Primate Products: Ask Novartis not to do business with them

Amber Lange
Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research
East Hanover, New Jersey
Phone: (862) 778-0335
Fax: (973) 781-2286
Email:  amber.lange@novartis.com

Dear Ms. Lange,

I have just learned that you have been in contact with Primate Products on behalf of Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research, and I am writing to request you reject this project. You should be aware that, despite any solicitous remarks made to facilitate societal endorsement of vivisection, it is fundamentally cruel and unethical, and the existence of non-lethal alternatives makes vivisection not only inhumane but also archaic.  You should also be aware that Primate Products is once again receiving negative publicity and it would seem irresponsible to connect Novartis with such shocking allegations.

Please allow me this opportunity to elaborate. Those of us who share the ethical belief that non-human animals have inherent rights, including lives free from human-manufactured exploitation and suffering, choose to expose the industry that disregards this most basic moral tenet. Any attempt at validation using conciliatory rhetoric meant to solicit support is false, lies perpetrated by an industry accustomed to spin and dependent upon the, at times, intentional misinterpretation by consumers to foster approval. To disregard this unambiguous cruelty as necessary is nothing but an employ of disingenuous industry lingo, an example of the distortion advocated as care and concern. However, we who recognize the deceptive nature of such promotion understand the reality: those who actually care for animals do not imprison them and expose them to disease and experimentation; those who actually concern themselves with animals would never subject them to pain, suffering, and agony and the denial of companionship and comfort.

From a pragmatic standpoint, if we could adequately determine the effects of drugs using animals in general then human trials would be unnecessary, a costly redundancy of testing protocols. Therefore, if animals cannot be used to predict a human outcome in general, then how can they be used to predict safety? It’s a ridiculous premise, one on which vivisectors place the lives of human animals and the death of non-human animals with a publicity machine using deceptive statements and misleading assertions fabricated by unscrupulous “scientists” to garner social approval. Indeed, to establish legitimacy, they constantly promote the idea that those opposed to animal testing are supportive of human suffering. What an insidious remark, effective in its subtlety to gain public endorsement while at the same time fostering a hatred towards anti-vivisectionists, labeling us as misanthropists. I can assure you, I am neither ethically challenged nor stupid: these false assertions are nothing but pathetic attempts to rationalize a morally deficient industry where they capitalize on the fear of people and exploitation of animals.

Animal experimentation is unnecessary, unjustified, and unprincipled, its only function to financially benefit those who exploit animals. Animals have rights to live free from pain and suffering regardless of objections to acknowledge such; I therefore hope this message finds you willing to examine and subsequently change your potential complicity in their abuse and death.

Thank you for your attention and consideration.

NAME|ADDRESS|COUNTRY