions in their respective coffers and even more invested in vivisection laboratories.

Despite this bid by the wealthy animal welfare community to prevent the collapse of the lucrative Swiss vivisection industry, the Weber/Ruesch initiative polled a third of the votes in favour of abolition. Had they had the support of the animal welfarists, and a fraction of their enormous advertising budget, abolition in Switzerland may have been achieved at that point. (Five years later on 26 April 1991, a similar situation developed in new Zealand when the RSPCA submitted to the New Zealand Government that it opposed NZAVS Petition to Abolish Vivisection as the RSPCA "requires no change to the present law".)

A further example of the dirty tricks department of the international guardians of vivisection the RSPCA came when the German counterpart of the British RSPCA wrote of the Weber/Ruesch Initiative in its journal:

"A small radical group has introduced an Initiative for abolition of vivisection and suffered a shattering defeat. The damage that has been done in this way to the animal cause, not only in Switzerland, is incalculable because it has confirmed our opponents' contention that the majority of people are for vivisection, even when it is cruel. We also would like to see, in some distant future, the end of vivisection. But there is no doubt that especially in the field of medical research we still require animal experiments."

Members may question the writer's motive for choosing this unpalatable and dreary subject, which, if readers will cooperate by reading thoroughly, should bring feelings of foreboding, apprehension, and a battery of other reactions - which of course is its intent. To underline the absolute importance of the subject chosen it is fair to say that this work requires considerable application of patience and industry, whereas less disturbing and more eye-catching content could be produced with little effort which would guarantee not to offend, trigger alarm bells or have the slightest expectations of the reader.

The writer agrees with Hans Ruesch who believes that the abolition of vivisection can never be wholly, efficiently or rationally addressed, much less achieved, until the many phoneys in the animal welfare A/V movement, who are the greatest bulwark against abolition, are exposed. She therefore emphasises the importance of subscription-paying members of such organisations learning to recognise and identify the universal methods, strategies and the phraseologies of the chameleons, who, posing as hardworking and diligent representatives of such groups, in reality pursue far different agendas. The writer through personal experience also guarantees that their power is easily achieved as the vast majority of members of animal welfare A/V groups are only too relieved and anxious to leave policy-making and shaking, decision-making and deceptions to others, seldom bothering to check credentials or scrutinise, investigate or question the comments in the media of those who have only to prove themselves willing and eager to work long hours on a voluntary basis and shoulder responsibility.