Guardian & Times confirm BBC balance on vivisection

[Guest guest]

I SUPPORT YOUR DEMAND THAT BBC SHOULD BROADCAST

 

"Bad Medicine - the human cost of animal experimention" TO

PRESENT THE OTHER SIDE OF VIVISECTION OR USELESS

ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS.

 

Dr. Leo Rebello / Bombay

www.healthwisdom.org

 

 

 

-

hera

BBCinfo

Cc: BBComplaints ; DoH ; GUARDHOME ; HORIZION ; ITN ; Lancet ; MRC ; Newsnight ; OBSNEWS ; Panorama ; POVBBC ; radio4 ; RADERBY ; TELEGNews ; TIMNews ; Y & YBBC

Monday, December 18, 2006 1:21 AM

Guardian & Times confirm BBC balance on vivisection

 

Jo Bower

BBC INFORMATION re ' Monkeys, Rats and Me : Animal Testing'

This made to order BBC programme was as balanced as any other BBC programme where corporate/State ie fascist - intesests are concerned.

It was TOTALLY biassed in favour of vivisection : with the issue portrayed as one of animal versus human rights and no evidence presented as to the colossal damage to human, animal and planetary health from medical, industrial, military, agricultural synthetics, passed as safe through fraudulent animal experiments.

Nor was there any mention of the fact that the national ill-heath crisis has worsened since day-one of the vivisection-based "NHS" : a disease money-pit which will swallow in excess of £100,000,000,000 next year.

The BBC is different to the rest of the lie-machine - Guardian,Times etc., as I, an owner of a TV receiver, have to pay a licence fee to fund this trash.

We, the genuine AV movement, DEMAND that the BBC commission a progamme putting the case against.

 

The film is already made, by the BAVA, and is called

"Bad Medicine - the human cost of animal experimention."

It contains the information that the licence-funded BBC should have broadcast.

 

Pat Rattigan

Director British Antivivisection Association

www.bava.org.uk

 

 

> Dear Mrs Thompson>> Thank you for your e-mail of 21 November regarding ' Monkeys, Rats and Me:> Animal Testing' on BBC One. I apologise for the subsequent delay in our> reply. We know our correspondents appreciate a quick response, and it is a> matter of regret to us that you have had to wait for so long on this> occasion.>> The following is a response from the independent film-maker Adam Wishart,> who made the programme:>> "A year ago, I set out to make a film about the battle for the Oxford> animal lab. The intention was to focus only on what was happening in> Oxford, and to explain the argument on both sides of the debate through> that prism. That Mel Broughton represented the animal rights side of the> argument had very little to do w ith the choices of the programme makers -> simply he was the force behind the Oxford demonstrations. I didn't see> other animal rights organisations on the streets of Oxford two, three or> four times a week. Broughton and Speak embodied the campaign against the> Oxford lab, and that is why they appeared as such in the film. That was > an absolute and truthful representation of what happened on the ground.>> We did try to set out what some activists call the 'scientific argument',> as promoted by the organisation Europeans for Medical Progress. We filmed> a long interview with their spokesperson Kathy Archibald, her taking us> through her arguments. We took these arguments seriously and investigated> their credibility. Thus we interviewed on camera Richard Klausner, a > former director of the US National Cancer Institute, refuting Archibald's > & gt; argument and how she had used a quotation of his 'entirely out of context'.> Moreover, we had also lined up to film a Gleevec patient and some of the> scientists involved in the creation of Gleevec who also wanted to refute> EMP's arguments. We also asked Peter Singer, the author of Animal> Liberation and Professor of Ethics at Princeton University, what he though> and he said it was 'wishful thinking' to assert that animal experiments > did not benefit medicine. In the end, we felt that we could include none of> these contributions. We simply did not have the time in the programme to> delve into these complicated arguments.>> Similarly, I could not really explain the history of science during the> last two hundred years, which led to the development of deep brain> stimulation. I would have liked to have begun with the discovery of > nerves> in fr ogs, the investigation of the brains of cats with stereotaxic> examination, the insertion of electrodes into Bulls by Delgado in the> 1950s, the induction of a Parkinson state in monkeys in the 1980s, and the> contribution that Tipu Aziz made to surgery. This is a difficult and> circuitous history to tell concisely on the television, but it certainly> included many contributions from the use of animals as well as the> contribution of experiments on patients. However, I simply didn't have the> space to tell these stories in the time that I was allowed. It should be> noted that we also filmed the Prime Minister, three police officers, two> other scientists, a Parkinsons patient, another operation, another animal> experiment, and a whole series of other animal rights activists including> John Curtin - none of whom were included in the programme because of> constraints of time.> ;> Of course, the filming in the labs was pre-arranged, they are under heavy> security and we could not have get access otherwise. However, once inside> the labs we were allowed to look wherever we fancied and talk> unrestrictedly with the animal carers. We did this not only on the > filming> days, but on a number of other occasions throughout the production of the> film. On no occasion did we discover any kind of cruelty to the animals,> or behavior that was different to what we filmed. Moreover, we also > showed> the BUAV footage that was filmed undercover, and we used footage from PETA> that showed animal cruelty.>> Ultimately I would refute the idea that this was a biased programme.> My contention is supported by two of the reviewers in the broadsheets. > Lucy Mangan, in the Guardian, wrote, "this BBC documentary was superbly> ba lanced." And Tim Teeman in the Times said, "What distinguished Adam> Wishart's Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing (BBC Two) was the> film-maker's ambivalence, a refreshing grey area for a subject that> normally polarises opinion." Clearly, those who would like to complain> about the bias of this programme are too partisan to see my equivocation.">> However, please be assured your comments have been registered on our daily> audience log, an internal document available to everyone involved in the> programme as well as senior management. The BBC always welcomes all> feedback, as it helps us to make decisions about future programmes or> policies.>> Thank you again for contacting the BBC.>> Regards>> Jo Bower> BBC Information> _> www.bbc.co.uk/ - World Wide Wonderland>> --------------------->> this prog. appears to be another pro-vivisection propaganda. there are 4> organisations of doctors & scientists in the UK opposed to vivisection> on scientific grounds. 11 other countries have similar organisations.> an official poll revealed 82% of doctors worried about misleading> results of vivisection. did you consult with any of them, or invite them> to appear in this prog? the ads for this prog once again concentrate of> a minority of extremists and use emotive shots of a child suffering,> suggesting treatment/cure will be developed from animal experiements.> the pharmaceutical industry controls medical research and curing> diseases would be commercial suicide to an industry that depends upon> illness to survive. their priority is to keep producing profitable> drugs, which official sources admit do not work in majority of people & > a re 4th major cause of death!!! will the prog address this & the> thousands suffering and dying froim animal developed treatments? I guess> not. once !> again we will be subjected to propagands promoting animal experiments.