Excerpted from Sunday Star-Times, 18 January 1998, page C3

Blenheim acupuncturist and GP Grant Johnston tried in vain five years ago to ascertain how much money he saved by doing acupuncture compared with the average GP.

"I wanted to find out if a GP who does acupuncture can cut his prescribing costs. If needles were to save even a small percentage of the money spent on drugs ($747m this year) it could save millions."

He approached a private research company. "I know it sounds ridiculous but they embargoed the results. They also do work for drug companies and when they found out what I discovered they embargoed the results and said they'd take me to court if I published them."

A new Act, tentatively called the Therapeutics Bill, is yet to be introduced to Parliament's timetable. Herbal products are not generally covered by the Medicines Act, 1981.

The 60 Minutes programme on TVNZ titled "Essential Science" that glorified vivisector Peter Gluckman was reported on in Mobilise! 45. Since then one of our members has personally laid a formal complaint with TVNZ. The complaint was regarding eleven standards of the Codes of Broadcasting Practice, the main one being:

"(G6) Broadcasters are required to show balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing with political matters, affairs and all questions of a controversial nature"

The reply our member received from David Edmunds, Programme Standards Manager, TVNZ, dated 22 December 1997, appears to demonstrate that TVNZ has already made up its mind regarding the validity of vivisection, with a bias towards the vivisectors. He describes Gluckman's work as having "the potential for producing far reaching and beneficial effects for babies born with serious defects" and describes Essential Science as "showing the sort of human being who stands to benefit from the professor's research programme".

The complaint is now before the Broadcasting Standards Authority.

by Hans Ruesch, UKAVIS Publications 1998
Reviewed by Phil Clayton
On-line version of CIVIS Answers Questions

In commemoration of the 20th anniversary of the publication of Hans Ruesch's "Slaughter of the Innocent", Tony Page of the UK Anti-Vivisection Information Service (UKAVIS) has translated this work from German. Originally written in the early eighties this 18 page booklet is a much simplified presentation of the basic arguments found in Slaughter. It is the type of publication Bette Overell probably had in mind when she first thought of rebutting 'Animal Research Saves Lives'. Short snappy answers to questions on cancer, diabetes, vaccination and the medical industry. If more detail is required the reader is directed towards Slaughter of the Innocent. A good introduction to the subject for those who ask more questions than can be answered on a single sheet of paper, yet don't (at first) want to wade through a book. Hopefully it will encourage people to learn more.

An excerpt from page 14 follows:

"Do you mean to say that not even doctors are all inspired by high ideals but are manipulated by industry?"
"Exactly. Through generous endowments to universities, the chemical industry buys the indebtedness and dependency of relevant university departments, not to mention the doctors, who have become assiduous propagandists for the disastrous but lucrative products of the chemical industry. Intelligent, brave and honest doctors who prescribe cheap, tried-and-tested, safe natural medications are denounced as "quacks" by the chemical pushers who dominate orthodox medicine, and nature-cure physicians are often thrown out of the medical fraternity altogether. By means of generous donations, the financial powers of the chemical industry have won over the leaders of all the big animal-protection societies and have even bribed the leaders of some anti-vivisection societies, so that they now see their main role as hushing up the truth about vivisection's uselessness and ever-attendant dangers. In other words, their task is to hold anti-vivisectionism in check."